1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to Pokemon Perfect, Guest!

    Our motto is Pokémon Practice makes Pokémon Perfect. We are a competitive-battling community that encourages the development of players and their ideas, and fosters positive and respectful attitudes. We love Collaboration (working together), Competition (getting stronger), and Communication (being informed).

    You are free to post everywhere, unless the thread explicitly states otherwise (usually in the case of a vote), and there are no private forums whatsoever. We just require you to not make multiple accounts. Let us greet you by posting a thread in the Introduce Yourself! forum.

  3. Tiers

    View Introduction to Tiers if you don't know what tiers are. Pokémon Perfect tiers are named differently to those on Smogon. A numeral followed by the letter U, e.g. 1U, 2U, 3U, represents a main tier on Pokémon Perfect – the '1' of '1U' representing the tier level. For a tier to be a main tier, it must be balanced (nothing is too powerful and game-breaking) and diverse enough (include a variety of Pokémon and strategies). A numeral followed by the letter P, e.g. 1P, 2P, 3P contain all Pokémon that are deemed overpowered in the respective 1U, 2U, 3U tiers. The 1st tier level allows Pokémon that are banned in the 2nd level, and this process continues down. Read the tier list, and in-depth explanations of the tiers naming system and tiering system. Also check out our analyses for all tiers.

  4. Tournaments

    RBY 1U Seasons and its master tournaments are responsible for starting up the community, and tournaments continue to play a big role in maintaining interest in the forums. Signups Open gives you a list of tournaments you can join, and Ongoing lists tournaments that you might want to follow. Additionally, you can tap to find out approximate Schedules for tournaments.

    For historical threads, check out Signups Closed, Finished tournaments and Results. We also have Nominations, Voting and Event threads for exhibitions – past and present.

RBY OU / 1U (OverUsed) Remove Sleep and Freeze Clause, and ban Reflect

Discussion in 'Analysis and Research' started by Dre89, Apr 30, 2019.

  1. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    I posted this on Smogon, so I thought I'd copy-paste it here

    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 it. 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 double-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 lax 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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  2. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    Freeze Clause is objectively wrong and needs to go.

    Mechanical Sleep Clause should be replaced, although it's less-often a problem.

    Dunno what to do about Reflect.
     
  3. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    I say we have a tournament (call it the Seafoam Islands Cup to reference the freeze change) with these changes in place and see what people think about it. It obviously won’t be a developed meta, but I bet people would enjoy it more than current RBY.
     
  4. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    There are a good reasons why playing on simulator are a better thing than playing on cartridge - besides the difficulty of linking two players without taking emulators and new releases into account. Absence of mechanical Freeze Clause and even Sleep Clause are good reasons. But not the best.

    If we trully apply Cartridge Mechanics to the simulators, RBY will be chaos, just for something called "de-sync". Defrost, Counter, Psywave and Partial Trap + Mirror Move are ways to get it, but really, they are not the only ones.

    I played a signifcant amount of games using emulators, and I assure you: de-syncs happen more often than you guys might imagine. One side CH while the other receive normal hit, one move that successfully launches a status change which is never seen by the other, a move successfully hits for one player and misses for the other... yes, that's some situations that I noticed on cartridge and that leads to de-syncs.

    Fact is: real cartridge mechanics ruin the game. Simple that. RBY is good to play because simulators exists, as the game itself is so full of glitches, that some of them are probably not known after 20 years since the game was released worldwide.

    Back to Freeze and Sleep Clause: sure, I see your point on removing Sleep Clause. It can be avoided. Removing it does prevents a PAR Exeggutor to predict when the Chansey will wake up and launch a Sleep Powder to put it to sleep again - but I agree, that's nothing very significant on the meta. Miss clicks are going to be more dangerous, as you can get an insta-DQ after hitting that Sleep Powder instead of Psychic. But again, that's not game breaking.

    But Freeze Clause? Sorry, but you are just exchanging a haxed game mechanic for another. Freezes are entirely random, you sure can spam that Ice Beam and get no freeze on your match - but I'm pretty sure that everyone here had a match where that "Freeze Clause MOD activated" appeared more than one time. Sometimes even 2 times. Ice Beam would be just the "legal OHKO move", with the difference that it causes damage and OHKO chance is 10% instead of 30%, not depending on the fact that you pokémon must to be faster and the fact that it does not work on Ice-types (vs "not working on Flying" from Fissure and "not working on Ghosts" from Horn Drill). What prevents it from acting like that is that 1-Frozen-enemy-mon-per-match that Freeze Clause gives, which also prevents rematches when Freeze Clause is used on cartridge.

    I'm not gonna say anything about Reflect (I don't have a relevant opinion), but really, keep at least Freeze Clause. And honestly, just forget about de-syncs on simulators, they are hated and does not brings anything interesting to the game - just mod it and it's fine. Making Psywave illegal won't prevent them to happen on cartridge.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  5. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    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).

    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
     
  6. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    What a load of rubbish. Freeze clause is vanishingly rare in its activation. Painting a caricature of one imaginary match where freeze clause activated multiple times is pure spin and not remotely grounded in facts. Likewise calling it a "legal OHKO move" is equally an exaggeration and it also completely overlooks the fact that Ice attacks are already permitted. If your analogy holds true then should we allow OHKO moves so long as they stop being spammed after the first KO? Limiting to one freeze doesn't alter anything in terms of how freezes function.

    And no shit we know about desyncs. How do you think Psywave came to be banned? This is not a new topic and in theory all known desync glitches are avoidable through use of bans and diligence on the player's part. If you disagree or if you've got any new glitches then I'm all ears but don't act like no-one's heard of them before
     
  7. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    Matches where freeze clause is activated more than one time are not hypotetical, and happens every day on ladder.

    Ok, ok, paralysis is what prevents Ice Beam from being that OHKO move, but is not that far from it. I exaggerated on OHKO analogy, but that does not make a game without Freeze clause not haxed.

    Did you read my post?

    Sure, let me explain: I played matches against myself using TGB Dual (an emulator + Pokémon Yellow rom). I didn't use Counter, I didn't use Psywave, I didn't thawed a Pokémon and I didn't used Mirror Move. Yet, I got several de-syncs.

    There were some noticeable times that happened a de-sync:

    - When a move Critical Hits for player 1 and DOES NOT on player 2. So, basically, every Critical Hit on the game can lead to a desync.

    - When a move HIT for P1 and MISSES for Player 2. Every move has a chance to desync the game.

    - When a move triggers a STATUS for P1 and DOES NOT for P2. Ex: In Player 1 screen, Thunderbolt paralyzed the enemy foe; in Player 2 screen, Thunderbolt dealt damage and no status change happened. So, every move with a chance to status a foe can desync a game.

    MAYBE it has something about that equal/greater compare. So, maybe there's a 1/256 chance of desync in all these case. But that's not confirmed.

    I'm lacking some time due to college, but when possible, I can spend sometime playing against myself again and try to record the game (though Win 10 recorder can only do that to a single window). However, if this is confirmed, well... good luck to insert RBY's real mechanics to simulators. It will simple ruin the game.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  8. Roostur

    Roostur Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    92
    Agree with everything but the reflect ban. Freeze clause should have never existed and sleep clause should have never existed. I have to imagine that sleep clause came to be by pure accident and the only reason we have it now is because status quo's are hard to get rid of. If the guy in charge of whatever simulator they played on back then would have implemented dq instead, we'd be playing with that today.
     
  9. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    People want to play the cartridge game. With freeze clause, the game is just a mod with RBY Pokémon. I’ve said this before and say it again. If we’ve made the game a mod by adding freeze clause, why not fix all the other bad stuff? Why is freeze clause the only mechanical change that we’re allowed to make? There’s still lots of RNG factors that affect battles.



    Only two Pokémon are causing issues with it, but no other OU Pokémon ever runs it in serious sets except sometimes non-lead alakazam. That’s why I think a blanket ban is easier and looks more respectable than a target ban , because no other Pokémon really gets hurt by the ban other than the two main abusers. I’d accept a targeted ban though if that’s the best I could get.

    It is important to ban reflect if we’re removing sleep clause though. A paralysed chansey needs to be immediately threatened by physical Pokémon in order for the meta to be healthy. Otherwise it can just sit there under reflect slamming ice beams all day unless the opponent has an ice Pokémon. Currently this set isn’t too common because it can’t do anything to paralysed psychics and doesn’t do much once something is frozen. But with no freeze clause it could not paralyse opponents and sit there trying to prove multiple freezes under reflect, which just isn’t healthy for the meta.
     
  10. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    I think we're going to just have to disagree on how common freeze clause is- afaik there's no data to resolve any dispute on it. As for me brushing off the prevalence of other desyncs, I discounted them out of habitual scepticism and because there's no known mechanic that would drive them in the scenarios you describe.

    Sorry that my post was a bit angry, I found the tone of your original post a little condescending but that was probably an overreaction

    Dre89 I just don't like banning things that aren't really the issue, especially when a) lower tiers exist and b) there are threats beyond Zam that could use Reflect, although admittedly not standard threats- Hypno and Porygon spring to mind. Actually now that I think on it, you could theoretically still run Reflect Bro (I don't know of anyone that has done so recently though) while anything with half-decent bulk could in theory pull off a Rest+Reflect set. I just don't think popularity is an adequate justification for ignoring the effects of such a ban, since popularity isn't something set in stone and it what is considered "significantly popular" is something very subjective, with poorly defined boundaries
     
    DarkCyborg likes this.
  11. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ortheore nah, I meant no harm with my post. I just disagreed from most part of the idea, specially Freeze Clause and the common thinking that "simulators must to copy the cartridge". There are things that only simulators can do, and those things improves the game most of the time. Sorry if I was harsh to you on my reply.
     
  12. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    Simulators are supposed to copy the cartridge though, that’s their whole point.

    So if you think we should keep freeze clause because it makes the game better, then let’s remove freeze entirely. Let’s also remove crits, secondary move effects, 255 misses, and make focus energy work properly. Those changes sound crazy, but literally only difference between those changes and the current freeze clause is that freeze clause was implemented from the start.

    That’s the only reason why people defend it. They’re happy to keep something that was wrong from the start because it makes the game better, but don’t want to make mechanical changes to better the game in any other context.

    The point of the simulator is to replicate cartridge battles, regardless of how imperfect it is. If you want the fantasy of battling with RBY Pokémon in a balanced meta there are mods for that, you can play those instead.
     
  13. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    If so, we can just play on cartridge. Or use an emulator. Use PikaSAV, build your pokémon and battle whoever you want using the original mechanics. "Emulators and roms are illegal" - ok, it is. But unless Pokémon Showdown has some kind of formal authorization to use Nintendo's intellectual property, it is not exactly, uh, legal. And the same for every single Pokémon simulator in the world.

    There are a lot of things that simulators does not take into account. Do you really think you can build an entire team of pokémon with desirable IVs without glitches? In theory, you can. In practice, it would take some years to build a team with the stats that you want. And if glitches are allowed, then why "illegal" movesets are not allowed as well?

    You are not copying the cartridge at the moment you build the team on teambuilder, because while you can catch a Tauros with 15 SPD IV after a few hours playing, it will probably not have an awesome amount in every single stat. And worse: its IV won't be obvious at the moment you catch it. You'll take a lot of time to build "the competitive team of your dreams", and it will not be perfect (just forget about 15/15/15/15/15).

    The closest thing that a simulator could do about that is to randomize some IVs. You could choose one or two IV value for each Pokémon, and the others are random (around a tolerance that you think it's acceptable, but random enough to simulate reality).

    And there are many other things that simulators should take into account to truly copy the cartridge. Mew? Well, if glitches are not allowed, maybe it should be reserved to the winners of PP's tournments and seasons.

    Freeze Clause exists on cartridge. Okay, if you freeze two pokémon, the other player has a chance to keep playing or rematch. Completely possible to perform on cartridge. Not the same as the simulator, but it exists. But since you're proposing to simply remove Freeze Clause, I assume now that you don't want this kind of clause as well.

    So let's take Sleep into account: if the foe puts two of your pokémon to sleep, he is DQ - for a good reason, as SLP is broken. What happens if the foe freezes two of your pokémon in a battle? Nothing at all? Doesn't it sounds broken for you?

    No, of course you don't think so, because you're taking into account that Reflect is banned. If you hit 16 Ice Beams on unstatused pokémons, there is about 15% of chance that a double freeze will happen, and if we have Reflect+Ice Beam and a team built to focus on Freezing enemies, reaching those 16 Ice Beams is not gonna be that hard.

    Today, spamming Ice Beams and Blizzards everywhere is not an efficient strategy because Freeze Clauses exists. Once you freeze a Chansey with your Snorlax, Ice Beam on things like Starmie becomes a waste. If that changes, then you can simple save your Thunder Waves for later and starting spamming Ice moves, using a team of tanks to make it possible with low risk thanks to Rest and Reflect. Sure, Ice-type pokémons are going to be more present as well as a drawback for this kind of strategy - but it might not prevent it from being seen.

    Imo, removing Freeze Clause is not a good idea. It does not make a significant change to the cartridge mechanics (it just prevents more than one freeze to happen, without removing freeze status at all) and helps to keep the game healthy.

    Sure, let's take your idea and put every cartridge mechanic into the simulator. That means desyncs. If you ever played Pokémon Yellow on a cartridge (or emulator), you know that the result will be random desyncs everywhere. Because desyncs a very common thing to happen when you go PvP on RBY (and are not limited to those known glitches that leads to desyncs, the fact that "random" desyncs happen with no apparent reason is a fact). So, basically, every turn you play a dice and prays to not crash the game.

    So, I ask you: what are you going to do with random desyncs? Let it happen and completely ruin the game?
     
  14. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    This doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Some tiers need Sleep Clause more than others (for instance, GSC would be less fun but still quite balanced with no Sleep Clause at all).
    This is odd, and not in accordance with what I know of Crystal's research. Is it possible that the emulator is failing to sync the PRNGs properly?
    This would actually be substantially less offensive. I think it's silly and unnecessary, but it isn't literally wrong.


    WRT IVs: I am actually in favour of only allowing legal IVs, in the cases where the PRNG makes some IV sets impossible. But anything that is possible, no matter how many resets it would take, should be allowed.

    WRT the balance of freezes and similarity to OHKO moves: Tauros OHKOs half the meta with a crit (Alakazam, Chansey, Gengar, Golem, Jolteon, Jynx, Rhydon and Starmie, plus a chance on Exeggutor, Tauros and Zapdos; if you count Victreebel and Dragonite they're also in the "always OHKOed on crit" category). 1/256 Explosion misses make you lose a Pokemon. Unless you mod RBY pretty substantially there are going to be significant random-chance events. I wouldn't actually be particularly opposed to a test of OHKO moves, since they aren't well distributed and can be blocked.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
  15. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    It doesn’t matter if perfect IVs are difficult to obtain. If they can be obtained in cartridge then it’s fine. Now if you’re saying that perfect IVs can’t be obtained without glitches, that’s a different debate about the legality of glitches, but at least it’s still physically possible on cartridge.

    I don’t understand your point about how a second freeze isn’t fair. RBY isn’t fair in general. What if your opponent crits three times in a row, and got KOs because of it? What if your paralysed rhydon FPS 4 times in a row, and allows their zap to KO from half health with 4 crits? Should we restrict the number of crits or FPs that can happen to make the game fair?

    See this is the problem with saying we shouldn’t make any changes for the sake of fairness. The only difference between the current freeze clause and those changes in the above paragraph is that freeze clause is already in place.

    Just because something was wrongly put in at the start doesn’t mean it’s right to keep it there. Had freeze clause never been originally implemented, no one would argue to implement it now. Just like no one argues for a crit clause or a full paralysis clause.
     
  16. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Soooo anyway, if desyncs are found to occur by means other than the known glitches, I don't think we should worry about them until we understand how they work- because we literally can't make an informed response to them. I'm also with M9M in regarding them with a bit of scepticism

    Regarding the whole debate about IVs, I think it's fairly clear-cut: we allow anything that's theoretically possible without the use of glitches. Currently, we don't actually do that either, thanks to RBY's RNG limitations preventing some pokemon from getting perfect DVs, but that's a limitation that I think we can and should implement. This was the thread it was first announced in, and I whipped up a script to identify which legal spreads were relevant. That said, my work could use some verification for if I made any errors.

    Anyway, I don't think it's reasonable to point to how difficult it would be to obtain in-game without the use of glitches. That's one of the main premises of a simulator after all, it's a response to Pokemon not being designed for competitive play and having mechanics that make it unreasonably difficult to construct a team. And what's reasonable is subjective and it would theoretically lead to an ever-escalating arms race.

    Fwiw I think glitch metas are worth considering as legit side metas, which in RBY and GSC would mean pokemon with access to literally every move in the game and maybe playing at level 255 (just not actual glitchmons due to their tendency to break the game)

    Also M9M fair point on sleep clause, I just assumed that out of habit, but I definitely think it should be generally reviewed, especially for more recent gens. I have my doubts about it disappearing in g2 though
    ===============
    Also as a bit of trivia, someone argued a while back that NYPC moves in GSC should be scrapped because it's probably reasonable to assume that none of those pokemon exist now, due to their extremely limited distribution, the game being really old, and the cart batteries eventually running out (though I think that's fixable?). Probably not true, there's probably some hoarder out there with carts with those pokemon on them, but I thought it was interesting. Another interesting case would be to consider the VC versions of GSC, which obviously don't have NYPC.
     
  17. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    Not impossible. I currently have no time to test again, but if you want to test (or maybe Crystal), I used the emulator TGBDual vol. 7 build 2053.

    Problems with status was what happened the most, so, if you want to test (on cartridge or with an emulator of your preference), try using things like Sludge, Flamethrower/Fire Bast and Thunderbolt (PSN/BRN/PAR). If I didn't get a particular problem due to emulator/rom, at one point you'll see a desync where the same pokémon have a status on the first screen and have no status on the second screen (it might take some time until you have this king of problem).

    Or maybe situtations where CH happens for one player and not for the other, which leads to different HPs (leading to a crash if HP reaches 0 for one player but not for the other).

    It might take several games to happen. Whenever I have time, I'll try to reproduce it again and record it, if possible.

    And why can't the same thing be said about Freeze Clause? Can't I just argue that it is a response to the fact that RBY was not made for competitive playing? Stadium was made for that purpose, and Freeze Clause exists there.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
  18. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    Difficult is not the same thing as impossible.

    I have no problem with Freeze Clause being used in a Stadium-mechanics tier, as it is not impossible there. (Same goes for mechanical Sleep Clause.)
     
  19. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    If you take probability and available time into account, to get every meta relevant pokémon with ideal stats (even if "ideal" does not means 15/15/15/15) is impossible in practical terms.

    Let's say that the chance to get the IV combination you want is 1/6553 (10% of the 65535 "possible" combinations). Every time you find a Tauros (which can be only found on Safari Zone), you have about 0,016% of chance to find one that matches your desirable IVs. Also, Tauros has 10% of chance to be found in the wild. It can also flee after you try to catch it and fail (no uncommon, as Tauros' HP is not low). Also, there's a limited time to hunt within Safari Zone.

    I would not be surprised if someone spent, well, 20 years playing and still didn't found the ideal Tauros to his team. But I got, this is not impossible. But apply that to the whole other meta relevant pokémon of RBY. Sure, it's probably easier to find a Golem (as it have fewer possible combinations than pokémons found in the wild), but then there's Zapdos - which actually have all 65.535 possible combinations. In this case, I'm sure that no one in the world has a full roster of every single 1U pokémon with the ideal IVs saved on his box.

    Sure, you can make the teambuilder to accept anything that is theoretically possible, but that's not "copying the cartridge" as Dre89 said, because you do not take into account the pratical viability of building the perfect team in the game (viability is different from difficulty - it's somewhat hard to level up your pokémon until 100, but you certainly will reach it by playing a lot. To get a full roster of good-IV pokémon is not just hard, it is completely uncertain, and is not viable in the game).
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  20. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    If it takes a minute to catch a Pokemon, check IVs and reset (for most of the Pokemon which can actually get all IVs, this is an overestimate), it's on the order of 1000 hours of playtime to get a 15/15/15/15. That's a big ask but plenty possible. It's more like 140 hours for Pokemon that don't care about Attack (Alakazam, Starmie?, Slowbro?, Jynx), as you only need an odd IV. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure how you would go about taking this into account if you wanted to.

    Not sure what you're talking about with Golem having fewer possible combinations. Without tradebacks from GSC or the Japanese Blue, you have to capture a Geodude or Graveler from the wild (I mean, that does limit the possible combinations, but not "more than Pokemon found in the wild" since they ARE Pokemon found in the wild).
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  21. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    But as you said, you can still theoretically have a team of perfect Pokémon on a cartridge, but you can’t have a freeze clause. A simulator is only meant to simulate a cartridge experience, not a ‘realistic’ one. That gets too arbitrary and subjective.
     
  22. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    1 minute to catch a pokémon? Ok, for event encounters, maybe it's fine (I'll discuss it later). For the rest, you actually need to find the correct pokémon and catch it. In the case of Tauros (Safari Zone), that means a 11% of chance to encounter a pokémon on every step. After you faced a lot of Nidorans and random pokémons, you will find a Tauros that you might catch (10% of chance that this encounter will be a Tauros). Roughly, when you take a step on the grass, you have 0,00017% of chance that you will find the Tauros of your dreams (and remember, you have 500 steps on every time you enter Safari Zone, including those you need to go to a tall grass located at Center Area (East)/Area 3 where you can actually find a Tauros). And, to find a Tauros, it's about 1,1% of chance per step (roughly, you need to do about 90 steps to find a Tauros, and so, you can find about 4~5 Tauros per Safari's visit, as you have to discount the steps you take to go to the hunting area).

    So, I'd say that the process of finding and catching a Tauros cannot be made in 1 minute. I would say something about 5 minutes.

    And for other pokémon, you won't be doing on less than one minute as well. The best case is Zapdos. To catch it, you still need to put a status on it, increase your chance by reducing its HP and throwing some Ultra Balls to catch it. And wait for all the animations on the game while doing so. Maybe you'll catch under 1 minute, but probably it will take more time - unless you keep your Master Ball to catch Zapdos, as Mewtwo cannot be used on 1U. In this case, fine, 1 minute is enough time to catch it, but that's the exception, because you only get one Master Ball in the game. For all the pokémon that can only be catch in the wild, the process will take much more time, and despite the fact they have much less IV possibilities, it will be actually much longer than Zapdos case.

    After catching your pokémon, you need to check the IV. Which is not obvious, as most pokémon you catch is on a low level, and IV won't be obvious for every stat (unless you use an external software to see the actual IVs, but that's not just "playing on the cartridge", as you are "hacking" the game - checking on an IV calculator would be the correct way). For many cases, you will need to get some levels to actually know the real IVs of your pokémon (and leveling a pokémon is something that take some time).

    And if you lvl up your pokémon, you'll have to take Stat Exp into account as well (which you'll have to calculate after battle), unless you use Exp All or a strategy that prevents your pokémon to get Stat Exp after battles (that will also make you spend more time). I'm pretty sure you won't be finding the IVs of a lvl 20 pokémon in 1 minute (as uncertainity is usually between 2 consecutive values, you might find it acceptable, but that means you might accept a Tauros with 14 ATK IV, which is not perfect).

    The process is faster for pokémon that you find in an event encounter (such as Zapdos/Articuno/etc), and is slower when you need to find the pokémon in the wild. And due to IV uncertainity on low level pokémon, the process will take more time on pokémon of lower level (and will be faster on pokémon of higher level).

    If I understood correctly, the universe of possible IVs for a pokémon depends on the encounter rate of the hunting area (lower chances means lower possibilities). Caves have a lower encounter rate than grass (for an obvious reason, think about Zubats), and you can only find Golems on caves. Same thing for Gengar and other pokémon that are not found on grass or water.

    And cartridge experience also means uncertainity of finding a pokémon with the correct IVs.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  23. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don’t understand why you keep bringing this up. No one is saying it’s easy to get perfect IVs. But it’s possible on a cart, and freeze clause isn’t. That’s what matters.
     
  24. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    1) Tauros is not one of the Pokemon that can have all possible IVs (except in Japanese Blue), because it's Safari Zone only. I said that a minute is an overestimate for the Pokemon that can have all possible IVs, i.e. ingame trades/ingame events/bought from RGC.

    2) You haven't thought through how to optimise the time. You save right before stepping into the tall grass, and reset immediately if you run out of time.

    1) Zapdos is probably actually the best target for the Master Ball, because it can whack all the users of accurate sleep moves really hard with Drill Peck. Articuno falls to Jynx, Mewtwo to Exeggutor, and Moltres doesn't have any high-BP moves (although you need to outspeed it because of Fire Spin). Of course, grinding makes this moot.

    2) Zapdos is not the best case. The best cases are ingame trades and bought Pokemon.

    3) Checking IVs can also be streamlined. Check IVs, use Rare Candy, check again. Reset (getting the Rare Candy back) if the second check was a bust. Also, because of the way the HP IV works in RBY, "off by one" is not an issue for the Attack and Defence IVs in the first place. There are twelve Rare Candies per game and it's not like you can't trade all your Pokemon away and then reset to get more. In the case of Zapdos, you don't even need to Rare Candy since level 50 forces all IVs to be distinct.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  25. Troller

    Troller From Marcoasd's DNA Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    804
    First, you should discuss of making a mod tier like violet and see how many are interested in playing your even worse rby. Why people would wake one day and make a thread like "clauses were never a thing so we ban them 20 years later for no real reason outside playing real cartridge". Ignoring that real cartridge had no percentages, calculators, replays, cancel button and so on. This is no cartridge, just accept it and go on, there is no point killing a long lasting tier because some of you prefers so.

    Also Orth stop calling other's post rubbish, you made bad posts too in the past.

    So yeah let me know if it's time to quit the tier and go play golf instead
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  26. Roostur

    Roostur Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    92
    Troller made a fair point. We can only take away freeze clause if we take away percents and cancel button. Calculators don't count because you CAN still use those while playing the cartridge game. Only one way to settle this. We play stadium instead.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  27. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    Lol, "killing" RBY. Freeze Clause was off for ages on Showdown before Smogon's fuckwit staff decided to implement it to appease the whining sheep. It was plenty playable.
    Eh, cancel button is part of interface and doesn't actually change the choices you can input.

    Percents vs. X/48 is a real mod and I'm against it, but I haven't seen any real objections to having X/48 either.
     
  28. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    8
    Then let’s just remove percent HP then. Replays don’t affect gameplay so I don’t see how that’s an issue.

    Basically what you’re saying is that because people implemented something incorrectly, we have to leave it that way because people don’t like change. Why can’t we just correct it, seeing as everyone who has actually played without freeze clause wants it removed? The only people who say it’ll ruin the game have never played without it.
     
  29. Troller

    Troller From Marcoasd's DNA Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    804
    I'm saying that there was a choice to try making even this game as competitive as possible. I do like changes when they make sense and are competitive (been asking complex bans for a while). Then again make your simulator and try gather a playerbase around your idea instead of forcing this on others stuff.

    I also am not alone, it's more that i'm probably the only one without enough self-respect to ignore the usual thread that pops out once in a while asking for changes that won't happen anyway.

    If you don't use replays that's your way of doing, stating that they don't matter at all is pretty stupid.

    I think i will just stop trying to argue, because no one ever changes their mind anyway, not even on stuff this obvious, so have fun trying to force your ideology on a simulator that until today was just doing fine this way i guess
     
  30. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    What? I'm not trying to be dismissive of DarkCyborg, I simply let my emotions get the better of me and I apologised in my very next post in the thread. I'm not acting as though all of my posts are gold standard either.

    This wouldn't kill RBY at all. Triggering a second freeze is still something that's extremely rare and so scrapping freeze clause wouldn't have that big of an impact on competitive play. As for the accepting that we're not playing cart, as it stands that stated goal of simulators is to recreate cart play as much as possible, with added conveniences that would be possible to replicate irl. If we abandon that, why bother half-assing some pretense that we still care about cart? Why not just accept that we're not playing cart and just make Violet the standard tier? I honestly think that would be an improvement over RBY if replicating cart isn't important.
     
  31. DarkCyborg

    DarkCyborg I represent the power of Ice! Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    15
    I know, that's what I said: "it works for event encounters". I'm saying that you actually spend more time to obtain pokémon that cannot have all possible IVs, because you have to hunt for it, and hunting takes more time (despite having about 90% less possibilities of what's a "perfect IV").

    Actually, I didn't take safari re-enter when I said that you need about 5 minutes to catch a Tauros, I just mentioned it as something that could make you spend more time. I agree that it can be optimized, but if you take flee rate into account, this timing is still high.

    Yes, that's the reason why I actually mentioned it in the end. In terms of competitive play, Zapdos is the best target for Master Ball (since Mewtwo is banned).

    Taking Master Ball into account, I'd say both methods are close. Anyway, here are the meta relevant 1U pokémon that you can obtain with full IVs, by event/buying/receiving as a gift (i.e: Lapras):

    - Snorlax (event encounter)
    - Zapdos (event encounter)
    - Lapras (gift)
    - Jolteon ("gift")
    - Jynx (in-game trade)
    - Rhydon (in-game trade)
    - Dragonite (evolve lvl 24 Dratini from Game Corner)
    - Alakazam (evolve lvl 15 Abra from Game Corner)
    - Articuno (event encounter)
    - Moltres (event encounter)

    (if I forgot someone, please tell me)

    Sure, for each one of these pokémon, there's 65536 possible combinations, and except for Jynx and Alakazam, ATK IV matters (unless you're considering that you'll never use Body Slam on Lapras), and therefore, there's only one perfect combination for it (15/15/15/15).

    If you need 1 minute to do everything that you said (which is not an exageration Imo), you'll need on average 65536 minutes = 45 days of uninterrupt work. If you are Superman and does not have any fadiga from repeating the same actions for hours, and assuming that you need 1 hour to eat and 8 hours to sleep (and that you don't do anything else on your life besides playing), you'll probably find your perfect Zapdos in 72 days. Excluding Jynx/Alakazam, you'll probably find all these pokémon in about 1 year and 7 months (notice that Snorlax/Moltres/Articuno are here, because you might trade away your perfect Zapdos and reset the game to get another Master Ball - a process that takes some time as well).

    That's the minimum time for someone that have no life besides pokémon and that will need to treat his tendinitis during the process. The real time will probably be much higher than this, I'd say about 3~4 years for a real person (being optimistic). And after that, you'll have 8 perfect pokémons, which is about 40% of all usable pokémon in RBY (assuming Rank D pokémon and above).

    It is a problem if HP IV is uncertain as well. And Rare Candy's strategy is valid, but it might not remove uncertainity (unless you reach a very high level). For in-game trades and event encounters, which you can obtain in a high level is fine, but for pokémon that you cannot obtain above level 30, IV won't always be obvious. Of course, you can make it also faster by discarding pokémon with poor IVs (i.e 0-1 ATK IV Tauros) - and that's something that would make the process faster.

    (also, if you have a DV calculator for RBY and can make it public would be welcome, as I only found GSC after a quick search)

    My point was to discuss if this is viable to do in practice, because if it isn't, then implementing it is just as "wrong" (through your point of view) as Freeze Clause. To be possible and to be viable are different things, and viability matters (in this case, if the intention is to copy the cartridge, I disagree with your point that "to be possible is enough").

    But I think that it's pointless, as the only reason to bring it to discussion is: abolishing Freeze Clause and Sleep Clause is not the only thing you have to consider if you want to make the simulator to reflect the cartridge.

    Percentage and Cancel Button are another relevant thing (you cannot cancel a move on cartridge, and that's how the real game works), as Troller appointed.

    Just to complement, on cartridge, you have to take note on foe's PP usage, because there's no indication of it while you are playing (so, basically, if you want to PP Stall Wrap, you must to count how many times Wrap was used). If you don't take note, you won't know if the enemy's Chansey still have Softboiled - and anyone can use your arguments to say that this is how simulators should be (as this is how you play on cartridge).

    Lastly: emulators that simulate online link exists, roms exists and PikaSAV, which allows you to build the team of your dreams in minutes, exists too. So, if you guys want so bad the cartridge mechanics, why are you guys not already playing?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  32. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    No, because 5 x 6500 < 1 * 65536. I think I could do it faster than 5, too.
    I meant that Zapdos is the best target even if you're just playing through cart normally (or if you're building both an OU and Ubers team). You can catch Mewtwo with Ultra Balls, and with a Sleep Powder Exeggutor it's actually hilariously easy.
    Looks about right, although Articuno and Moltres aren't great. Not entirely sure whether fishing can generate all combinations - it can certainly get a really big chunk of them.

    It has been over twenty years since RBY came out, though. It is humanly possible to have done it.

    For ATK and DEF the effect on HP IV is always greater than 1 HP at level 20+. You might not be able to distinguish 1011 from 1100, but you'll always be able to distinguish it from 1111.

    Between the HP IV and polling it twice I think you can nail it down with 1 RC. Special IV might be an exception; I might calculate that out.

    I don't, but the formula's on Bulbapedia; you could reverse-engineer your own easily enough.
    Reductio ad absurdum requires the thing you're reducing to to in fact be absurd. Displaying opponent's HP in pixels isn't absurd.
    Cancel button doesn't change what you know or what you can do, so it doesn't change the game.
    No, you could have a notepad and write it down. The information is there.
    Because emulators are less convenient.
     
  33. Lilyhollow

    Lilyhollow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    56
    Basically the community has shown that it is okay with modding the game, albeit to a very limited degree. The line between that and just modding it however we want is not a line, and it's in fact completely subjective as you've suggested, but basically the model has worked even though some people like me see it as being contradictory. It's only once in a while that someone actually sincerely suggests modding the game further than just sleep/freeze clause, so in that sense there's no problem (assuming the paraslam thing doesn't escalate).

    The purist part of my brain has an issue with Smogon purporting to be a site for competitive pokemon while actually modding the game in some ways, instead of just being upfront about that. There are plenty of contradictions like that in the community, like GSC Snorlax being cool but stuff that's laughably less powerful getting banned elsewhere for being 'uncompetitive.' Personally the easiest way for me to come to terms with the endless contradictions was to step away and literally make stuff of my own.
     
    Disaster Area likes this.
  34. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    Uh, actually most of the "community" simply has inertia in general. The "community" didn't institute Freeze Clause on Showdown, M Dragon unilaterally did and told anyone disagreeing to stuff it. Since then there's been no significant environment without it and people have bought the nonsense justifications out of lack of experience.

    There has never been any serious argument for Freeze Clause. It's obviously wrong and slightly less obviously unnecessary. The correct thing to do is to ram a Freeze-Clause-less meta down people's throats until they notice that it works, just like Wrap was.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
    Roostur likes this.
  35. Roostur

    Roostur Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    92
    Doesn't stadium get rid of everything we don't like about gen 1? Seriously, why don't we just play that? Wouldn't all these conversations be meaningless if we just played stadium?
     
  36. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Why does cancel button keep being brought up? It literally has no bearing on your choices in a match- no extra information, no influencing your choices or their outcomes. If you were to play on cart just take an extra 30s to think your move over so you make the right choice in the first place. Even with cancel it's not as though you're constantly being bailed out for making the wrong move- you still have to cancel before your opponent acts. When's the last time you've clicked a move because you knew that the cancel button was there if you decided to change your mind?

    Also Roostur Stadium's just different and I don't think it's necessarily better. I'd rather have Reflect Normals everywhere than functioning Sub tbh. It's also a bigger change than simply tweaking/removing a few clauses, given just how many mechanics are different
     
  37. Lilyhollow

    Lilyhollow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    56
    Cancel button is brought up because if it breaks mechanics, then mechanical purists have to accept that it has to be removed along with sleep clause (which most people would find totally ridiculous), or else admit that they're not really in favor of total mechanical purity.

    Cancel button doesn't break mechanics though. I think the argument goes: if you played with real carts, you could implement a 'cancel button' by having players relay their choices to a third party (either a program or a human judge), which would 'lock in' the choices only once both players have submitted their choice.

    Sleep clause cannot be implemented with carts in this way, at least as it currently exists. A sleep clause in which it is simply illegal to select a sleep-inducing move in the first place when your opponent has a sleeping pokemon is entirely possible to implement in real life though, as I understand. I don't know whether that has actually been tried on simulators, though, and if it hasn't then I'm not really sure why.

    edit: ok thinking about it, it's probably kind of annoying in gens with Natural Cure or something? Doesn't seem like a huge deal in gen 1 though....
     
  38. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    You do need to either relax sleep clause or DQ in the case that a player can literally do nothing other than use a sleep move (e.g. lastmon L8 Wigglytuff, lastmon PP-stalled out of all other moves; other possibilities show up in later gens). In most cases it's so hilariously unlikely in optimal play that it's irrelevant.
     
  39. lord of the crabs

    lord of the crabs Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2017
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    It influences my decisions in almost every match. In both ways, not only do I try to get information on how quickly the enemy chooses their move, I try to mind game my enemies with my own wait times. I'm actually really surprised that you say this, if you think about it again I think you'll change your mind.

    As an example if the enemy chose the same move three times in a row with 1 seconds time used, and after that is thinking about his move for more than 3 seconds, it's slightly more likely that he will do something else. In general doing the "obvious" play, like blasting the enemy with a super effective move, takes less time to think and doing the not-so-obvious play like exploding a high hp pokemon or predicting your opponents swap, takes more time to think.

    Everyone is playing against the same people over and over so when playing against good players, you have to take into account how much you see that particular playing trying to use or hide this. Worse players of course don't try to hide this at all and get easily bluffed.
     
  40. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    391
    What does wait time analysis have to do with the cancel button?

    EDIT: I mean, I suppose it lets you poll "has opponent moved" multiple times, at least until the answer is "Yes". On the other hand, you get an exact time anyway as long as you're first to move (and that's from cartridge).

    Note to self (and others): use a watch when playing KotC.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  41. lord of the crabs

    lord of the crabs Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2017
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Without cancel button, you can't alter your decisions based on the wait time. The only way to check how long your opponent is thinking their move is by selecting your move and then cancelling it.

    Edit: forgot when writing this about the 2nd way, the timer in Showdown battles which in certain intervals alerts how much time your enemy has left, it isn't nearly as useful but should be included in the same conversation for the exact same purpose
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  42. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Ok that's actually a fair point, I was forgetting about that use of the cancel button. That said, I'm still not sure it's a strong point, since I would say it's hardly by design that the cancel button can yield that info, it's more an unintended consequence. It's also likely that a similar dynamic would exist if playing on cart and using an external timer, which you would, since afaik even when the carts give you a timer it's a bit useless unless playing vgc. In that case, you would be able to simply wait and see how long your opponent takes if you really wanted that information, though I don't think it would be worth squandering your own time.
     

Share This Page