I like how Jorgen responded to, not ignored, this exact question in the first paragraph of the exact post of his you yourself quoted here, and you just ... pretended that he didn't?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Remove Sleep and Freeze Clause, and ban Reflect
- Thread starter Dre89
- Start date
- Status
I like how Jorgen responded to, not ignored, this exact question in the first paragraph of the exact post of his you yourself quoted here, and you just ... pretended that he didn't?
For sleep clause, back in the old days, we didnt used to have sleep clause programmed into sims. But what would happen is if you accidentally slept a second pokemon you would just switch back and forward until it woke up. If you were using your last pokemon you would just sleep powder over and over again until it woke up.. It was tedious but the end result was as close enough to what we have at the moment that complaining about this seems pretty irrelevant. Yes, there are corner cases where this changes the game, but at some point the mechanics are so trivial why worry.
Freeze clause doesnt fit into this category and tbh I dont think we need it at all, I played without it for years, it wasnt that big a deal. But I know that this is a fight I am never gonna win so I just shelved that battle.
And just my opinion, cause I dont have time to go deeper: reflect isnt that great.
Freeze clause doesnt fit into this category and tbh I dont think we need it at all, I played without it for years, it wasnt that big a deal. But I know that this is a fight I am never gonna win so I just shelved that battle.
And just my opinion, cause I dont have time to go deeper: reflect isnt that great.
So if the logic is that it’s ok to implement a freeze clause because it was implemented in stadium, can we fix focus energy and lower the crit rates to match stadium? Lowering the crit rate will make the game more competitive and it was done in stadium, so why haven’t we done this yet?
I think the fact that a lot of people wanted to revert the paraslam correction shows that a lot of RBYers just don’t like change that much. To them not changing what they were used to is more important than playing the game correctly.
You now have people who want to alter the mechanics to prevent multiple freezes and allow normals to be paraslammed for the sake of competitive-ness. But at the same time, they’re against any other proposed mechanical change for the sake of competitive-ness. The only difference between these mods and proposed ones is that people always played with those and not the others.
Last edited:
You kinda answered your own question. (And really it's not a sure thing that being frozen is better, you give your opponent a free switch in to set something up but by the same token gain a sacrifice for later.) Multiple freezes, without Freeze Clause, occur extremely rarely. Clausing it is basically just us saying we don't want someone to have to suffer one-in-thousands odds to virtually autolose to some bullshit, especially not in a big tournament match where we ideally want to maximize skill. By that same token, I really don't think we need Freeze Clause anyway but it's not important enough for me to really care. Crits are common, in RBY upwards of 20% for some mons based on the game's mechanics. They're common enough that players need to account for the possibility at all times. They're so common, faster mons literally have over a 50% chance to turn 4HKOs into 3HKOs against relevant targets. Removing them fundamentally alters how the game is played.
I didn't otherwise particularly care to even engage this topic though, so mostly what Jorgen said. I'm pretty sure the official championship event held back in literally 1999-2000 had a Sleep Clause and some implementation exists in most future games, including Stadium, so the intention is certainly there even if there is no possible in-game enforcement of the rule on OG carts. (I'd love
also lol reflect
Is there any evidence to suggest lowering CH rates increases competitiveness? From my experience with other gens(which is limited at the high level), it just makes crits much more significant and harder to recover from. A typical RBY game has many crits, so it's much more likely to even out.
Anyway, the core of the discussion is whether cart mechanics are THE factor that should determine simulator mechanics. It may seem obvious that they should be, but factors like convention, history and players opinions should be considered relevant, particularly for such an old game. I've been playing devils advocate a bit in this discussion, but hipmonlee summarised my views nicely. Sleep is a mess in RBY, so the best solution is just to ban it. Players don't want to do that, so the alternative is a simple sleep clause, or a more convaluted sleep clause that technically could would on carts but is essentially identical to what we have. In 99% of games they're identical, so people aren't that fussed.
Freeze is also a mess, so options are ban freeze moves (players don't like), freeze clause or just live with it as is. Again, in 99% of games they're identical (and in the 1% of games a player gets totally screwed).
Anyway, whatever rule set you pick, there are arbitrary distinctions. Again, there's no legit way for me to get Mew or Surf Raichu using carts, but everyone's agreed on the convention.
To summarise this thread, RBY simulator is very good in practice, but not technically correct. Dre thinks it should be changed, everyone else is either not that bothered or thinks it's close enough.
Last edited:
If it’s not cart mechanics then it’s not a sim, it’s a mod.
And you can have mew and surf raichu on cart. Mew is obtainable by glitch after the second badge and you can just evolve a surf pikachu. You need stadium to get surf, but you can still have a surf raichu on cart. That’s not the same thing as having mechanics that can’t be replicated on cart at all.
I know you don't think it's the same, because you think in black and white on this issue. The point is that if you have a tournament, there needs to be common ground on rules. People have accepted sleep clause even though it's technically not possible, because people don't see this as black and white as you do. Your only argument seems to be that of course we should use cart mechanics, and people who disagree must have that opinion because they're used to playing an incorrect game, but if that were really true noone would have ever introduced a sleep clause knowing that it goes against cart mechanics.
If I can use glitches to catch pokemon should I be allowed to use pokemon over level 100?
And why on Earth would it be acceptable for me to use a totally different game on a different console to give Pikachu surf? And yet tradebacks are forbidden!? The only reason is convention. It's impossible to get Surf Pikachu using RBY.
Frankly, I don’t have an issue with trade backs, but that’s a different debate.
The problem with the mechanical clauses is that the only reason why people are ok with them is because it’s what they’re used to. People are suggesting to revert the paraslam correction, but had it never been wrong from the start it would be crazy to suggest allowing normals to be paraslammed.
Imagine if we never knew that crit rates were based on speed, and thought it was standardised like later gens. If we only discovered it recently, I guarantee lots of people who are for freeze clause would not want to correct it for competitive purposes.
Last edited:
I understand your argument, you don't have to keep reiterating it.
My point is that convention and "what people are used to" should not be totally dismissed. It may irk you that we've ended up with something with a few very niche scenarios that aren't possible in game, but most people clearly aren't that bothered. (If push really comes to shove then I fundamentally agree with you, although I feel fine with the current system.)
Of course people are reluctant to change, it's totally natural. Looking at the paraslam debate, it was a significant deviation from the cart, and it got changed. People adapted.
The difference here is that the sim actually accurately recreates the game in almost all citlrcumstances. It also doesn't help that the sleep clause mechanic proposed is not very elegant.
My point is that convention and "what people are used to" should not be totally dismissed. It may irk you that we've ended up with something with a few very niche scenarios that aren't possible in game, but most people clearly aren't that bothered. (If push really comes to shove then I fundamentally agree with you, although I feel fine with the current system.)
Of course people are reluctant to change, it's totally natural. Looking at the paraslam debate, it was a significant deviation from the cart, and it got changed. People adapted.
The difference here is that the sim actually accurately recreates the game in almost all citlrcumstances. It also doesn't help that the sleep clause mechanic proposed is not very elegant.
At this point I’ll just have to accept that the RBY player base doesn’t like change. Nothing will get changed here, even the Pokémon write-ups have been outdated for years and no ones done anything about it. It’s a shame that the biggest competitive RBY community is the least progressive.
I suppose though it makes sense that people who play a twenty year old game don’t like change lol.
I suppose though it makes sense that people who play a twenty year old game don’t like change lol.
Last edited:
Here's how a game without Freeze and Forced Sleep Clauses would look like:
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen1customgame-902986326
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen1customgame-902986326
I'd like to respond here with a stance that I have defended for ages on several places that I think is a very legitimate one. The playerbase for old gens is significantly smaller than the current gen's. That is a fact that I think we can all agree on. Significantly changing an old metagame does have a cost too because as long as it's not a unanimously or at least mostly agreed change (and I think this thread proves that there are very diverse opinions among just a couple of contributors already) there will be a certain part of the playerbase driven away. The more radical the change the bigger the impact will be. If you talk about removing certain clauses you will create a very vocal camp against that change. It's not about a "we don't like change"-premise, it's about enjoyment, competitive virtue and elements of skill being subjectively worsened. I am saying subjectively on purpose because I read a post about 3 freezes in a single game being fun. I personally wouldn't consider that a very competitively even game and I don't see the big benefit of it.
I get the notion that the automatic enforcement of clauses changes simulators away from the original games. But I would like to point out that the idea of "staying true to the games" is a slippery slope. As a simulator PS might have a certain entitlement to simulating the game's mechanics correctly but it adds so much more depth to the act of playing with things like a battle log next to the game, a chat window, a damage calculator available to you, replays, the easy access of outside communication while playing in an official tournament, etc, etc. Sleep and freeze clause have been implemented ages ago because they offer benefit in terms of making this a competitive game. I agree that it's basically just hypocritical. We essentially play modded pokemon not only because of clauses but also because of everything that comes with using a website or app with completely different setup as the games. Not everything is black and white. Not every hypocritical state has to be a problem necessarily. We are playing this derivation of a game in that we tried to make a balancing act between staying close to the originals in areas where it makes sense, create a competitive game that can be played in tournaments, have an easy to access program and interface and try to create a level playingfield where the better player most of the time wins. Is there really a need to fix that, because I am sure the majority of the playerbase doesn't think this is broken.
I get it that this isn't a particularly progressive stance but I'd like to see the benefits of major changes like that (more engaging gameplay, more easy access for newer players, better competitive balancing, etc...) before considering them as an option. Changing things just for the sake of changing them is not a smart move when you think with the playerbase in mind.
I'd also like to add that progressive doesn't necessarily imply good. Sometimes things are better left untouched for a multitude of reasons.
Attention: This post piggybacks on the concept of the thread to make a point about freeze clause in GSC. If you don't care about GSC, feel free to ignore.
Freeze clause is a fucking abomination. It activates all the time, but is always random, and outside of the instigating player's ability to play for, in the majority of cases, (basically the defending player always has more powerful options at his disposal to mitigate its impact, both in game and teambuilding).
Getting two mons frozen is tough tits, but it is also what pokemon is essentially about, odds management. I think there has to be a bit of introspection as to why we've had to resort to this for such a non issue. This doesn't even "reduce skill" as much as something like boom offense, or fishing for para, which pretty much dictate the flow of the majority of GSC matches. There's just something us mons players really seem to hate about the idea of buying lottery tickets as part of an overall strategy. But are we being irrational in doing so? I think so.
Freeze clause is a fucking abomination. It activates all the time, but is always random, and outside of the instigating player's ability to play for, in the majority of cases, (basically the defending player always has more powerful options at his disposal to mitigate its impact, both in game and teambuilding).
Getting two mons frozen is tough tits, but it is also what pokemon is essentially about, odds management. I think there has to be a bit of introspection as to why we've had to resort to this for such a non issue. This doesn't even "reduce skill" as much as something like boom offense, or fishing for para, which pretty much dictate the flow of the majority of GSC matches. There's just something us mons players really seem to hate about the idea of buying lottery tickets as part of an overall strategy. But are we being irrational in doing so? I think so.
The thing is cart accuracy is NOT a slippery slope at all. There's a very clear boundary between what is acceptable and what is not- can a given feature or mechanic be replicated irl? Things like battle logs and the sim tracking the status of all the opposing pokemon and whatnot are all reasonably possible if you were playing on cart, in those examples just having pen and paper at hand solves that issue. Sleep and freeze clause are not replicable without modifying cart mechanics, but pretty much every simulator feature that might otherwise be mentioned could be replicated if playing irl, it'd just be MUCH less convenient. So yeah, it's easy to distinguish between what's literally impossible and what's merely inconvenient to replicate if you were playing irl.
As far as the impact on gameplay, I think it's pretty negligible, given that freeze clause is barely relevant and holds more weight as a stain on the idea of actually simulating cart play, and sleep clause would be modified to be cart-consistent rather than being scrapped, so there practically wouldn't be a difference there. Seems to me that people are just having knee-jerk reactions to the idea of making something more hax-based, without considering whether or not it would actually make a significant difference (it really wouldn't). Also it's abundantly clear that some people just don't value cart accuracy. Seems silly to me, since you're essentially playing a fake game then and it defeats the purpose of a simulator as well as establishing a true slippery slope (why not remove 255s lol), but there's not much you can do
Also while I'm at it, what are the actual arguments against modifying sleep clause to be cart-accurate? I feel like most people have been reacting to freeze clause, but I honestly don't see any reason not to change sleep clause since a cart-accurate version would have basically the same effect on the game as the current version.
Freeze clause could also be read as the following rule " Every game where a player freezes 2 opposing Pokemon at the same time is considered null and another game should start from 0 ". Then only games following Freeze Clause would exist in tournament records, and freeze clause would then exist in an IRL tournament setting. Don't thanks me
Theoretically that sounds like a great idea. There is potential for abuse (if you're losing you have a new strategy to reset the game), which is concerning, but I think the probability of you getting a freeze and still losing obviously enough to try a 2nd freeze intentionally is pretty low. Even if you try, succeeding is not gaurenteed.
One thing I would like to point out with that suggestion is that it can interfere with things in terms of information management. If I succeed in picking off my opp's Don and subsequently reveal my Zap only for the game to reset, I'll be at a major disadvantage in the new game as my opponent knows to preserve their Don.
I don't really like the idea and think abolishing freeze clause is the way to go, but I guess that suggestion is a usable compromise if necessary
I don't really like the idea and think abolishing freeze clause is the way to go, but I guess that suggestion is a usable compromise if necessary
I didn't say you need to use the same teams. It's a new game, as if the previous one never existed.
Okay so that's like a really clever edge-case technicality sort of thing. The first thing I'll say is that it doesn't solve one of the key problems that pro-mechanics people have with breaking mechanics, which is that it still opens the door for basically anything to be officially implemented (and treated as a faithful simulation of the game). We can use the same exact argument to justify making 1/255s and crits never happen, even though all three changes are actually impossible to implement in real life (like you can't actually mindwipe someone of an entire match or whatever).
The second thing I'll say is that it's still not correct mechanics. I just mentioned before that you can't mindwipe people so they forget the opponent's team and playstyle, or even expect anyone to restart matches every single time freeze clause comes up in the first place (just as you would never expect people to restart matches every single time someone misses too often or something)... but on like the barest of technicalities, okay, you technically can imagine that happening. But that's still strictly different from freeze clause as implemented! For example, if I'm losing a match and then one of my pokemon gets frozen, 'fuck around and try to get my opponent to freeze a second pokemon so we can restart the match as if this one never happened' is now a real strategy left on the table for me. I can succeed, in which case the match I was losing is deleted, or I can fail, in which case the final result of the match stands (which would then be the kind of game we'd supposedly be simulating). My opponent might even be scared to activate freeze clause and lay off the ice moves so they can keep their win, which could let me have a better chance of winning the match! So those are all effects that that 'real life freeze clause' would have on real life matches, even the ones where it never actually activates. None of that is how freeze clause works on Showdown at all though.
The second thing I'll say is that it's still not correct mechanics. I just mentioned before that you can't mindwipe people so they forget the opponent's team and playstyle, or even expect anyone to restart matches every single time freeze clause comes up in the first place (just as you would never expect people to restart matches every single time someone misses too often or something)... but on like the barest of technicalities, okay, you technically can imagine that happening. But that's still strictly different from freeze clause as implemented! For example, if I'm losing a match and then one of my pokemon gets frozen, 'fuck around and try to get my opponent to freeze a second pokemon so we can restart the match as if this one never happened' is now a real strategy left on the table for me. I can succeed, in which case the match I was losing is deleted, or I can fail, in which case the final result of the match stands (which would then be the kind of game we'd supposedly be simulating). My opponent might even be scared to activate freeze clause and lay off the ice moves so they can keep their win, which could let me have a better chance of winning the match! So those are all effects that that 'real life freeze clause' would have on real life matches, even the ones where it never actually activates. None of that is how freeze clause works on Showdown at all though.
In my opinion, restarting a match due to a second or third Freeze is a coward excuse to avoid losing. When I play with my friends using real Pokémon games we don't use lame excuses like that to restart matches, we continue playing regardless of the number of freezes. The real Gen 1 games allow multiple freezes, so you have two options: to accept the nature of the game and deal with it or to not play at all. By the way, has anyone came up with the idea that even if Freeze Clause is never disallowed, we can still have side games or tournaments without Freeze Clause on the Ruins of Alph? There you have it, problem solved.
It's true we don't like changes especially when they suck and makes the game even worse than it already is for no good reason, all of this is so pointless. Maybe if we discuss on real problems and ways to improve the tier instead of butthurting over clauses that did nothing wrong we could go somewhere, many blessings Beds that had the patient to argue in this ridicolous thread, you are the best
Thank you for your expert insight, you've been a great help
===========================
Do people not realise that this thread was originally about more than just freeze clause? While people have been kneejerking over that, I don't recall seeing any argument against the idea of modifying sleep clause to be something that's cart accurate- I disagreed on the implementation, but not on the principle of it. I don't know why there would be any issues with the idea, given that it will make almost no difference in practice and at least it'll be some sort of step towards not being full of shit when claiming to care about cart mechanics
While I wouldn't generally mind a different version of Sleep Clause to keep the cartridge accuracy and if really needed also rematches in case a player has two mons frozen, I think the simulator mechanics should be as similar as possible across the gens in regards to artificial modifications.
Why should we change how the clauses work in RBY but not in other gens? If we would do that, it would be more confusing for new players. I don't think we can expect a well running system in multiple gens to be changed all of the sudden. If you want to aim for that, you would need much support from people in old gen councils and the playerbase and so far it isn't looking as if it is going to happen.
Why should we change how the clauses work in RBY but not in other gens? If we would do that, it would be more confusing for new players. I don't think we can expect a well running system in multiple gens to be changed all of the sudden. If you want to aim for that, you would need much support from people in old gen councils and the playerbase and so far it isn't looking as if it is going to happen.
- Status