Voted no as well and I completely agree with Syberias post, since it basically sums up what I was going to say.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
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.
Smogon's Philosophy on Competitive Pokemon (Simulator Mechanics)
- Thread starter Philip7086
- Start date
- Status
Voted no as well and I completely agree with Syberias post, since it basically sums up what I was going to say.
Voted yes.
I've always viewed Pokémon simulators as a convenience. I go on Pokémon Online / Pokémon Lab strictly because it saves time and money, not because it's a competitively "better" version of Pokémon. I fear that we are losing sight of the fact that we are playing simulators, preferring to play God with the pretense that we're making Pokémon "better".
This appeal to common sense is simply fallacious. I thought we'd learned by now how futile such an appeal is. Did we really learn nothing from the roughly 1 in 6 no-banlist vote (I'd consider that pretty damn significant) and the recent staff conflicts? What you may call common sense I'm inclined to call emotional decision-making. I'd certainly call it emotional decision-making when someone assumes that a glitch will make the game worse, or that it's not part of the game, because it's a glitch. Would we really rather be philosophically inconsistent just to satisfy this so-called "common sense"?
In particular, I don't get how people are thinking so hard about Sleep Clause. I thought that the Sleep Clause in the OP of the last thread about it was fine (you may not intentionally attempt to put an opponent to sleep if such an attempt is still in effect on a different opponent). The little details are ultimately irrelevant to almost all of us. It's not like any of us are programming the simulators.
What people are also forgetting is that there are other ways to make decisions about game mechanics. Using the BW mechanics certainly isn't set in stone; we could easily deem the mechanics of a future "Stadium" game for BW "better" and use its mechanics. Even within BW, there are two separate mechanics, WiFi and local battles. (I've been getting mixed messages about whether local battles hide your team or not, but I'm assuming that they do for this example.) There's really no right or wrong in what we decide on that front.
I've read a few of the posts in this thread and people are already bordering on breaking the OP's rules. Simulating "flavour" mechanics is not the same as simulating "competitive" mechanics. I don't understand why people insist on making this argument every time something like this comes up. It's completely stupid as it ironically completely ignores the whole point of having a simulator, at least from my point of view as stated in the beginning of this post.
I've always viewed Pokémon simulators as a convenience. I go on Pokémon Online / Pokémon Lab strictly because it saves time and money, not because it's a competitively "better" version of Pokémon. I fear that we are losing sight of the fact that we are playing simulators, preferring to play God with the pretense that we're making Pokémon "better".
This appeal to common sense is simply fallacious. I thought we'd learned by now how futile such an appeal is. Did we really learn nothing from the roughly 1 in 6 no-banlist vote (I'd consider that pretty damn significant) and the recent staff conflicts? What you may call common sense I'm inclined to call emotional decision-making. I'd certainly call it emotional decision-making when someone assumes that a glitch will make the game worse, or that it's not part of the game, because it's a glitch. Would we really rather be philosophically inconsistent just to satisfy this so-called "common sense"?
In particular, I don't get how people are thinking so hard about Sleep Clause. I thought that the Sleep Clause in the OP of the last thread about it was fine (you may not intentionally attempt to put an opponent to sleep if such an attempt is still in effect on a different opponent). The little details are ultimately irrelevant to almost all of us. It's not like any of us are programming the simulators.
What people are also forgetting is that there are other ways to make decisions about game mechanics. Using the BW mechanics certainly isn't set in stone; we could easily deem the mechanics of a future "Stadium" game for BW "better" and use its mechanics. Even within BW, there are two separate mechanics, WiFi and local battles. (I've been getting mixed messages about whether local battles hide your team or not, but I'm assuming that they do for this example.) There's really no right or wrong in what we decide on that front.
I've read a few of the posts in this thread and people are already bordering on breaking the OP's rules. Simulating "flavour" mechanics is not the same as simulating "competitive" mechanics. I don't understand why people insist on making this argument every time something like this comes up. It's completely stupid as it ironically completely ignores the whole point of having a simulator, at least from my point of view as stated in the beginning of this post.
I think they should provide both options.
The first one, a mode that's completely compliant with a particular game, problably the latest game using wifi.
The second one, where things are allowed for convenience and efficiency and for people who want to play on a more general thing than wifi for the last game released.
The simulators could even offer a mode for each game as well as the "more general mode".
It may raise complicated issues but I think that's what ideally should happen. Though reality isn't on par with those expectations, so a choice has to be made.
That's really unfortunate, because your interpretation is neither "clear" nor correct. It's pretty weird that you consider it either of those things. "Modify the game fundamentally" is blatantly not what was meant by the author, nor was it "unintentionally implied."
This is exactly my point, which is why I've been trying to get away from this Smogon Philosophy business.Seven Deadly Sins said:
Then I'd be inclined to go for the first option but that really depends on how you see Smogon.
This was already the case. With the given fact that appropriately IV'd Pokemon, bountiful use of TM/HM's, event legendaries and other competitive assets were limited to the Wi-Fi user, coupled with time restraints, Smogon designed sets are not practical in the Wi-Fi competitive scene on many levels. And even so much as the battling method in competition can't be comparable to our simulators because of how prevalent stall teams are on Smogon by comparison to Wi-Fi.
These are not consequences of our policy, but the realities of Wi-Fi versus Simulator competition. The fact is Wi-Fi will never be competitively compatible with any Pokemon online simulator outside of what we have at this present time, unless GameFreak (unlikely) changes the foundations of how the cartridges play drastically.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we would not be adopting a new stance by catering to the opposition that suggests we use practicality over strictly adhering to the cartridge. We've been using our own common sense (or lack thereof) to govern our decision making on Pokemon policy for years. What this poll is about is a reconsideration of that process, which I am all for given the appropriate arguments to the contrary.
That being said, how exactly would this alienate a huge portion of the player base, when we are currently (up to Generation IV) supporting that stance in the first place?
On the contrary, by that definition, we are currently (as of Generation IV) not playing Pokemon; we are playing Shoddy Battle.
Idealistically speaking, I would have to agree with DougJustDoug. However, the mere presence of this thread, and the representations of differing opinions in this thread clearly indicates that the "common sense" the no-voters are suggesting govern our policies isn't so common. Common sense isn't tangible, and something we can appropriate rely on as a proper foundation for decision making, for it is as arbitrary as the current Smogon policy we are looking to revise. If common sense were reliable, after all, we would have no discussions, debates, or polls.
As a competitive battler, I would prefer to have the ability to make appropriate decisions based on practicality and logic for the sake of benefiting the competitive community when problematic instances like acid rain drop in to our metagame unannounced. And a lot of the arguments presented by the pro cartridge-adhere members here don't hold much water in concerns to anything but following a strict, absolute policy---things such as catering to the Wi-Fi community at this point are irrelevant because if this were a problem before hand, it would have already become apparent. I would think in my own mind that if you really cared so much about Wi-Fi, you would be playing on Wi-Fi, not a simulator. These are simulator policies, for simulator members, and we should keep policies that are polite to our neighboring competitive battlers, but not at the expense of our own rules and regulations, and the reasons we implement them.
Ultimately, this thread and polls entire purpose is to implement a philosophy that is clearly defined. Based on the same reasons Jiggy stated, and as implied by the debate between "common sense" opinions in this thread, as well as solving the need for future revisions on rules and regulations as noted by Chris Is Me, I believe that voting yes is the best direction we can take for our own policies.
I think that adherence to the Pokemon games is extremely important, one of the most important characteristics of the metagames we make, however occasionally a situation may arise that some combination of very undesirable traits is generated by perfect adherence. For example, if instead of the "Classic" Sleep Clause we make our own, one which does comply with the mechanics perfectly, we must either introduce a new and forcible win condition (which may adhere to mechanics, but in my opinion is a huge change to the basic rules we play by, arguably worse than an actual change to mechanics.) or a significant amount of complexity to cover prevent the win condition from being forcible. Perhaps in this case the added complexity is a price worth playing for perfect mechanics, or perhaps some people think that editing the win condition away from the extremely simple "if you have Pokemon left and your foe does not, you win" is acceptable. But a situation may arise in which the best choice for the game, the simplest and most effective option by far, is a very minor deviation from game mechanics. If we intend to take this option at any point, we should vote "no". Rules of this kind should be fundamental, and allowing exceptions to them is not good form as game designers (or at the very least, metagame designers).
Despite this, I can't quite bring myself to vote no and actually support the option of moving out from the game we set out to play, rather than just changing it from the inside with restrictions. Changing the mechanics should never be taken lightly, and I am concerned that some people may wish to go wild with edits which would result in an excessively arbitrary not-Pokemon game. I do trust that they will always remain a tiny minority. I disagree with the idea that any changes we are likely to make will move us further from WiFi than us allowing WishBliss and various other impossibly rare events. I think it is highly unlikely that we will make anything other than very insignificant changes, and even then only when there is significant benefit from a metagame designers or players point of view. But it seems somehow wrong.
I am unsure.
Despite this, I can't quite bring myself to vote no and actually support the option of moving out from the game we set out to play, rather than just changing it from the inside with restrictions. Changing the mechanics should never be taken lightly, and I am concerned that some people may wish to go wild with edits which would result in an excessively arbitrary not-Pokemon game. I do trust that they will always remain a tiny minority. I disagree with the idea that any changes we are likely to make will move us further from WiFi than us allowing WishBliss and various other impossibly rare events. I think it is highly unlikely that we will make anything other than very insignificant changes, and even then only when there is significant benefit from a metagame designers or players point of view. But it seems somehow wrong.
I am unsure.
Me too and I voted no. By voting yes, it means that the simulator has to be identical to wireless battle mechanics. I really don't like the slippery slide argument for people who voted yes. It is illogical. What percentage of the community do you think will vote to have critical hits removed (something that has been a mechanic in the games since day one) vs. acid weather (something that wasn't present at the beginning of generation four and corrected in generation five)? I am really glad that Philip put an edit in the OP saying that mechanics would only be changed on a very rare occassion. Smogon's recent policy has been to play to the constraints of the simulator, which includes those glitches and the clauses, which are not present in the games.
With TM's being infinite use now - and a cloning glitch existing in every game prior - and the random number generator being manipulated, Smogon sets have been practical for the average user for quite some time. Simulators are for convenience as capefeather said. I don't think we should advertise them as saving time and money as I'm not sure Nintendo would like that latter part ;) but simulators exist to simulate the game. We place rules and checks in place to shape the game we want to play. We don't change the mechanics of the game to fit our wants.
For example, a way to solve the Acid Rain glitch from ending play was to add Cherrim and Castform to the Self-KO clause. If you send out one of those during Acid Rain, you lose the game. Of course, Acid Rain in itself is rare and those two Pokemon even rarer so this would almost never come into play.
We can argue back and forth about what is and isn't a glitch (When it's raining, Thunder can hit through Protect! That shouldn't happen!) or we can allow our simulators to do their jobs.
Does there have to be a line? Sure. Where do I think the line is appropriate? When it freezes the game or otherwise makes it unplayable (ie. infinite loop of transformations).
Critical hits balance out Bulk Up/Calm Mind users to an extent, otherwise Pokemon such as CroCune and WishCM Jirachi would be much more deadly; so yes, in a way, critical hits do help the competative nature of Pokemon (so long as the % chance of a critical hit remains low). This isn't to mention that there has been no Pokemon precedent for the removal of Critical Hits or anything of that nature, which there was for Sleep Clause (PBR) and no Acid Rain (DP) which is the argument of some of the people in this thread. I won't go down that path though and just point out that we want to make the metagame as competative, fair, and "enjoyable" as possible while adhering to mechanics as much as possible. "No Sleep Clause" is not fair. A forced win by other means of fainting all 6 opposing Pokemon is uncompetative. And of course we don't want to change the game. Therefore, all I'm saying is that we have to draw a line somewhere, which is what this discussion is about. Acid Rain and such is a different story, and the argument against that is mainly that "it is a glitch" or "an undesirable aspect of a battle, which is not present in preceeding games of the same generation," meaning it is ok to take out. Of course, I won't comment on that, since it "does not adhere to in-game mechanics".
Tha being said, I'm going to abstain from this vote, anyway. On one hand, I do believe that we should simulate the cartridge as closely as possible; on the other, I feel like we should be able to tweak a simulator not for the purpose of "turning Pokemon into what we want Pokemon to be" but to adress smaller issues that make the game "strictly worse" (if there is such thing), concluding that a mechanic is not intentional (Mimic glitch, Acid Rain(?)), if it breaks the game, or if it makes the game less competative (evasion, OHKO moves). Thankfully most of these issues can be addressed without actually altering mechanics (Mimic glitch, other clauses), but when it comes to stuff like Classic Sleep Clause vs Pure Implementation, its all a matter of what is more important: improving a single aspect of the game to make it better competatively, or to adhere to the actual game.
EDIT: Bottom line, the decisions and opinions of everyone in this thread are opinionated. Smogon is a Competative Pokemon website, making this a double sided coin: it is supposed to be competative Pokemon. Not just competative. Not just Pokemon. Both.
I believe, like the above poster, that this is/has become an opinionated debate. That being said, I for one can see both sides of the issue; each side brings up valid points (and some that maybe aren't, but that's not important now)
But I believe above all else what we should consider when making a decision about this sort of policy is what the consequences of our choice here will be as time passes/more generations are released. (That is, if we don't have this sort of debate/vote every time a new generation comes out.)
This issue eventually boils down to something akin to whether or not you see a glass as half full or half empty: one side(strict implementation) sees the glass as half empty; in their eyes, we want to make an unshakable policy, and then deviate from it if and only if the *absolute need* arises. The other side (as far as I can tell, based on opinions posted in this thread) wants to create something like a general rule, where we would strive to come as close as is possible to the cart mechanics, but also incorporates the idea that deviations are unavoidable in the long run.
Don't get me wrong here; if we find the glass to be half empty, that isn't a bad thing. All I'm trying to say here is that really, both options are two very similar ideas, with one fundamental difference. That difference being,
Do we believe change(s) will need to be implemented in the future or not?
------
Neither position is right or wrong; they both have valid reasoning. But at the place we are now, no clauses/mechanics changes/whatever have been implemented yet on a 5th Gen, Smogon-based simulator.
This is the starting block. Nothing else has been decided yet, because this is where it all begins. That being said, I like keeping an open mind.
Voted no.
EDIT: @ CIM, I was more in referencing the idea expressed in this post
I'm trying not to take a particular stance, nor call anyone out here, but without the ability to make changes, what happens if the community as a whole wants to make a change to the rules because <insert whatever here> is game breaking? DO we continue to ban things, even if it makes playing more difficult? I'm not saying anything will happen, but, like Delta_2777 said, we are a Competitive Pokemon site; I feel that if we choose "yes" as our option for this poll, we are limiting ourselves to focusing only on the 'pokemon' aspect of the game, while disregarding the competitive aspect. That is my opinion, not a fact.
But I believe above all else what we should consider when making a decision about this sort of policy is what the consequences of our choice here will be as time passes/more generations are released. (That is, if we don't have this sort of debate/vote every time a new generation comes out.)
This issue eventually boils down to something akin to whether or not you see a glass as half full or half empty: one side(strict implementation) sees the glass as half empty; in their eyes, we want to make an unshakable policy, and then deviate from it if and only if the *absolute need* arises. The other side (as far as I can tell, based on opinions posted in this thread) wants to create something like a general rule, where we would strive to come as close as is possible to the cart mechanics, but also incorporates the idea that deviations are unavoidable in the long run.
Don't get me wrong here; if we find the glass to be half empty, that isn't a bad thing. All I'm trying to say here is that really, both options are two very similar ideas, with one fundamental difference. That difference being,
Do we believe change(s) will need to be implemented in the future or not?
------
Neither position is right or wrong; they both have valid reasoning. But at the place we are now, no clauses/mechanics changes/whatever have been implemented yet on a 5th Gen, Smogon-based simulator.
This is the starting block. Nothing else has been decided yet, because this is where it all begins. That being said, I like keeping an open mind.
Voted no.
EDIT: @ CIM, I was more in referencing the idea expressed in this post
I'm trying not to take a particular stance, nor call anyone out here, but without the ability to make changes, what happens if the community as a whole wants to make a change to the rules because <insert whatever here> is game breaking? DO we continue to ban things, even if it makes playing more difficult? I'm not saying anything will happen, but, like Delta_2777 said, we are a Competitive Pokemon site; I feel that if we choose "yes" as our option for this poll, we are limiting ourselves to focusing only on the 'pokemon' aspect of the game, while disregarding the competitive aspect. That is my opinion, not a fact.
This poll is set to close in less than two hours from this post. I think it's obvious what the decision is. I would like to see an addition to the current Smogon Philosophy to be written up which summarizes this stance. If you think you are a capable writer, please feel free to write something and post it in here. As a community we can make edits here and there and then upload it onto the website when we feel it says what we want it to say!
Can we take out all mention of us being a competitive Pokemon website then? We should probably say something like "Smogon.com is a website dedicated to playing a competitive battling game heavily based on the Pokemon series" rather than what we have now. If someone wants me to draft edits to make this sound as un-awkward as possible I'll go ahead and do that.
(No, I'm not kidding)
(No, I'm not kidding)
Common Sense > Semantics
Glitches which are not directly harmful to the metagame should not be removed, in my opinion. Pinning the label "glitch" on a mechanic is impossible since we cannot be certain about authorial intent. If it is the general feeling that we should edit the game to correspond not just with competitive need or notable improvements to the game, but also to fit with our expectations (for example, Thunder breaking Protect in rain. The only reason to remove this is that it is not what we would expect, and we guess that it was unintended.), then I am mistaken and will reword. However, I do not think this is the case.
As for removing balance, if there is some change which hugely unbalances an otherwise viable strategy, and the only way to fix it is to edit game mechanics then it may be appropriate to make the change. However, it may be misunderstood or misused, and is unlikely to come into effect, so maybe a different wording is appropriate.
As for removing balance, if there is some change which hugely unbalances an otherwise viable strategy, and the only way to fix it is to edit game mechanics then it may be appropriate to make the change. However, it may be misunderstood or misused, and is unlikely to come into effect, so maybe a different wording is appropriate.
Now that the poll is over, I guess we all agree we should only remove glitches as preposterous as Acid Rain. Anything else would be just too controversial due to "authorial intent" and frankly, not really that relevant in battle. Would we change Pursuit, back in Japanese D/P, to the effect it "should have" (or does anyone think CBtar really should be allowed to change moves after using Pursuit on a fleeing pokémon)? U-Turn+Substitute+Intimidate mechanics in Platinum? Explosion now in B/W?
And I agree with mtr's rewording. I don't see how "balance" would be a nice reason to change simulator mechanics (critical hits?), as it can be easily perverted in the long run and I believe the majority voted for not strictly following in-game mechanics so we may avoid bizarre glitches, have the Undo Move option and not have to worry with "pedantic" rules such as Wi-Fi Sleep Clause. I'd remove the "characteristics of a desirable metagame" bit too so we could put any "slippery slope" argument to rest, but then it would be completely against Smogon's philosophy until now and I'm sure people will want to remove the Rearrange Team option if it proves to be uncompetitive in the future. As long as, as Doug said, we "do our best" not to increase the gap between simulators and Wi-Fi, I'm fine with this policy.
And I agree with mtr's rewording. I don't see how "balance" would be a nice reason to change simulator mechanics (critical hits?), as it can be easily perverted in the long run and I believe the majority voted for not strictly following in-game mechanics so we may avoid bizarre glitches, have the Undo Move option and not have to worry with "pedantic" rules such as Wi-Fi Sleep Clause. I'd remove the "characteristics of a desirable metagame" bit too so we could put any "slippery slope" argument to rest, but then it would be completely against Smogon's philosophy until now and I'm sure people will want to remove the Rearrange Team option if it proves to be uncompetitive in the future. As long as, as Doug said, we "do our best" not to increase the gap between simulators and Wi-Fi, I'm fine with this policy.
There aren't huge problems with either, because the difference are really minor... Not as much of a big deal as it may have seemed.
This is a bad idea. Accurate or not, it's crazy to actively push for this community to be referred to as a "Pokemon-based competitive community" unless that is actually what people desire. I would rather be unclear or contradictory than horrible ("but accurate, dammit").
It's funny how scared people are of a legitimate sleep clause/acid rain or whatever though.
- Status