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.

All Gens Sleep Clause

Discussion in 'Analysis and Research' started by Disaster Area, Aug 11, 2015.

  1. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    Whilst the current form of sleep clause is suitable for ladder play, in tournament play where the players are guarantee'd to understand the rules before going into battle, there is no reason, if practicable, to not follow cartridge mechanics.

    Basic: In situations where there is a risk of sleeping another Pokémon, the simulator prompts the player about the risk, so they have to confirm their choice. If they sleep two Pokémon simultaneously, then they have broken Sleep Clause.

    Exceptions and Considerations:
    Come in 2 forms - competitively relevant [e.g. effect spore, relic song, magic bounce], and irrelevant [e.g. assist, metronome]. I'm too tired to continue but my list of things to write about when i return is (alternate win conditions, metronome, assist, encore, encore+shadow tag, magic bounce, magic coat, relic song, sleep talk+psycho shift)
     
  2. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    Well in tournaments the situation where this is most likely to occur is by accident (misclick or w/e) or where one player is spamming sleep moves against a sleeping mon that has already used up most of its counter, hoping to put it to sleep as soon as it wakes up.

    And what happens if they break sleep clause? Do they simply lose? In the former case this seems an excessive penalty, while in the latter case it also seems needlessly harsh when the player is not trying to abuse sleep. This is particularly exploitable for opponents, as a simple switch into a non-statused pokemon will instantly incur the penalty associated with breaking sleep clause. If losing the battle is the penalty, that's a play I'd try to make in a heartbeat (if I disregard sportsmanship).

    In my opinion it is as simple as preventing the selection of moves with inducing sleep as their primary effect (ie. Spore etc) once the clause is active. This is as opposed to allowing the selection but ignoring its effects, which is how the current sleep clause works. This does restrict play slightly (in the latter case I described above), but I think it's not too bad. Obviously there are some scenarios where this results in a player breaking the sleep clause (you've already touched on these) however I think they're so niche/situational that they don't warrant action. The only potential issue imo is prankster assist teams, which could potentially abuse it, tho idk if that'd actually be an issue
     
  3. Enigami

    Enigami Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    600
    ...Except:
    With the prompt idea, it'd be very difficult to 'accidentally' break sleep clause.
     
    Disaster Area likes this.
  4. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    ^ That was my idea w.r.t. the former scenario.

    Anyway I'll edit the OP with further info. The thing is though, prompting means it'll be a non-issue.
     
  5. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    ok that does away with accidentally breaking sleep clause, but you still run the risk of getting caught out if you're anticipating the wake-up turn. I don't see how prompting can make that a non-issue. Admittedly this scenario is a whole lot less relevant outside gen 1 because of the different sleep mechanics but it's still important.
     
  6. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    If you're anticipating the wake up turn, then the sim currently lets you do that risk-free, when if on cart it's plainly not risk free as if on cart you did it, if you broke sleep clause you would lose. Prompt is to prevent accidents and such.

    Take this scenario:

    You have an Exeggutor in play at 10% and a Paralyzed Chansey in the back at 10%. Your opponent has a Sleeping Starmie in play at 60% that has burnt through 4 sleep turns, and a Rhydon in the back at 20%.

    On cartridge:
    You can Sleep Powder predicting staying in and waking up, but if the Rhydon switches in, then you lose as you have broken Sleep Clause. Alternatively you can Psychic, aiming for the Rhydon if it switches in, but risking a loss if Starmie wakes up. Switching to Chansey is very risky, as Starmie could wake up, or Rhydon could come in, or Chansey could fully paralyze. However if Starmie wakes up and is put directly back to sleep, then Exeggutor can wear it down with Psychic, preventing Rhydon coming in, or go into Chansey and Softboiled, albeit due to the chance of full paralysis and Rhydon coming in, it is risky.

    On simulator as currently:
    You can Sleep Powder predicting staying in and waking up,but if Rhydon switches in to sleep powder, the mod kicks in and says no this didn't happen. In essence, Sleep Powder is a nearly riskless play, only punishing you if it misses. If Starmie wakes up and is put directly back to sleep, then the situation is the same as follows on cartridge.

    On simulator as proposed:
    Same as cartridge, however the simulator asks before you make your selection. In this situation, the simulator mechanics totally warp the situation and change the dynamics and could change who becomes victorious. The change is mechanically pure (the modification is not one that alters the mechanics, rather is a variation to the interface, such as the cancel button, or PO/PS/etc's battle UIs), rather than one where the simulator steps in to say uhh no this didn't happen.

    Ideally we want the game to be as mechanically close to the cartridge as reasonable - the modifications should mainly be interface-related - it's the same game at its core. This form of sleep clause is a little more complex than the usual - which is why I suggest it is used for tournament play only - but it makes the game more closely resembling the cartridge mechanics, less restrictive, but is still clear. The main reason to justify not having this implementation is due to complexity of implementation for the simulators.

    My next post I hope to deal with various oddities, by the generation they are introduced in and thus effect - later generations have more complex scenarios where implementation is less clear. If that can all be ironed out, then we can propose it to the simulators (i.e. via PO and Smogon forums), and if they find that it is practicable, then hopefully we can make the simulators that much closer to the essence of cartridge play.
     
  7. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    Exceptions and Considerations by generation of introduction.

    The motivation is to avoid the creation of alternative win-conditions inasmuch as is possible (e.g. if you stall a Pokémon of every move bar Sleep Powder, then you probably 'deserve' the victory anyway). You have 2 sorts of issues: Moves with a low chance of sleeping the opponent alongside having other possible effects (think Metronome and Relic Song) and scenarios where one player is trying to force the opponent to break sleep clause (e.g. encoring a sleep move).

    Generation 1

    Metronome -
    Rest - Same as current implementation (self-induced sleep is not counted as part of the clause).

    Generation 2

    Encore -
    Encore + Mean Look -

    Generation 3

    Assist - Calling moves via Assist will be treated no differently from how the individual move would be treated if it were part of the Pokemon's moveset.
    Effect Spore -
    Encore + Shadow Tag -
    Magic Coat -

    Generation 4


    Psycho Shift -
    Sleep Talk + Psycho Shift -

    Generation 5

    Magic Bounce -
    Relic Song -

    Generation 6

    -

    Not complete but feel free to leave suggestions.

    If I missed anything please mention it!
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2015
  8. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    Probability of getting a Sleep Move with Metronome by Generation:

    Formula: Number of Sleep Moves / Total Number of moves that can be Sleep Clause | Pokémon Perfect


    #|Probability
    1| 5/163
    2| 5/239
    3| 3/172
    4| 7/442
    5| 1/74
    6| 7/580 *

    With help from: Metronome (move) - Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia
    List of moves - Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia
    * Since bulbapedia doesn't list the moves which cannot be called by Metronome in Generation 6, I assumed that it was the same as in generation 5, which is probably false but still provides a good approxmiation.

    Generation 1 has the highest probability, which is only about 3%, and this figure not factor in accuracy. Bearing in mind this move is not used for any competitive purpose (even in generation 1 its odd look mediocre at the very best).
     
  9. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    I understand full well how this works, you're misunderstanding me.

    The rule you're proposing is absolutely abhorrent because you have a fairly innocuous play that incurs about as extreme a punishment as you can get if things don't go according to plan. This is a stupidly heavy-handed rule that is simply toxic. I see two outcomes arising from this- you either have situations arising where one player is trying to abuse the rules to get a cheap win, or you create a pseudo-ban on that particular play. In the former case, you're actively making the game worse by creating a situation where anyone can cheese the opposing player regardless of skill or the game situation. It's not actually beating their opponent so much as twisting the rules to their advantage.

    In the latter case you have a pseudo-ban on that play, meaning no-one does that anymore, which is functionally equivalent to what I'm proposing, disabling the use of spore/sleep powder/etc when the clause is active. If it's ruling that play out, why not simply ban it?

    The difference is that we're not instituting a rule that causes players to insta-lose if a condition is met. The only way a player should be able to lose is by actually playing the game out and losing/forfeiting (or d/c I guess). For an insta-lose condition to be implemented as a rule is beyond atrocious and bears terrible implications for how the game is played out.
     
  10. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    What if you had the absurd situation of the exeggutor only having sleep powder left or something akin to that. Point is situations can arise where preventing the player from using the move is troublesome. E.g. in ADV when you sleep a natural cure user, they can then freely switch without the next switch-in risking getting slept, unlike actually plays out. It would be more complex to adjust the simulator to make it fine to for example Spore when you have Breloom out versus a Sleeping Celebi in ADV OU (just as an example) and for the simulator to recognise that you wouldn't break sleep clause, thereby not forcing the move to be unselectable. With the simulator prompting, it's still a non-issue in this situation, even though the simulator may wrongly think that using a sleep move could trigger Sleep Clause here (e.g. its programming could be, prompt if one pokemon on the opponent's side has been put to sleep and is not yet awake, and a sleep move is being selected) whereas in your case the simulator would need to cover for exceptions. The issue in some generations of having a Pokemon that can but not does have Natural Cure as an ability switching out, and the opponent switching in another mon thus forcing the loss of the match is the closest resemblance to cartridge play. In cartridge play you could easily for example run an analytic starmie, have it switch into a breloom spore, and then switch out - the breloom user is unlikely to spore in actual gcartridge play in this situation for the risk of losing due to the cartridge-enforcable sleep clause, but due to the possibility of the starmie having Natural Cure one ought not to make selecting a Sleep move in this situation unselectable - and it cannot either be selectable or unselectable dependant upon what the starmie's ability is as that gives away information and again cannot be replicated on cartridge.

    Lets look at this scenario.

    Turn 1
    Player 1 sends out Breloom.
    Plater 2 sends out Tyranitar.


    Turn 2
    Player 2 sends out Starmie
    Player 1 uses Spore.


    Turn 3
    Player 2 sends out Gengar

    Scenario version 1: Starmie has Natural Cure
    Cartridge: Can select Spore, but there is risk that Starmie could be analytic.
    Current Simulator: Can select Spore, and there is no risk if Starmie is analytic.
    Ortheore Proposal: Cannot select Spore even though in this case Sleep Clause would not be broken (assuming that no artifical restrictions are put on Starmie, and no additional information about Starmie is given out).
    My Proposal: Can select Spore, but there is risk that Starmie could be analytic.

    Scenario Version 2: Starmie has Analytic
    Cartridge: Can select Spore, but the game is then lost due to breaking the rules of the game.
    Current Simulator: Can select Spore, and in this scenario cartridge mechanics are broken.
    Ortheore Proposal: Cannot select Spore, preventing Sleep Clause from being broken (assuming that no artifical restrictions are put on Starmie, and no additional information about Starmie is given out).
    My Proposal: Can select Spore, but the game is then lost due to breaking the rules of the game.

    In short, flaws with each proposal:
    Current Simulator: Breaks mechanics in Scenario version 2.
    Ortheore Proposal: More restrictive of play than My Proposal .
    My Proposal: Extra complexity.

    You say that it's big to just disquality someone for breaking Sleep Clause, but players imo shouldn't be restricted from making a choice, even though it could lose them the game. Whilst it would be really bad risk/reward arguably, players still ought to have that option.

    I think both of our proposals have different complexities of implementation but are both superior to the current system, as neither of our options go above and beyond cartridge mechanics. Your option says: No player you cannot choose to lose the game as such. My option says: You are free to make that choice, choose it at your own risk. I'll prompt you just to make sure you are sure of your decision.
     
  11. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    Your scenarios do a nice job of making my idea out to be inconsistent with cartridges js. I really don't see how you don't regard forcing an insta-loss as not being something to worry about. As I said, it invites toxic situations revolving around abusing rules, something that can only be aggravating to the player who loses out, while this freedom is illusory if players are punished so severely for it that they never perceive it as a viable option. There's literally no precedent for allowing actions that are game-breaking in this sense, while every other illegal thing simply isn't allowed. From a policy perspective I think it absolutely should never be the case that a game is invalidated when there is no intention to cheat, it is better to explicitly state that a given play is legal or not

    Natural Cure is an interesting point tho, one I'll need to think about. I agree that with my proposal an exception should be made for natural cure. For instances where it is uncertain whether or not it is being run I think it should be assumed that the pokemon does not have natural cure until proven otherwise, which would prevent sleep clause being broken. I'm not sure how that would be implemented tho. I mean, I have a general idea, but I haven't actually checked how it would work and I'm probably forgetting a few things that would make it troublesome.
     
  12. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    It's either a case of enforcing an insta-loss, restricting player choice, or leaving cartridge mechanics. Also, note that your scenario is also problematic in the rare scenario of someone being PP-stalled - what happens then?
     
  13. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    Necro wooooo

    Anyway, since this topic cropped up on smogon's PR and I don't have access there BUT I'm strongly opinionated on the matter I felt like rebooting this discussion.

    At this point there are three objections to the idea of greying out sleep moves when sleep clause is active afaik.
    • Sleep induced via methods that don't involve deliberately inflicting sleep, such as Effect Spore, Relic Song and Psycho Shift would fall outside the sleep clause
    • Instances where player choice is restricted, such as via Encore, Choice items or PP stall seem risky I guess?
    • Preempting the deactivation of sleep clause, such as via the target waking or via Natural Cure doesn't fit with this
    The first point I think is simple to address- if a move's primary effect is to induce sleep in the opponent, it is covered by sleep clause- this means Sing, Spore, Sleep Powder and so on. Moves and abilities that do not have this as their primary effect should not be covered. Such elements are so unreliable at spreading sleep that they should not be considered serious issues for shifting sleep clause to be greyed out. If they happen to sleep and additional pokemon, that's unfortunate, but such cases will be extremely limited. As GL Volkner put it, they do things other than sleep the opponent, which I think is a neat indicator.

    The second point I think is also straightforward. Can the player switch or select any other move? If so, they must do that rather than put a second pokemon to sleep. If not, then a) aside from Tricking a Choice item in a last mon situation, this scenario is less realistic than mermaids existing and so should not matter for anything, and b) if you can only use sleep inducing moves, it's fair to say you've lost, and for the opponent it doesn't really matter if they keep getting put to sleep.

    The final point, where players are unable to preempt the deactivation of sleep clause, is the only one that isn't easily handled. Unfortunately, the only legitimate solution as I see it is to simply rule that that is not a legal play. That's unfortunate, but I don't think it's enough of a deal to seriously worry about. One interesting thing to note is that there are cases where you should be able to preempt the deactivation of sleep clause even with such a rule in place- these are scenarios where it is literally impossible to violate sleep clause- off the top of my head, this includes last mon scenarios, if the entire remaining enemy team has some other status, or if SleepTrap is a thing that's legal. That covers preempting a wake, while for Natural Cure it's pretty much just obligate Natural Cure users that are notable here- afaik this accounts for Celebi and Shaymin and Swablu and Altaria in some generations.

    Ideally, the restriction on predicting wakes/NCure should capture all of these nuances. However, even a simpler measure that is a little too broad is worthwhile imo- after all these are still relatively minor scenarios, in that they're a small subset of scenarios in which this restriction could impact things, and furthermore, preempting wakes/NCure is itself not a huge deal imo... mostly. Predicting wakes is a niche play that is no great loss imo. Natural Cure is a bit trickier in that this restriction could be used to limit sleep further. Frankly, not only do I think such a change is worth it, I don't even think it's inherently bad, it's just different from what we're used to
    edit: forgot that revealed NCure users are functionally the same as obligate ones, so there's another wrinkle since you they would be treated as such only after the first switch out

    Also as a sidenote, I support the testing of sleep clause in certain generations, and want to add Stadium to the list as well, since sleep is sooooooo bad in stadium. Also as much as I loathe Stadium's meta, I still think Stadium deserves to be played and tbh I think it really should be seen as distinct from rby- although not its own generation, it should function like one
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  14. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    374
    Rest/Sleep Talk/Psycho Shift seems like it could get pretty obnoxious. Also, what about Sleep Talk + sleep move?
     
  15. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    I mean, I guess they could be annoying, but at the same time I'm not sure they're worth worrying about. I don't think such sets are viable tbh, as they chew up most of your moveslots, meaning that those sets don't really do much beyond abusing that kind of cheese. This not only means they're just generally bad, but they would also have difficulty getting around whatever's absorbing the sleep due to limited attacking options- they'll probably depend on teammates to capitalise, which creates more opportunities for their cheese to overcome with skillful play. And also these sets are incredibly unreliable lol. I think you would have to wait and see if this actually occurs in practice before addressing it.
     
  16. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    374
    I just feel like your suggestion is a weird kludge for relatively-little reason that nonetheless misses stuff. I don't think the edge cases are significantly worse than the much simpler "if you sleep two Pokemon, you lose".

    Congratulations on your 2000th post, by the way.
     
  17. Dre89

    Dre89 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    7
    In RBY you should be prompted before being able to use sleep, rather than not being able to use it at all. Prompting alleviates misclick-DQ issues, but also stays true to cartridge mechanics but restricting you from using a move. People should be able to use moves when they can use them in cartridge. There could be hypothetical stall situations where the player may want to gamble using a sleep move on a statused pokemon to conserve PP for their attacks. I think that's fine, because the player understands the risk of the DQ and makes the decision regardless.

    In reality, by having a mechanical sleep clause we've turned the game into a mod to prevent issues that basically never happen in current games. I'd rather remove the clause and get it closer to true RBY than worry about something tat probably happens in less than 1% of games.
     
  18. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    Haha thanks I didn't even realise I'd hit that milestone. Anyway, I don't really see what my thing misses, as I believe all edge cases that test this can be reasonably dismissed. And I'm against the "if you sleep two Pokemon, you lose", because that creates a win condition that should not exist. Sure, it's probably not something high level players are going to fall for, but it's nonetheless a bullshit way to win since there's absolutely no skill involved, is usually due to a simple mistake, and in an extreme case you can get people running crap like Serene Grace Blissey to bait people into triggering sleep clause. Admittedly, this last point is theory, since there's been no possibility of testing it, and it definitely wouldn't make its way past lower ladder even if it did occur
    The bolded bit is why I don't really lend that argument weight. Sing Chansey is the only pokemon that has a remote chance of being in this scenario, as all other sleep users run Rest (PP stall is practically irrelevant) or don't have recovery and therefore can't sustain a PP stall war. Even then, Sing Chansey is quite rare, and the scenarios in which it comes to PP stall are even more so. And also I think the risk-reward in using sleep moves in a PP stall scenario when there's the risk of a DQ is insanely skewed. You risk literally everything and gain almost nothing by doing so.

    Anyway, as I mentioned to M9M, I think deciding games by DQing players is something that should be avoided at all costs, as I just don't think it's healthy for the game. It's a bullshit way to win that does not have a basis in skill, and if anything is going to trip players up, especially newbies. Personally, I don't mind arbitrarily restricting move choices because as I said, having this win condition can just easily undermine competitive integrity.

    That said, even a prompt/DQ system is better than violating cart mechanics imo
     
  19. asbdsp

    asbdsp Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    13
    I love DA's idea. Auto-loss is not too harsh of a penalty, if you are prompted about the risk.

    When we're trying to play the game at the highest possible level, as indicated by the forum's name, we ought to be doing our best to push the idea of playing the actual game accurate to cartridge, albeit simulated and with the most competitive rule set. A sleep clause that could actually function like it would in a real cartridge setting is fundamental to this.

    Edit: I would support the same thing for freeze clause in gen 2. Prompt a person who wants to use ice beam when he's already frozen a mon, instead of breaking cartridge mechs.

    Edit2: I also dislike freeze clause in gen 2, and think we would have never put it into place if we had to conform to cartridge mechs (and we would have been better people for it :p ).
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
    Disaster Area likes this.
  20. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    374
    I'm saying that the edge cases for "if you sleep two Pokemon, you lose" are about as likely as the edge cases for your idea.

    I'm fine with a prompt, btw - that's not actually part of the Sleep Clause rule so much as a user aid (like the battle log).
    Uh, PP doesn't have freeze clause in gen 2. It does have freeze clause in gen 1, which is wrong and should be removed (except in Stadium, where it is a legal option).
     
  21. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    Wait what? For all that it's unlikely to occur, DQing people for freezing multiple pokemon is incredibly unfair, since it's something they have basically no control over and there's a very high probability that the second freeze was an accident. It would also massively restrict competitive play. I don't think there's any reasonable way we can prevent multiple freezes without breaking cart mechanics, so I think that potential scenario is just something we would have to put up with
     
  22. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    2,338
    PP uses smogon's OU tiers at this point and they were dumb enough to reinclude freeze clause in GSC unfortunately
     
    asbdsp likes this.
  23. asbdsp

    asbdsp Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yes. And if Smogon had insisted on cartridge mechs for clauses in the first place freeze clause would never have been put into place. Occam's razor, two birds with a stone, whatever you want to call it. I think the current situation with current freeze clause mechs in place is the worse of two evils as it's an absolute abomination of a game mod. Freeze clause activates all the fricking time, but it is of course essentially random and out of the player's control. We should have seen this coming and never put it into place.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
  24. hclat

    hclat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2017
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    346
    I want to use my mewtwo because it was my favorite pokemon in the cartridge games and its bullshit that pokemon showdown isn't true to the cartridges. I'm sick and tired of people pushing for "clauses" on the basis of some superficial "competitive" "balance"
     
  25. asbdsp

    asbdsp Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    13
    Irrelevant as that's a ruleset change and not a game mod. The difference is that we can play the no mewtwo meta using the physical cartridge. It is literally impossible to play sleep or freeze clause meta, as currently implemented on simulators, on a cartridge.
     

Share This Page