Removing/Fixing outdated clauses

[Seven Deadly Sins]

In that case, why not just start giving moves to Pokemon that we feel deserve them. Gastrodon is the only Ground-type without access to SR, isn't that fucked up? Let's fix that. Flareon should have Flare Blitz, it's a damn shame. Good thing we're not playing "Pokemon" any more!

Once you set the precedent that you're not playing by cartridge rules, all sorts of options open up. For competitive purposes, it's play "Pokemon" or don't play at all.

 

[imperfectluck]

I think there's a pretty clear difference between suggesting that we play with Sleep Clause as it currently is and suggesting that we give Flareon Flare Blitz. Sleep Clause as it is currently was implemented for competitive purposes, which has nothing to do with suggesting an addition to Flareon's move pool. I think some people on Smogon are forgetting the fact that the people playing this game are humans, not computers, and that humans will play a metagame they want to play.

 

[Syberia]

Do you guys simply lack common sense? Because it would seem to dictate that there's a very big difference between adding a clause that Nintendo has even endorsed (they included it in their stadium games) and throwing random moves around. I have always been of the opinion that if we can improve on the game in a competitive sense by using Shoddy Battle (removing the weather glitch also comes to mind), we should do so.

The problem that I see here is that everyone seems to be thinking in binary - it's either all of one thing, or all of another, with no in between. That's clearly not the case, as we've gotten along for 5+ years with the current sleep clause, yet Flareon has been without Flare Blitz for all that time.

 

[RBG]

What part of Shoddy isn't supposed to deviate from the mechanics in game do not we understand? Shoddy exists merely to have battles faster, and build teams faster. If Colin is able to program every single mechanic perfectly, then he should and that is what we should use. Regardless of weather we like it or not.

And we understand that Nintendo supports sleep clause, but until it is used in a 4th gen game where my team isn't revealed at the beginning of the battle, the only alternative is to fix the "broken" version of the sleep clause that we have been using.

 

[Syberia]

As far as I'm concerned, what you call "simulating the game," I call being bound by an arbitrary set of restrictions that can be gotten around and, quite frankly, improved upon through the use of Shoddy. I would honestly like to play a mash-up of clauses from all the different 4th-gen games that would be competitively superior to any one game taken as a whole, whether you call it "pokemon" or not.

 

[RBG]

If you want to "improve" on game mechanics, then the ideal place to that would be a Mod server which purposefully chooses to deviate from the game. Our main server, which claims to play Pokemon, not "Pokemon", needs to have every mechanic programmed as identically to the game as possible.

 

[imperfectluck]

Our main server, which claims to play Pokemon, not "Pokemon", needs to have every mechanic programmed as identically to the game as possible.

See, the word 'needs' is where there is a difference in opinions here in this topic.

 

[Philip7086]

Personally, I don't even feel like the currently implemented Sleep Clause is beneficial to the competitive environment. In fact, it really alters the way we play the game because people can abuse sleep moves. For instance, if you're slower than your opponent who is asleep, and they have been asleep for 3 turns, and you have a feeling they will wake up soon, you can simply spam Spore or Sleep Powder to ensure that they fall asleep on the same turn they wake up. You should not be allowed to play so carefree, knowing that if your opponent switches, your move will just fail. The current clause changes the way people play the game, and that is not ideal at all. If you want to use sleep moves, use them with caution and don't take stupid risks. If you do that, then updating the clause will cause absolutely no problems.

Also, I love the idea of warning a user before using a sleep inducing move while they already have their opponent's Pokemon asleep. That should eliminate losses due to "misclicks" and there really should be no reason not to fix this clause.

 

[Tangerine]

I don't see what the big deal is really.

There will be a feature that will "warn" users if they try to use a sleep move if something is already asleep due to you using a sleep attack, so I don't see why you guys are complaining. Even with this in place you guys think this is too much then i'll just put it this way - you're not a competitive player. The game is the game - while we try to make the best game possible, we have no reason to believe after this implement that the old sleep clause is the better mechanic by any means - in fact, the new sleep clause introduces a new way to win, which adds a new layer to the game.

If you're really worried about your breloom being trapped on spore and you losing because of that then do something about it - don't whine about it to us. If the strategy proves to be broken, then perhaps we'll reconsider this stance, but at this point I see nothing but people resisting change because they refuse to adjust.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Warning a user is better than nothing, I guess.

This essentially changes important mechanic that has been widely accepted since the beginning of 4th Gen, so its logical we'd be hesitant to want to change it. It does not seem right to just change something as big as a major clause with little or no warning.

Pokémon has always been knock out the other person's team to win, not oh you put two pokémon to sleep and you lose. The way the current clause handles it seems like the easiest way to deal with it. To encourage people to build teams to take advantage of an auto-win based on that...? It doesn't seem like we're playing pokémon anymore.

This also pretty much makes Dark Void Darkrai/Smeargle unusable in Doubles going by the proposed changes with this clause.

I would be more open towards a test of this to see how it pans out. A test would allow people to analyze it more clearly rather than potentially getting hundreds of disgruntled users mad at Shoddy Battle 2.

 

[Aeolus]

I do not support changing the sleep clause.

Altering it so that a player loses when putting two pokemon asleep is not a viable alternative. It is just as "made-up" as the classic clause and is not better in any way. It is also unacceptable to allow multiple pokemon to be slept at once. There is a reason it was implemented the way it was and it will remain in effect for the Official Smogon Tournament and the Smogon Tour as those fall specifically under my jurisdiction. I don't believe it makes sense for the ladder to differ substantially from those two venues, but that's a different discussion.

Freeze clause is a different story. It is an relic and can be abandoned.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

The issue is not which one is "better". The issue is which one is actually feasible to implement. All parties understand which one is actually "better", and that is obviously the one that has less impact and is more fair for the players (the current one).

That said, the "better" clause is not compatible with any form of battle that a: does not reveal all of the player's Pokemon before the battle, and b: allows use of alternate forms, such as Rotom-A, Giratina-O, and Shaymin-S. Therefore, there are only 2 options that allow Shoddy Battle to accurately reflect what is possible to play using cartridges:

1: DS WiFi local play. All of the current rules, except Sleep Clause means that if one player puts two Pokemon on the opposing team to sleep, that player loses.

2: PBR play. Allows use of current sleep clause (Second Sleep fails), but has important limitations, such as disallowing use of Alternate Forms as well as revealing each player's pokemon before the battle.

Anything other than these two is not playing Pokemon, because it is outside of the realm of mechanical accuracy. If one was to play Local Wi-Fi with the current Sleep Clause, you might as well modify Evasion Clause to disable evasion-giving abilities, since that's exactly the same idea. Something that "makes sense", but is not mechanically possible. You've got to draw the line either hard or not at all, because as soon as you open the rules up to altering mechanics for what is "better", you might as well just go wild.

 

[Aeolus]

We can implement whatever we want... we possess the programming knowledge to do that... so what I suggested is totally feasible. I don't feel the need to slave myself to what is playable on the cartridges. We have handled the responsibility of being "stewards of the game" quite well. Let's not pretend that we willynilly change shit all the time. I trust us to make good judgments in terms of what is best for the most avid players. If everyone is agreed, as you say, that the current system is best... then I see no reason to deviate from it.

 

[Philip7086]

Altering it so that a player loses when putting two pokemon asleep is not a viable alternative. It is just as "made-up" as the classic clause and is not better in any way.

The currently implemented Sleep Clause promotes a carefree play style that is detrimental to the competitive environment. To prove my point, let me illustrate a hypothetical situation which I'm sure many competitive players have witnessed before:

Your opponent is using Sub Spore Breloom against your Salamence with Fire Blast. Now, your Mence is currently asleep while Breloom is sitting behind his Substitute chipping away with Focus Punch. You have been asleep for 3 turns now, and the chances of you waking up next turn are high. Because of this, though, Breloom starts to spam Spore anticipating your awakening. Now, instead of waking up and using Fire Blast to break the Substitute so that you can finish Breloom off the next turn by outspeeding with Fire Blast again, you are put back to sleep and Breloom is free to set up another Substitute.

Your opponent should not be allowed to spam Spore so carelessly like this in competitive play. If people knew that they could potentially lose the battle by spamming Spore, I doubt they would attempt to do it. This element of play has, until now, been overlooked, and I would argue that it has changed the way this game is played much more than the proposed Sleep Clause ever would. I mean honestly, to devise a strategy that forces your opponent to lose by breaking Sleep Clause would be so incredibly situational, that I doubt we would see any changes whatsoever, aside from more careful play. In fact, the only thing I can see changing at all, is less choiced sleep attacks.

For those of you who have a hard time understanding how incredibly difficult it would be to force someone to break Sleep Clause, let me break it down for you. You have to trap you opponent into staying in, first of all. To do this, you need a Pokemon like Dugtrio, Magnezone, Probopass or Wobbuffet, or a move like Block/Mean Look. Then on top of trapping your opponent, you need to ensure that they will be stuck using a sleep move. To do this, you have to make sure they have a choice item on, or Encore them. In order to get a choice item on, your opponent either has to have it on to begin with, or you have to Trick it on somehow (please note: none of the trapping Pokemon I listed can learn Trick). If you Trick a choice item onto your opponent, they have to choose the sleep inducing move on their own. If not, your plan has failed. If you use Encore, you have to ensure that your opponent will either miss the first time they used the move, or that you have a Lum or Chesto berry equipped. Also, your opponent has to be dumb enough to use a sleep inducing move on a Pokemon that learns Encore and has him trapped. If you somehow manage to do all of this (trap a Pokemon, force it to use a sleep inducing move, and somehow lock it onto that very move), then you will have succeeded in forcing your opponent to break Sleep Clause.

As you can see, a lot of it relies on your opponent not really playing carefully at all with their sleep attacks, and you somehow managing to trap your opponent. This is not a concern to me as a competitive player, and should not be a concern to anyone else who understands how difficult this would be to pull off.

I really hope you will reconsider your opinion of the proposed Sleep Clause change, Aeolus, because I honestly cannot comprehend why it should not be implemented. Especially considering the fact that there will be a pop-up warning preventing people from misclicking their way to a loss, which I think was the only viable argument against this clause.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

We can implement whatever we want... we possess the programming knowledge to do that... so what I suggested is totally feasible. I don't feel the need to slave myself to what is playable on the cartridges. We have handled the responsibility of being "stewards of the game" quite well. Let's not pretend that we willynilly change shit all the time. I trust us to make good judgments in terms of what is best for the most avid players. If everyone is agreed, as you say, that the current system is best... then I see no reason to deviate from it.

If you deviate, you are not playing Pokemon. And if you decide that Smogon's stance is that Shoddy should not emulate real Pokemon, then Smogon stops being the premiere "competitive Pokemon" site. You can't maintain that you play competitive Pokemon when you openly admit to making up mechanics and modifying the game because it is "better".

Bottom line, anything outside of what is possible in the cartridges / PBR is not Pokemon. Choosing not to play by the rules of Pokemon is choosing not to play Pokemon. Plain and simple.

 

[Aeolus]

It's very simple. I think it is more important to provide an enjoyable pokemon experience online rather than one that is identical to a DS battle. It's pretty dramatic to say "THIS ISN'T POKEMON ANYMORE!" It's a relatively minor change that makes the game more user friendly. Would you call little league baseball "NOT BASEBALL!" because they play it in 7 innings with a 2 hour time limit?

That said, I'm less opposed to the idea of the change now than I was originally... but I still think that it is a bastardized compromise between classic clause and no clause at all... which both, to me, seem to have reasonable justifications (the first because most people agree it is the best, the second because it matches the game exactly). The reason I'm less opposed than before is that, in most situations, instead of forcing a sleep move to fail (which caused players to choose a different move), you largely force players to just not use a sleep move (same result). Sleep move spamming that you talk about is the situation when this doesn't apply... but I still don't think it is right to make someone lose for that... a wasted turn seems like an more reasonable penalty for spamming spore. If you want to play DS style pokemon, then yeah... multiple pokemon can be slept... sorry. The Wi-Fi forum is just south of here.

Tonight was the first time I considered the idea seriously... so I'll have to think about it more before any final choices are made.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

How are we going to deal with Dark Void in Doubles then?

There are a number of viable ways to force something to keep using Sleep moves.

Smeargle is faster than many Sleepers, add para support to the trapping Encore users, ever since Platinum there's been lots of Tricksters and using two or more of them on a team isn't too difficult, Gravity makes pretty much everything subject to Arena Trap, you also have Trick Room to make slow Encore Trappers like Walrein go first, there's probably a variety of other ways I'm overlooking too. You also have pokemon with Yawn which try to phaze, but instead lead to the breaking the proposed Sleep Clause. Get that Encored and switch to a Trapper and that's game.

For every generation there's always been a Stadiumesque Pokémon game that has allowed every form and enforced the "classic" Sleep Clause. Chances are Nintendo will probably make something along the lines of a PBR2. PBR sold well (despite having poor reviews) and it would not be too hard for Nintendo to make a game that supported the alt forms (look at Skymin's popularity, you know Nintendo's going to try to squeeze it for more cash) and had the classic Sleep Clause. Also Famitsu announced there's going to be a new pokémon Wii game... http://pokebeach.com/2009/09/new-pokemon-wii-game-in-the-works So... if it actually turns out to be something like a PBR2 with the alt forms there'd be no reason to program in a different Sleep Clause.

 

[RBG]

About future games, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

And I believe that 2v2 testing was going to start off without Sleep Clause (although I could be wrong).

And unless I am mistaken, If you build your team to win by forcing them to break sleep clause, which will not happen a lot, you are sacrificing valuable spots on your team that could be used in a more efficient method (i.e. KOing all 6 Pokemon)

 

[Philip7086]

There are a number of viable ways to force something to keep using Sleep moves.

Smeargle is faster than many Sleepers, add para support to the trapping Encore users, ever since Platinum there's been lots of Tricksters and using two or more of them on a team isn't too difficult, Gravity makes pretty much everything subject to Arena Trap, you also have Trick Room to make slow Encore Trappers like Walrein go first, there's probably a variety of other ways I'm overlooking too. You also have pokemon with Yawn which try to phaze, but instead lead to the breaking the proposed Sleep Clause. Get that Encored and switch to a Trapper and that's game.

I don't want to sound mean, but you are really failing at theorymoning here. How is it you propose to force someone to stay in after you Encore or Trick a choice item locking them into their sleeping move? You realize that your opponent may switch out the same turn you do to your Arena Trap Pokemon, don't you? Even if you trap-pass to something that can force your opponent to lock onto a move, it's your opponent's choice whether he wants to use the sleep move or not to begin with, and if your opponent has half a brain, he won't use it. And as RBG said already, even attempting to build a team around this strategy is a complete waste of resources, and I honestly believe it will only pay off versus inexperienced battlers who don't know what Sleep Clause is to begin with, so they won't use their moves with caution. In fact, if anyone thinks they can create a strategy that forces someone to break Sleep Clause successfully, I challenge them to a battle in which I will use Spore Breloom. I will show anybody how impossible it is to force me to break the clause.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

I did not say a 'mon would always stay in to allow for instant defeat. Over the course of battle though let's say I Trick a Choice Scarf to Breloom...It will look appealing to fire off a quick Spore at something that was trying to stat up or making sure something like a Mixmence doesn't KO any more mons. Then bam, switch to Dugtrio and its trapped and locked into Spore. Dugtrio is good at revenging certain things as well, so some of the strategies wouldn't require much modification to current teams. When/if I build a team for this I would allow for this strategy while still checking other threats and other common things. Ex. Smeargle can obviously set up SR, Spikes, etc. Encore is a valuable move for locking things like Blissey into Aromatherapy and forcing switches. Therefore, I wouldn't be sacrificing any spaces for it. Sorry, I should've been clearer.

I don't know how a metagame with this change will exactly turn out, but I feel there are more than enough options to actually make it competitively plausable to run a team that can force Sleepers to break Sleep Clause. Its a valuable mindgame against those who don't quite fall for it, but know that you can force a loss on someone via this way. At high level play I don't think people will fall for this all of the time, but the potential of an automatic loss will put additional pressure on your opponent and limit their options. Trickers are common, trappers are less common, but still see use, HG/SS has a bunch of new Trappers that have a lot of potential to do more than force Sleep.

I still think the putting two things to sleep being an auto-loss is too extreme.

 

[Aeolus]

I think MTI has valid points. I can definitely cook up scenarios in my head that could become very common if people figure out how to abuse the new rule.

As soon as any sort of sleep clause is introduced, the way the game is played will be changed. I don't think it is desirable to play the game with no sleep clause of any kind... so I still think the best alternative is the one with the least impact. That would be the classic clause.

 

[lilyhollow]

I think MTI has valid points. I can definitely cook up scenarios in my head that could become very common if people figure out how to abuse the new rule.

The idea is that these scenarios "should have been in the game to begin with," and that to consider them "abuse," rather than perfectly acceptable applications of the rules, is pretty much purely a matter of perspective. I mean, if we had started with a Sleep Clause that was actually possible to replicate in-game, who would be suggesting that we change it to something that couldn't be replicated, even if the initial mechanic were less-than-ideal? MythTrainerInfinity might have argued that changing the rules ends up in people "exploiting" them in somehow undesirable ways, just like he is right now. "Now players can spam sleep moves in certain situations and only risk losing a turn sometimes... and Serene Grace Blissey is worse now!" I'm not saying that these arguments are just as convincing as his actual arguments are, but neither of them seem particularly justified. Why is it necessarily bad that I can switch Dugtrio in and trap a Scarfed Breloom to win the game? In "Replicable Sleep Clause Land," this is probably just as much "part of the game" as anything else is. So why should we really care here in Smogon?

Either way, I think it's clear that the current Sleep Clause just isn't acceptable. At the very least I think we should establish that, and then work towards finding as tame a solution as possible to avoid potential "abuse." I'm sure there's a replicable, if convoluted, middle-ground out there somewhere.

 

[Tangerine]

I think MTI has valid points. I can definitely cook up scenarios in my head that could become very common if people figure out how to abuse the new rule.

As soon as any sort of sleep clause is introduced, the way the game is played will be changed. I don't think it is desirable to play the game with no sleep clause of any kind... so I still think the best alternative is the one with the least impact. That would be the classic clause.

I'm not too sure if we should be relying on theorymon on stuff like this especially when you have mentioned before that you didn't know for certain if HGSS will affect the OU metagame or not.

"It'll change the game" is not a valid excuse. Everything will change the game. Banning things will change the game, adding clauses will change the game, restoring things to the way it is supposed to be will change the game. I'm not too sure why the only argument that the other side comes up with is "it'll change the game" "it is abusable" when 1) most of these are extremely contrived situations that rely on YOU using a sleep move and having your opponent having a way to "trap" you into this move. 2) I don't see the problem with giving users a new way to force victories since it is a valid strategy - calling it "abuse" is self defeating if we wish to call ourselves anywhere remotely competitive.

If it is actually abuseable, then we will clearly see it and we will act accordingly... The only issue I see in this thread is supposedly "respectable" users repeating arguments that have been refuted multiple times, refusing change because they don't wish to adapt, and the use of contrived theorymon we supposedly discourage on the other sections of the forum.

 

[imperfectluck]

Either way, I think it's clear that the current Sleep Clause just isn't acceptable.

I don't think that this is 'clear' to me at all, I see a very small group of very vocal people clamoring for this and nothing else. I would be willing to bet that if this was polled in stark mountain right now that the userbase would want to stick with the sleep clause as is.

The only issue I see in this thread is supposedly "respectable" users repeating arguments that have been refuted multiple times, refusing change because they don't wish to adapt, and the use of contrived theorymon we supposedly discourage on the other sections of the forum.

All these 'respectable' users have Policy Review access... let's let Tangerine decide who gets Policy Review because he said they were 'respectable' instead, better? I refuse to change because I see absolutely no pressing need to change the current sleep clause.

 

[RBG]

These arguments have gone back in forth. What side you support boils down to:

Do you support playing Pokemon as it is on the cartridge?

or

Do you support playing Pokemon with a few modifications (aka "Smogonmon")

In reality, there is no where else for this discussion to go, as we have been going in circles. As far as I see it, unless anyone has anything new to add, because we aren't going to change most people's minds, what happens next is a decision that is left up to the admins as to weather we modify sleep clause or not and if we keep "classic sleep clause", or change to a "cartridge possible sleep clause".