Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 19, 2013 10:04:06 GMT -8
Pokemon Showdown recently implemented RBY, and at the moment it's not clear whether FC will be implemented or not. This thread is basically to discuss whether FC should exist, and in what manner it should exist.
Now before everyone here just goes to their bias and pre-conceived notions, let me point out a few things:
Firstly, RBY was originally played without FC. FC was a later addition.
FC originates from official Nintendo RBY tourneys. However, these were cartridge tourneys so there was no FC mechanic, I presume you were simply DQ'd if you froze a second pokemon. Secondly, these tournaments, were 3v3, where a second freeze is much more game-breaking.
The only games where Nintendo implemented FC as a mechanic were the Stadium games, whose tourneys were 3v3.
I think if Showdown should have an FC clause at all, it should not be mechanical, you should simply be DQ'd for landing a second freeze. As soon as you implement illegitimate mechanics it's no longer real RBY, and you might as well fix things like focus energy and counter. If you're actively trying to freeze multiple pokemon, you're leaving many pokemon unstatused, which is a gamble in itself and I doubt is a good strategy to have.
I think it's safe for me to say that most of us, if any, have actually played extensively in a meta where there was no FC. So if you object to not having a FC or it not being mechanical, please give more reasoning than 'it breaks the game' or 'it degenerates into luck'.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Mar 19, 2013 13:04:51 GMT -8
lol, even one freeze usually outright wins a 6v6 unless there's a huge skill gap
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Mar 19, 2013 13:31:11 GMT -8
PAs soon as you implement illegitimate mechanics it's no longer real RBY And this is not a problem to me. We can "fix" specific things and leave others untouched if we feel like it, and we feel like it. It does not make my experience worse to use Freeze Clause, Sleep Clause or ban Wrap, so I don't mind it. (PS. Showing your foe's HP in percentages is not consistent with the game, it should be done in 1/48ths instead if you want to be true to the game. You cannot argue that this does not change how you play the game, because it certainly does.) (Double PS. Source?)
|
|
|
Post by t3h Icy on Mar 19, 2013 17:17:49 GMT -8
Now before everyone here just goes to their bias and pre-conceived notions, let me point out a few things: rofl Firstly, RBY was originally played without FC. FC was a later addition. It was only unavailable on the carts. Stadium always had it and had no way to turn it off. FC originates from official Nintendo RBY tourneys. However, these were cartridge tourneys so there was no FC mechanic, I presume you were simply DQ'd if you froze a second pokemon. So you basically risk the match for using Ice moves after Freezing something? I don't think so bud. I think if Showdown should have an FC clause at all, it should not be mechanical, you should simply be DQ'd for landing a second freeze. As soon as you implement illegitimate mechanics it's no longer real RBY, and you might as well fix things like focus energy and counter. And the Paralysis while Digging/Flying glitch, the bug with Freezing a Hyper Beaming Pokemon, Hazing a Sleeping Pokemon, and others, right? I think it's safe for me to say that most of us, if any, have actually played extensively in a meta where there was no FC. So if you object to not having a FC or it not being mechanical, please give more reasoning than 'it breaks the game' or 'it degenerates into luck'. The burden's on your side.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 19, 2013 17:18:44 GMT -8
Isa- But if you want to play with 'corrected' mechanics then that's what mods are for. Also 'we' is a very ambiguous term. The way I see it, if I somehow influence the development of an RBY simulator, I wouldn't alter the mechanics or ban anything based on what makes the game more fun for me. I think the most objective thing to do is to keep all the mechanics legitimate, and only ban things that are completely anti-competitive (OHKOs, evasion). If people want to play the game differently, then they can, but they shouldn't 'ruin' it for everyone else.
Also, I didn't understand what you wanted to be sourced.
Icy- I don't think any mechanics should be fixed, it's not RBY then. FC was implemented in Stadium but 1. we don't play Stadium and 2. Stadium is 3v3. 3v3 is the only time Nintendo used FC. RBY was originally played without it.
It doesn't matter what you think about rising ice moves on unstatused non-ice pokemon, as a general rule the mechanics shouldn't be altered when they don't need to. I risk exploding on a rock everytime I use explosion, maybe we should make a clause where you don't explode if they switch to a rock or ghost too?
People who played RBY when there no FC think the game was competitive without it. The game is incredibly luck-based as it is. If you think lack of FC is anti-competitive, the burden is on you because you're the one who is suggesting to alter the mechanics of the game.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 19, 2013 17:46:30 GMT -8
No one wants to play "pure RBY." For over a decade the competitive pokemon community has been playing "true RBY" which is pure-lite. And I don't think we should overturn that. It would require completely reinventing competitive first gen, which is not something the player pool will allow. In fact, altering the mechanics from the other major clients (PO, NBS, etc) would just seal the doom of this new client. No one will play RBY over there. It will be a completely divergent game.
So no, I would actively resist efforts to undo competitive RBY progress. And as I've argued before, it's pretty much impossible to have competitive "pure RBY." The programming + the rules would be wacky. And again, no one would play it. It was changed for a reason. And it was changed when hundreds (thousands?) of people played it every day, all day. No one (here or elsewhere) wants you to come in and tamper.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 19, 2013 17:54:36 GMT -8
WW- What do you mean no one would play it? That was how it was originally played.
'Real' RBY doesn't mean there are no rules whatsoever. It simply means all the mechanics are legitimate. You don't need to alter the mechanics to have a species clause, a sleep clause, an evasion clause, and OHKO clause and to some extent a freeze clause.
The game is luck-based as it is. We shouldn't be altering mechanics that don't need to be altered, that's what mods are for. There are a million scenarios in RBY where something worse than a second freeze occurs that actually has a higher probability of occurring than that second freeze, but we don't ban all of those.
I'm not so much against a freeze clause as I am against a mechanical one. There's no need to alter the mechanics of the game for something that doesn't completely ruin it, and can be implemented without it those alterations anyway.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 19, 2013 18:14:07 GMT -8
Why isn't it played that way anymore, wise guy?
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 19, 2013 18:22:34 GMT -8
Well according to Hipmonlee, FC was implemented to be more like GSC. I'm not sure exactly why it was eventually implemented, you could probably ask the people around at the time.
|
|
|
Post by David the Chansey on Mar 19, 2013 19:37:46 GMT -8
Why do you want it as close to the original cartridge mechanics as possible? For authenticity. Why do you want authenticity? For satisfaction. Is playing without freeze clause satisfying? If no, contradiction. If yes, reread post.
This also applies to every other clause you already play by, and some in-game glitches, and things like trapping moves.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 19, 2013 19:56:59 GMT -8
Yes, d'Avid, that's what I've discussed with him on PO in the past. His ideal still involves a level of subjectivity.
What we have now didn't come about without reason. There is no need for someone to "rescue" or "restore" RBY in that way.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 19, 2013 20:45:02 GMT -8
No, other clauses aren't mechanical alterations. They are achievable on the cartridge games.
It doesn't matter what I personally prefer. I'm not saying to keep genuine mechanics because I personally prefer that, because no matter what you do people will be unhappy. What I'm saying is that ideally a simulator should be as neutral as possible, so it shouldn't have any mechanical alterations. If people want to play with alterations, they can play with clauses or mods if they like.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 20, 2013 1:52:24 GMT -8
I hold that an additional issue with Freeze Clause is that because Ice Beam and Blizzard, the two strongest Ice-type moves, both have freeze as a secondary effect, Freeze Clause can prevent deliberate freezes due to accidental freezes earlier.
(e.g. I bring out Starmie to kill Exeggutor, and am using Blizzard purely for its damage, but I accidentally freeze it - this then makes it impossible for me to freeze an opposing Chansey in an endgame Chansey vs. Chansey because he's got a frozen Egg at 1% health stored away. Same issue happens with Rhydon/Golem on occasion.)
This facet of Freeze Clause actually introduces luck rather than removes it, because freeze attempts are not separable from what are in any case two really good moves in their own right.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 20, 2013 3:09:09 GMT -8
Yeah stuff like that has happened to me before, where me freezing something has then made another pokemon a lot more of a threat. It can hurt you just as much as it can help you.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Mar 20, 2013 11:20:40 GMT -8
Isa- But if you want to play with 'corrected' mechanics then that's what mods are for. Also 'we' is a very ambiguous term. The way I see it, if I somehow influence the development of an RBY simulator, I wouldn't alter the mechanics or ban anything based on what makes the game more fun for me. I think the most objective thing to do is to keep all the mechanics legitimate, and only ban things that are completely anti-competitive (OHKOs, evasion). If people want to play the game differently, then they can, but they shouldn't 'ruin' it for everyone else. Also, I didn't understand what you wanted to be sourced. Before I respond to this, I want to hear your take on the HP bar consisting of 48 parts that should replace the 100% bar if you're true to the cartridge. The source part was more like where did you find out that Showdown had RBY mechs, because I cannot see them when I load it.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Mar 20, 2013 11:51:09 GMT -8
Yeah it's honestly not that big a deal so I don't really care too much, although Freeze Clause does make things more competitive so I'm cool with it.
Afaik Freeze Clause wasn't added to make RBY "more like GSC" but was done back in '99 or so for an official Nintendo-sponsored tournament (along with species clause) because a team of 6 Chanseys had mucked things up. I'm probably wrong on a couple of counts there, and I can't be arsed to look up the exact situation, but it went something like that.
Freeze clause in online Pokemon thereafter was based partially on that precedent and partially on that of Stadium (the official game DEDICATED to strategic battling) having these clauses built-in. People just preferred/were more used to the buggy cartridge mechanics relative to Stadium's mechanics, but also liked the idea of the clauses making things more competitive, so they merged them and now we have the RBY we love to play today.
Honestly, "purity" of the game is "ruined" in all generations, and usually for good reason. No acid rain in DPP to make things stupid, and of course Sleep Clause is everywhere always to prevent cheesing it with Breloom Spores even though you can't really enforce it in the games proper. Oh, and as Isa is pointing out, the whole "pixels" thing on PS! is ridiculous, but technically more accurate.
Honestly, total purity isn't what I'm really after in online Pokemon, because Pokemon was never designed to be a balanced, super-competitive game. That's where people come in that want to try to play competitively and make tweaks to the rules so that they can do just that. As long as these rule tweaks have some precedent, make things more competitive and leave the vast majority of the game alone, I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 20, 2013 12:03:01 GMT -8
Honestly, total purity isn't what I'm really after in online Pokemon, because Pokemon was never designed to be a balanced, super-competitive game. That's where people come in that want to try to play competitively and make tweaks to the rules so that they can do just that. As long as these rule tweaks have some precedent, make things more competitive and leave the vast majority of the game alone, I'm fine with it. I agree with everything in the above quote.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 20, 2013 14:53:10 GMT -8
Yeah stuff like that has happened to me before, where me freezing something has then made another pokemon a lot more of a threat. It can hurt you just as much as it can help you. Are you supporting my point or opposing it?
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 20, 2013 15:47:18 GMT -8
Isa- I don't fully understand the differences in the HP display, but I basically think you should only get what is displayed in the game. However, I'm not against something like a PP counter (which would help for stalling dragonite) because you already have access to that information simply by counting. That would be the equivalent of using a counting device whilst you're playing a cartridge battle. Like how in the games you can see your opponent's HP bar, I don't mind that you can still see the bar of that pokemon when it switches out, because you already had access to that information, and it would be the equivalent of writing it down or something like that.
To play RBY on PS, you have to build your team in the BW teambuilder. There's no ladder yet, so you have to challenge someone with RBY mechanics (there's an option for it). They also haven't implemented the ability to make clauses, so at the moment everything is legal. This is why I started this thread, to see whether people think there should be a FC or not, because some people on Smogon like Hipmonlee who were around before it was implemented seem to think we don't need one.
Magic- I agree with you. I didn't realise what you were arguing at the start lol.
Jorgen- My issue that this combination of cartridge mechanics plus Stadium-mechanic clauses never existed in any game, so it's an illegitimate meta. I don't have an issue with clauses persay, but rather implementing mechanics for them. If you're going to have clauses, it should just be a DQ for a second sleep or freeze, which was how the game was originally played.
As I've said before, if you start tampering with mechanics, where do you stop? Why not fix focus energy or counter, or make super fang and seismic toss no longer hit ghosts, or make ghost type attacks be able to hit psychic types etc.The way I see it, once you alter the mechanics, it's not real RBY anymore and you might as well change as much as you like.
People keep saying that they prefer the clauses, but I don't think that really matters. There are plenty of people who don't like them either, someone will always be unhappy. I just think that the default option should be to keep the game unaltered, then people can play with clauses if they really want.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Mar 20, 2013 17:05:55 GMT -8
btw, our current sleep clause is also a mechanical change: on the 7th turn of sleep with a slower sleep user, there's less risk in re-using sleep powder with mechanical sleep clause, but with DQ sleep clause they could try switching out to DQ you.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 21, 2013 16:58:10 GMT -8
Well yeah, anytime you use sleep after you've slept something the game lets you do it and consumes PP, it'll just clause the sleep if it lands. In cartridge or original RBY you'd get DQ'd.
|
|