Remove Sleep and Freeze Clause, and ban Reflect

[Dre89]

I originally posted a threat saying to ban reflect, but right after I did that I saw thread on Pokemon Perfect talking about removing mechanical sleep clause in order to be closer to cartridge mechanics which got me thinking about how to fix RBY's current issues.

RBY currently has two massive issues: the reflect meta has turned the game into an stallfest determined by RNG, and the fact we don't use true cartridge mechanics. I'm proposing three changes: removing mechanical sleep clause, remove freeze clause, and ban reflect.

The idea behind removing the MSC is that we use true cartridge mechanics. Sleeping a second pokemon would be an automatic DQ. Seeing as all sleep inducing moves in RBY are primarily sleep moves and aren't used for any other purpose, DQs are easy to avoid. A prompt coming up after you click the move would also prevent misclick DQs. The move shouldn't be restricted altogether, as there may be hypothetical stall scenarios where a player is willing to risk using sleep on a statused pokemon to conserve PP for attacking moves.

Banning reflect would make the meta better in a lot of ways. Reflect chansey is the biggest issue. The problem is that it has no definite counters, it's reliant on RNG to win or lose. Boltbeam chansey was fine because it had definite counters. Deciding whether to paralyse chansey or not was a huge decision. If you paralysed it, your own chansey was useless against it, but it meant physical pokemon like lax and rhydon could threaten. If you didn't paralyse it, your own chansey was a threat to it, but rhydon would lose to it, and nowadays lax would struggle with it too due to no paraslam. Reflect has just taken so much depth out of the game. At a high level of play, matches just become stallwars that are determined by RNG. If chansey comes in on a special pokemon, reflect is always the best move to use first. That's the problem, there's no penalty for choosing the wrong move anymore. Reflect lax is less problematic due to being vulnerable to special attackers during rest, but I still think it should be a blanket ban because it's just an anti-competitive move. To me it's in the same vein as doule-team, and OHKO moves. There's no penalty for using it and forces the game into an RNG stallfest that is not skill-reliant.

The most controversial suggestion I have is to remove freeze clause altogether to play true cartridge mechanics. However, I think this is perfectly fine in a meta where reflect is banned. I think the situations where multiple freezes will occur will be low because the lack of reflect makes paralysis more valuable. Without reflect, every ice spammer is threatened by something whilst paralysed. Lapras becomes even better, because it's freeze immune and with reflect banned has a good shot at 1v1ing chansey. I think the paraslam changes also makes paralysing pokemon more valuable, because lategame chansey can an issue if unparad now that la and tauros can't paraslam it.

With these changes, a lot of pokemon become more viable. I've already mentioned lapras, but golem becomes viable again due to threatening paralysed plus packing explosion. Cloyster gets even better, as the freeze immunity becomes more valuable. With slow pokemon like lapras and rocks becoming more valuable, wrap teams get better because they can exploit slow filler mons.

The beauty of these changes is that not only does the meta become more healthy and diverse, but no one loses that. Lots of pokemon and strategies become more viable, but the two pokemon that get hurt by the reflect ban will still be picked in over 90% of teams.

I'm curious to see what other people think about these proposals. If you look past tradition, I think these changes will fix a lot of issues with the game at the moment.

 

[Omanyte]

It's seems counterintuitive to get rid of the freeze clause, because it will make the game more random and luck prone (the exact reason you want to ban reflect). 2 freezes in a game means game over, it's a broken mechanic.

Sleep clause I honestly couldn't care less about, as your proposal is (99% of the time) functionally the same.

 

[Ortheore]

It's seems counterintuitive to get rid of the freeze clause, because it will make the game more random and luck prone (the exact reason you want to ban reflect). 2 freezes in a game means game over, it's a broken mechanic.

Sleep clause I honestly couldn't care less about, as your proposal is (99% of the time) functionally the same.

The rationale behind the two positions is completely different though, and one is of far greater importance than the other (cart accuracy in this case). As it stands now, we simply aren't playing a true recreation of the actual games, but instead an unofficial mod.

I've got plenty to say on the topic, but I'll type it up later and c/p it from pokemon perfect to here

 

[Ortheore]

Freeze Clause- Agree, this needs to go, and we don't need to wait on any hypothetical ban on Reflect for this. It is impossible to replicate on cart and moreover is totally unnecessary. It is currently extremely rare for freeze clause to be triggered... like I honestly think 255s are several times more common, potentially even an order of magnitude more common, however this is only from my anecdotal experience playing. Consequently, I believe that accidental double freezes are not relevant enough to justify breaking cart mechanics. As for teams that play for the freeze, they're still extremely unlikely to get a second freeze. Hell, they're unreliable enough just going for one freeze. Furthermore, playing for the freeze is a strategy that has considerable drawbacks, primarily that you're forced to play extremely passively by not spreading paralysis, so I really think attempts to abuse the lack of freeze clause are also not something to be concerned by.

Sleep Clause- Agree that it needs to be modified to reflect cart. Disagree with the implementation, as in-match DQs are totally inconsistent with the competitive pokemon community's approach to things and just in general it's a bullshit way to win/lose, as it's based on a technicality rather than actually outplaying the opponent. This is especially compounded if you make a simple mistake. It's also something that I suspect would trip up a lot of newbies or turn them away, even with a prompt, while in theory it might be possible to troll by baiting sleep clause violations with crap like Serene Grace Blissey (emphasis that this is theoretical though).

Seeing as all sleep inducing moves in RBY are primarily sleep moves and aren't used for any other purpose, DQs are easy to avoid. A prompt coming up after you click the move would also prevent misclick DQs. The move shouldn't be restricted altogether, as there may be hypothetical stall scenarios where a player is willing to risk using sleep on a statused pokemon to conserve PP for attacking moves.

The underlined sentence I'm not really a fan of because sleep clause modifications would and should affect all generations. That said, I don't see a huge issue with it, because dedicated sleep moves should be the only things covered by sleep clause- niche stuff like Relic Song shouldn't count. And as I mentioned in the other thread, hypothetical stall scenarios are very niche situations and honestly the risk-reward in such situations is so heavily skewed against the sleep user- you're risking the entire match for a single PP. And ofc, this is hypothetical, which is itself a pretty good indication that this should not really be taken into account. Honestly, I'd rather implement arbitrary restrictions than implement DQs.

Anyway, if it wasn't obvious, I'm firmly in favour of greying out sleep moves when sleep clause is active. With all that said though, I greatly prefer a prompt/DQ system over any violation of cart mechanics

Reflect Ban- Adamantly disagree. The key point I'd like to make is that there is nothing broken or uncompetitive whatsoever about Reflect. Reflect does not inherently create RNG issues or undermine competitiveness or whatever. Its mechanics are devoid of any RNG elements, so comparing it to evasion/OHKO is flawed reasoning at best. It's also not broken at all- if something uses Reflect, they've not only spent a turn not threatening you, but you can easily respond with a special attacker, go for status, boost your own pokemon or even potentially go for recovery. There are plenty of options available.

Obviously, this doesn't work out in the context of RBY 1U. The reason for this is not that Reflect is broken, but that its most prominent abusers are- Snorlax and Chansey. Lax is able to spam Reflect without worrying about the passivity that would otherwise entail, as it can run Rest+Reflect and have all the tools it needs to wear down everything except other Reflect Normals and Rest Cloy. Chansey is a pain in the ass in its own right, as although it does have a counter in the form of RestLax, it's otherwise difficult to break but on top of that it bails out ReflectLax against all of the special attackers that would otherwise punish Lax's Reflect. Note that it does so without needing to run Reflect itself. I'll also dispute that the match becomes RNG-based, though not that it becomes stally. Forcing Lax to Rest early and maintaining pressure against Chansey are the driving forces behind winning RBY games, and that isn't necessarily RNG-based

Now I should also add that I'm generally opposed to move bans in general, as they're extremely far-reaching and it's much better to ban individual abusers since there's far less collateral, and it's usually only a specific pokemon or two that make it seem broken (I also prefer bans to be in one category as much as possible tbh, but that's not a terribly important point). However I have supported bans on moves before- Baton Pass. However in that case it was somewhat difficult to pin down a single abuser, and also Baton Pass had so frequently caused issues throughout the generations that it was clear that the move was the problem. That is not the case here. The overwhelming majority of pokemon that learn Reflect in RBY (a lot) are not broken with that move. It is only two specific users of the move that are causing issues. The solution is not to ban the move, but to ban the abusers.

That said, I don't think any change needs to be made tbh, I just think that if you were to change things, a ban on Reflect is a bad idea that doesn't address the real issue at hand

 

[Dre89]

If you remove freeze clause, reflect needs to be banned for the meta to be healthy. Otherwise ice beam reflect Chansey can just sit there slamming ice beams all day playing for multiple freezes unless they have an ice type. That isn’t healthy for the meta. At least with reflect banned it gets immediately forced out by physical Pokémon.

 

[North]

In regards to sleep clause, are there not scenarios where you would want to click a sleep move while the opponent is asleep to try and sleep it again after it wakes. If the opponent were to switch on that turn it would turn into an auto dq. Of course this is very niche, but I fail to see why removing sleep clause purely to be more like cartridge would be beneficial

 

[Dre89]

In regards to sleep clause, are there not scenarios where you would want to click a sleep move while the opponent is asleep to try and sleep it again after it wakes. If the opponent were to switch on that turn it would turn into an auto dq. Of course this is very niche, but I fail to see why removing sleep clause purely to be more like cartridge would be beneficial

It should have never been there in the first place because the point of the simulator is to emulate the cartridge as close as possible.

This could have happened for any mechanic. If for some reason on simulators ice beam could never proc freeze and it had always been that way, people like you would argue not to change it because it makes the meta worse. But if someone now asked to remove freeze chance entirely it’d be rejected because it wouldn’t reflect cartridge mechanics.

Basically people just want to keep incorrect mechanics to make the game better only when they were implemented like that from the start, but are not willing to alter mechanics in any other context, which is silly. The whole point is to replicate the cartridge experience, even if is imbalanced.

If people want the fantasy of battling with gen1 Pokémon in a balanced environment there are separate mods for. Those people shouldn’t be trying to ruin the authentic experience for other people who want to play the real game.

 

[Beelzemon 2003]

Dre89 I agree with you regarding Freeze Clause and Sleep Clause. I've played some matches in the actual games with my friends where Freeze Clause doesn't exist and its super fun (one time I got 3 Freezes :P). Also, when I play with cartridges, my friends and I dq someone when he puts a second pokémon to Sleep, so making the Showdown simulator more like the real games is an excellent idea to me.

Hell! Whether your idea gets ignored or not, challenge me to a Gen 1 match without Freeze and Sleep Clause whenever you want, I'm up for the fun.

PD: If you love Freezes, you can also challenge me to a Japanese Gen 1 match on Pokémon Perfect (Ice and Electric pokémon are broken in that format!).

 

[Dre89]

Dre89 I agree with you regarding Freeze Clause and Sleep Clause. I've played some matches in the actual games with my friends where Freeze Clause doesn't exist and its super fun (one time I got 3 Freezes :P). Also, when I play with cartridges, my friends and I dq someone when he puts a second pokémon to Sleep, so making the Showdown simulator more like the real games is an excellent idea to me.

Hell! Whether your idea gets ignored or not, challenge me to a Gen 1 match without Freeze and Sleep Clause whenever you want, I'm up for the fun.

PD: If you love Freezes, you can also challenge me to a Japanese Gen 1 match on Pokémon Perfect (Ice and Electric pokémon are broken in that format!).

What’s the difference between ‘Japanese gen1’ and what we’re talking about now?

 

[phosphor]

What’s the difference between ‘Japanese gen1’ and what we’re talking about now?

Blizzard has 30% chance to Freeze.

 

[Omanyte]

It should have never been there in the first place because the point of the simulator is to emulate the cartridge as close as possible.

This could have happened for any mechanic. If for some reason on simulators ice beam could never proc freeze and it had always been that way, people like you would argue not to change it because it makes the meta worse. But if someone now asked to remove freeze chance entirely it’d be rejected because it wouldn’t reflect cartridge mechanics.

Basically people just want to keep incorrect mechanics to make the game better only when they were implemented like that from the start, but are not willing to alter mechanics in any other context, which is silly. The whole point is to replicate the cartridge experience, even if is imbalanced.

If people want the fantasy of battling with gen1 Pokémon in a balanced environment there are separate mods for. Those people shouldn’t be trying to ruin the authentic experience for other people who want to play the real game.

That is perhaps an argument for wrap, or even freeze clause, but it doesn't really apply to sleep clause. It is totally obvious why sleep clause exists: sleep is a totally broken mechanic. Your own solution is to fudge the cartidge rules to make, what is in effect, a sleep clause, whilst technically still being possible on a cart.

Why not just ban sleeping moves altogether? I know that's quite a metagame shift, but It keeps cart mechanics without adding strange additional rules like auto DQs or moves that can't be reused.

 

[Dre89]

That is perhaps an argument for wrap, or even freeze clause, but it doesn't really apply to sleep clause. It is totally obvious why sleep clause exists: sleep is a totally broken mechanic. Your own solution is to fudge the cartidge rules to make, what is in effect, a sleep clause, whilst technically still being possible on a cart.

Why not just ban sleeping moves altogether? I know that's quite a metagame shift, but It keeps cart mechanics without adding strange additional rules like auto DQs or moves that can't be reused.

???

I’m only suggesting we remove the mechanical change that stops a second sleep move from landing, because that mechanic didn’t exist in the game. I still want a sleep clause applied in the sense that you can only sleep one pokemon, but instead of having the mechanical clause we currently have, you simply get DQ’d if you sleep a second Pokémon. There should be a prompt when you select the move to avoid people getting DQ’d due to misclicks.

 

[Omanyte]

I know that.
The comparison with freeze not applying falls flat, because if that happened it would be because the simulation is inadequate (similar to BS and paralysis rules for normal types). Sleep clause is an intentional deviation from the cart mechanics.
Your solution is basically a sleep clause that can be played on the cart. Why hasn't this been implemented years ago? (Genuine question, don't mean to be dismissive.) I certainly don't object to the premise, but I suspect the reason is that people don't reallly care much about cart mechanics if it's the same in 99% of cases.

 

[The Quasar]

Sometimes a photo or an image is better than many words. This was I thought about remove Sleep and Freeze (brrrr) Clause.

 

[Deleted User 229847]

How to make the most uncompetitive metagame even more uncompetitive. Yes, that's the way to go, totally.
While we are at it, can we also remove all bans? I don't remember having these sorts of things on my cartridge, you are altering the pure soul of the game, please don't. Remove all clauses too, like the timeout one. That wasn't in the real game. Nope.
I only want pure distilled original experience injected straight into my bloodstream through an IV drip. Actually, I'm only waiting for VR to be integrated with old pokemon games so I can stuff my body into a closet and completely immerge myself into the truest and purest experience humans will ever witness for the next 20-30 years of my life.

That's why I'm playing on an off-the-record simulator that operates in a grey area, after all.

 

[Ortheore]

Sometimes a photo or an image is better than many words. This was I thought about remove Sleep and Freeze (brrrr) Clause.

View attachment 173417​

If you'd read the OP you would realise we're only talking about modifying sleep clause, no-one's proposing its abolition. And have you considered how rare it is for freeze clause to be triggered, and that attempting to abuse freezes is an extremely unreliable strategy with gaping flaws?

Mr Ponty might I suggest you think before you start typing?

 

[Omanyte]

How to make the most uncompetitive metagame even more uncompetitive. Yes, that's the way to go, totally.
While we are at it, can we also remove all bans? I don't remember having these sorts of things on my cartridge, you are altering the pure soul of the game, please don't. Remove all clauses too, like the timeout one. That wasn't in the real game. Nope.
I only want pure distilled original experience injected straight into my bloodstream through an IV drip. Actually, I'm only waiting for VR to be integrated with old pokemon games so I can stuff my body into a closet and completely immerge myself into the truest and purest experience humans will ever witness for the next 20-30 years of my life.

That's why I'm playing on an off-the-record simulator that operates in a grey area, after all.

The point is that the current mechanics are IMPOSSIBLE on the cart. Bans, timers, tiers etc. can all be replicated in a cart battle, but freeze and sleep clause can't.

There is a blurred line though. If I started playing RBY tomorrow on a cart, how would I legitimately get surf pikachu? For that I need a totally different game on a different console... and yet tradebacks are not allowed? Why? It's arbitrary distinctions. How can I get a mew without a glitch? I can't realistically, because noone in their right mind would trade away a legitimate mew.
But I fear I'm getting off topic...

 

[Dre89]

How to make the most uncompetitive metagame even more uncompetitive. Yes, that's the way to go, totally.
While we are at it, can we also remove all bans? I don't remember having these sorts of things on my cartridge, you are altering the pure soul of the game, please don't. Remove all clauses too, like the timeout one. That wasn't in the real game. Nope.
I only want pure distilled original experience injected straight into my bloodstream through an IV drip. Actually, I'm only waiting for VR to be integrated with old pokemon games so I can stuff my body into a closet and completely immerge myself into the truest and purest experience humans will ever witness for the next 20-30 years of my life.

That's why I'm playing on an off-the-record simulator that operates in a grey area, after all.

But we're not making the game more uncompetitive than what it is naturally. It was intentionally altered to be more competitive in the past. I just want to be how it was pre-modification.

If you're saying altering the mechanics is ok to make the game more competitve, then why not remove crits and all other RNG based factors? There's literally no difference between that and a mechanical freeze clause except that the FC was implemented in the past.

 

[Jorgen]

The clauses have been litigated time and time again. The alternative proposal generally involves keeping a "soft clause" in the form of DQs for sleeping or freezing 2 pokes. But that's probably too harsh a penalty. In the end, people seem fine with playing a "modded" version of Pokemon. One can also appeal to the presence of these clauses in Stadium to argue that these mods do not erode the spirit of the game, and against their existence setting the precedent for other absurd clauses that one could conceive of (for example, a "crit clause”).

As for Reflect, I've not been playing for a while, but it was a powerful move even when I was heavily active. It ain’t new. It *does* slow things down and force stall wars, but there are ways to fight it. Slowbro comes to mind. Rest in general. Having multiple Recover users to switch among. Defense Curl Chansey to outright win a PP stall while still having a defense-boost move (is this still legal with a Reflect ban btw?). Psychic spam to force it to switch out of drops. All on top of not mindlessly spamming Twave to keep the freeze alive & playing for crits. Also, as long as Recover and Softboiled are moves, stalling will always be a fixture of RBY. Banning Reflect won’t turn that on its head, it’ll just perhaps reduce the number of middlegames that settle into stall equilibria.

 

[Dre89]

The clauses have been litigated time and time again. The alternative proposal generally involves keeping a "soft clause" in the form of DQs for sleeping or freezing 2 pokes. But that's probably too harsh a penalty. In the end, people seem fine with playing a "modded" version of Pokemon. One can also appeal to the presence of these clauses in Stadium to argue that these mods do not erode the spirit of the game, and against their existence setting the precedent for other absurd clauses that one could conceive of (for example, a "crit clause”).

As for Reflect, I've not been playing for a while, but it was a powerful move even when I was heavily active. It ain’t new. It *does* slow things down and force stall wars, but there are ways to fight it. Slowbro comes to mind. Rest in general. Having multiple Recover users to switch among. Defense Curl Chansey to outright win a PP stall while still having a defense-boost move (is this still legal with a Reflect ban btw?). Psychic spam to force it to switch out of drops. All on top of not mindlessly spamming Twave to keep the freeze alive & playing for crits. Also, as long as Recover and Softboiled are moves, stalling will always be a fixture of RBY. Banning Reflect won’t turn that on its head, it’ll just perhaps reduce the number of middlegames that settle into stall equilibria.

You shouldn't be DQ'd for freezing two pokes, because freeze is a secondary effect, unlike sleep which is always the primary effect of a move.



Every single person who responds ignores my question. If people are happy to play a modded game as you say to make the game better, then why don't we remove crits and RNG factors?

 

[Deleted User 229847]

Because you have to draw the line somewhere. That's where conventions come into existence. We do not remove fundamental mechanics (basically all RNG such as misses, crits, and %status). Yes, they are uncompetitive by definition, but they are too deep-rooted in the game to be removed without significantly altering the way the game is played. Freeze clause and sleep clause help everyone (losing VS dobule+ sleep/freeze is irritating and does not reward the better player, winning with double+ sleep/freeze is not worthy since it does not reward the better player) and barely impact the way the game is played.

No reason to even discuss such things as removing both clauses.

 

[Dre89]

Because you have to draw the line somewhere. That's where conventions come into existence. We do not remove fundamental mechanics (basically all RNG such as misses, crits, and %status). Yes, they are uncompetitive by definition, but they are too deep-rooted in the game to be removed without significantly altering the way the game is played. Freeze clause and sleep clause help everyone (losing VS dobule+ sleep/freeze is irritating and does not reward the better player, winning with double+ sleep/freeze is not worthy since it does not reward the better player) and barely impact the way the game is played.

No reason to even discuss such things as removing both clauses.

It’s completely arbitrary to say it’s ok to implement a freeze clause but anything beyond that changes the game too much. The only reason why you’re ok with a freeze clause and not any other type of modification which achieves the same thing is because you’re used to playing with one and not the other.

It also doesn’t explain why it’s ok to mitigate how many Pokémon can be frozen, but not how many crits a certain Pokémon or player can land. Freeze actually has a degree of counterplay in that you can’t freeze a statused or ice type Pokémon. There’s no way to prevent crits from happening and they can be more costly. A frozen Pokémon still has some utility but a KO’d Pokémon has none.

I’d much rather my eggy be frozen than be killed by a crit blizzard from Jynx, because the latter is worse for me but has a higher chance of happening. But we’ve arbitrarily decided that it’s ok to alter a mechanic that has a low chance of happening and has a degree of counterplay, but not the one which has a higher chance of happening, has less counterplay and in some cases can be more costly.

 

[Omanyte]

B

It’s completely arbitrary to say it’s ok to implement a freeze clause but anything beyond that changes the game too much. The only reason why you’re ok with a freeze clause and not any other type of modification which achieves the same thing is because you’re used to playing with one and not the other.

It also doesn’t explain why it’s ok to mitigate how many Pokémon can be frozen, but not how many crits a certain Pokémon or player can land. Freeze actually has a degree of counterplay in that you can’t freeze a statused or ice type Pokémon. There’s no way to prevent crits from happening and they can be more costly. A frozen Pokémon still has some utility but a KO’d Pokémon has none.

I’d much rather my eggy be frozen than be killed by a crit blizzard from Jynx, because the latter is worse for me but has a higher chance of happening. But we’ve arbitrarily decided that it’s ok to alter a mechanic that has a low chance of happening and has a degree of counterplay, but not the one which has a higher chance of happening, has less counterplay and in some cases can be more costly.

But you're also fine with altering the game with a sleep clause... just one that is technically possible in cart. That's also totally arbitrary.
Hypothetical question: what would your proposal be if there were a damaging sleep attack (80 base damage with 10% chance to sleep or w/e)? To be consistent with your freeze clause policy, sleep clause would also be removed, yes? In which case it's not really about being authentic to the cart. You've distinguised between sleep and freeze based on making the game better...
You can't complain that others have arbitrary boundaries when you have them too.

 

[Dre89]

B

But you're also fine with altering the game with a sleep clause... just one that is technically possible in cart. That's also totally arbitrary.
Hypothetical question: what would your proposal be if there were a damaging sleep attack (80 base damage with 10% chance to sleep or w/e)? To be consistent with your freeze clause policy, sleep clause would also be removed, yes? In which case it's not really about being authentic to the cart. You've distinguised between sleep and freeze based on making the game better...
You can't complain that others have arbitrary boundaries when you have them too.

But I’m not wanting to alter the game itself, I’m wanting to alter the rules we use so that we don’t have to alter the game. We already have bans on moves such as OHKO and evasion moves, so the sleep clause would be a long those lines.

As for your hypothetical with a secondary sleep move, it’s basically an ice beam with a weaker secondary effect, and I’m already saying we should allow multiple freezes to occur. So if that move were to exist, the discussion would be to either allow the move or ban it, but not mod the game to prevent it causing multiple sleeps. That’s consistent with what I’m proposing now.

The big difference here is is if you’re happy to mod the game to make it competitive, then it’s very arbitrary as to where to draw the line. What we play now is not real RBY it’s a mod.

I’m all for implementing rules like move bans to make the game more competitive without changing the mechanics. We already have several move bans and clauses in place. It may debatable what should be banned and what shouldn’t, but at least at the end of the day we can say we’re playing real RBY

 

[Beelzemon 2003]

Dre89 In Japanese Gen 1 Blizzard freezes 30 % of the time (27 % if you take accuracy into account), also, all energy draining moves are useless against Substitute. There may be more differences, but the big one is the Freeze rate of Blizzard. And yes, it's a fun format, we should give it a try chum.