Freeze Clause

[magic9mushroom]

As most of you already know, I started a thread in Smogon questioning Freeze Clause since they recently implemented it in Showdown.

I don't think it's a good rule; it can't be done in-cart because it's mechanical (whereas Sleep Clause can) and it's not really necessary because multifreezes are very rare and avoidable by bringing an Ice-type. In a Stadium tier I have no issue with it.

The Smogon mods decided to lock the thread and refuse to even consider the playerbase's opinion (which even I don't know, because the thread was still getting started), and basically laughed at me claiming the support of their IRC community (most of which doesn't even play RBY, let alone to the level some of us do) and the entire staff (of which like one actually knows RBY, and he's not active in it). This has resulted in some drama. I tried to avoid the drama but the mods apparently think they are Arceus and that they have the right to do this.

jorgen suggested discussing the actual Freeze Clause argument here. So here you go.

[jorgen]

Before anyone dismisses Freeze Clause as simply a pedantic point, I had this game earlier today that gave me a strategic resource that I arguably shouldn't have had available after an early Chansey Freeze. Granted, it offset some bad luck, but only in combination with rather mediocre play by my opponent. I feel Freeze Clause does not solve a bad enough problem to a satisfactory degree to warrant the repugnance of the mechanics change. (And it IS repugnant, as evidenced by the fact that Freeze Clause isn't standard in any gen other than RBY, although I'll grant that Stadium and Nintendo World Championships making Freeze Clause standard somewhat mitigates the repugnance of Freeze Clause with respect to any old arbitrary clause).

[Lutra]

An Ice-type in a team helps, but then there's boltbeam, which means you can't in practice absorb every potential freeze.

Also 3 freezes in a row is about a 1/4 chance of a 255, nevermind just freezing 3 times in a game. I definitely wouldn't say 2 freezes is rare anyway.

Though 1 freeze tends to cripple me against good players, I don't necessarily agree with removing Freeze clause. Freeze clause is a strategic part of the RBY Ubers tier(not the anything goes version), since you know if you lose your chansey to freeze, your own Mewtwo can revenge freeze back, it's not just wasted. I actually enjoy controlling all the situations that happen in RBY ubers with the Slowbro, Chansey, Mew, Mewtwo core with backups such as Exeggutor and Snorlax. Lack of freeze clause would make that chaotic.

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 29, 2014 16:20:56 GMT -8 Lutra said:

An Ice-type in a team helps, but then there's boltbeam, which means you can't in practice absorb every potential freeze.

Also 3 freezes in a row is about a 1/4 chance of a 255, nevermind just freezing 3 times in a game. I definitely wouldn't say 2 freezes is rare anyway.

Though 1 freeze tends to cripple me against good players, I don't necessarily agree with removing Freeze clause. Freeze clause is a strategic part of the RBY Ubers tier(not the anything goes version), since you know if you lose your chansey to freeze, your own Mewtwo can revenge freeze back, it's not just wasted. I actually enjoy controlling all the situations that happen in RBY ubers with the Slowbro, Chansey, Mew, Mewtwo core with backups such as Exeggutor and Snorlax. Lack of freeze clause would make that chaotic.

Well, for the longest time RBY Ubers on PO was actually still in the Stadium mechanics. Nothing wrong with going back to that.

I mean, like I said, I have zero issue with Freeze Clause in Stadium (since Freeze Clause exists in Stadium). And IIRC you quite like Stadium anyway.

[Raish]

I'm a fan of Freeze Clause because the power of the Freeze effect almost entirely removing a Pokemon from use regardless of HP justifies it not being able to affect more than 1 Pokemon at a time on the opposing team. It's the same reasoning for enforcement of Sleep Clause. While Freeze is harder to achieve than Sleep, the effect is more powerful because the threat of a Sleeping Pokemon waking up can at least be used to apply pressure. There is no unstatused Pokemon besides the freeze-vulnerable Chansey which can withstand the pressure from Pokemon with Ice type moves for long enough to stall Ice PP in the way that Psychics get stalled because most Ice users have access to BoltBeam or ways of potentially dealing even more damage.

I believe that clausing should follow the principle that statuses which are generally equivalent to death to any afflicted Pokemon should be limited to one per team.

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 29, 2014 17:17:09 GMT -8 Raish said:

I'm a fan of Freeze Clause because the power of the Freeze effect almost entirely removing a Pokemon from use regardless of HP justifies it not being able to affect more than 1 Pokemon at a time on the opposing team. It's the same reasoning for enforcement of Sleep Clause. While Freeze is harder to achieve than Sleep, the effect is more powerful because the threat of a Sleeping Pokemon waking up can at least be used to apply pressure. There is no unstatused Pokemon besides the freeze-vulnerable Chansey which can withstand the pressure from Pokemon with Ice type moves for long enough to stall Ice PP in the way that Psychics get stalled because most Ice users have access to BoltBeam or ways of potentially dealing even more damage.

I believe that clausing should follow the principle that statuses which are generally equivalent to death to any afflicted Pokemon should be limited to one per team.

The key difference is that Freeze Clause cannot be implemented while remaining faithful to cartridge mechanics. Freeze Clause is a mechanical perversion that jumps in and says "that side effect didn't happen". Sleep Clause can be implemented because all the moves that cause it are status moves with no other effect and you can just forbid their use when you have slept something. You can't do the same for Ice-type moves - not easily, at least - since they don't deal damage.

Lapras can stand up to most attacks quite well while being freeze-immune, and Jynx isn't weak to Thunderbolt. Also, any paralysed Pokemon is freeze-immune, and an opponent who doesn't throw out paralysis at all is almost always going to lose anyway. And there's also the issue that Freeze Clause creates luck as well as removes it because an accidental freeze of something you were just trying to kill with Ice damage (Dragonite's the obvious one, but also Rhydon and Egg) then prevents you from freezing something that you otherwise could essentially guarantee a freeze on (e.g. if you have a paralysed Chansey vs. unparalysed Chansey). Because Ice moves are key damaging moves as well as threatening freeze, you can't avoid that with skill.

And I mean yes, you can theoretically get lucked and get frozen three times and die horribly. But an opposing Tauros can theoretically (and with similar frequency) get three Hyper Beam crits and luck you by outright killing three Pokemon. Or you could 255-miss Explosion. And freezes do have to occur pretty rapidly to decide games by luck (outside of Chansey freeze wars, which people go into knowingly) since if it takes 50 turns to land their second freeze then either they've been Thunder Waving (and you can then absorb almost all the Ice Beams and Blizzards safely with Chansey i.e. you've been playing badly to allow the second freeze to happen) or they haven't (and you should have gotten opportunistic KOs by this point because they're paralysed and you're not; as such, the second freeze won't be decisive since it's still a fairly even number of availables on both sides). It's nowhere near an important/common enough scenario to justify perverting the rules of the standard game.

[Golden Gyarados]

Y'all already know my stance.  Really, I just personally don't find it that abhorrent that clauses aren't mechanical in the cartridge but simulators have 'em.  I suppose I can understand how some people do find it abhorrent, but to me, it's so easy to just see the simulators as a separate MEDIUM from the cartridges, that by necessity come with some changes.  That's what I mean when I talked about separating "tournament rules" into its own little category, and it's because of this view that I've never been bothered by the fact that there are differences with regard to clauses.  I know it's a personal stance and I'm not going to convert anyone with that as an "argument," but that's just my two cents.

Jorgen noted that when Nintendo held tournaments, they put in Freeze Clause, and that's a big reason it doesn't bother me.  I don't think anyone at Game Freak/Nintendo ever expected people to hold Pokemon battle tournaments (I could be wrong, but knowing the history of the Link Cable/Game Boy in general, trading and battling was such a novel thing I can't imagine they realized the gold mine they had in front of them).  When they realized tournaments were popular, they said, "Cool, let's hold tournaments, but here are some ground rules (clauses)."  They would never implement clauses in the game itself (ie, versus the Elite Four or whatever), because at its core cartridge play is not tournament play.  But I always just think of a simulator as like, a tournament/competitive-level portal.  And as a barrier of entry to that portal, I accept some clauses.  Like, if I could plug my Blue cart right into my laptop and load up PO/PS, I know I can battle using the cartridge's battle mechanics, but PO/PS says, "We've got some rules here before you start.  We're gonna intervene quick and pull up these sleep and freeze clauses.  Okay cool, now you're free to battle, have fun," and I'm cool with that.  Simulators have better interfaces, cancel buttons, the ability to play online, and some clauses.  I take it as a whole bundle that allows to me take my cartridge and play competitively with all y'all, and I'm cool with all of it.

And to be clear (because some people seemed to really misunderstand me on Smogon - I might have explained myself poorly [philosophical-style debates like this always make more sense in my head than they do when I try to spit it out in words]), this does not mean that I think we should do everything Stadium did, nor does it mean I think we should try to predict the developers' intent and reinterpret the game to our whims willy-nilly.  I'm just saying that personally, I see a lot of reasons to view clauses as OUTSIDE the game mechanics in a way, as sort of a byproduct of the medium through which we play the game, right.  If you play through the medium of grabbing some Game Boys and a Link Cable, you don't get clauses.  If you play through the medium of Stadium, or an official tournament, you get clauses.  Simulators are a MEDIUM for playing the games, and so even if they replicate every single line of code precisely, by virtue of playing the game through a different medium, there are some things that differ - that HAVE to differ.  You play with a mouse.  You have way better resolution.  A different interface.  A completely new community at your fingertips.  A completely different level of play, with top-tier players and edge-of-your-seat tournaments.  And I accept that through this medium, there are some clauses.  And I think that's fine.

[magic9mushroom]

Okay, GG, here's my main points of disagreement.

1) Why are freezes uncompetitive enough of a risk to be worth banning, when 255-missing Explosion or critting STAB Hyper Beam isn't?

2) I do not believe any tournaments over link cable had Freeze Clause. Because how would that even work?

3) There's a difference between "rules of playing here" and "different mechanics". I'll certainly agree with that. Restrictions on player choices ("rules of playing here") are something I can handle (obviously I don't think everything ever suggested to be banned should be banned, but I can get behind banning Mew/Mewtwo/Double Team/Minimise/Dig/Fly and maybe a few more). But Freeze Clause isn't such a restriction. It doesn't restrict player choices at all; they can still spam Ice Beam and Blizzard all they like, BUT then the results of that choice are different because the simulator essentially jumps in and says "let's pretend that freeze didn't happen". This is a mechanical change, essentially the same sort of change as "remove crits" or "remove 255 misses". Sleep Clause can be done as a restriction on player choice ("if you have slept something, you may not choose the moves Spore, Sleep Powder, Lovely Kiss, Hypnosis or Sing"), but Freeze Clause can't without completely upending the meta (the only way to do it would be "if you have frozen something, you may not choose the moves Blizzard, Ice Beam or Ice Punch", and while this would be faithful I still object to it on the grounds of massive overkill).



Lutra: Freeze Clause is, indeed, rarely actually activated. I just checked the first 200 PO RBY OU games I played with Freeze Clause on, and it only activated (ie, a multifreeze was prevented) in two of them. I could do a thousand if you really want to be sure.

[Golden Gyarados]

Hmm so this is what I'm noticing about this debate as a whole: there are two completely different sides for people to come from in this debate, and what side you come from completely changes what arguments need to be put forth ... and to a degree, I don't think a lot of people are really having the "same" argument.  Here's what I mean:

The anti-freeze clause crowd is coming from a position of "Mechanics changes are bad. Freeze is not prevalent enough/uncounterable enough to justify doing something as perverse as changing mechanics."  To this group, the EXISTENCE of the clause needs to be justified.  But the pro-freeze clause crowd is coming from a position of, "Mechanics changes in and of themselves aren't a problem (as in, I believe there are exceptions to blind adherence to the cart, and a clause is one of them), so ... unless you can prove freeze clause is ACTIVELY BAD, why should I feel compelled to want to get rid of it?"  To this group, the REMOVAL of the clause needs to be justified.  You know what I mean?  If I don't believe that adhering to the cart supersedes anything else, simply saying, "But the cartridge doesn't do it" isn't going to have any real teeth.  And if you believe that adhering to the cart supersedes anything else, saying "But freezes are rough" isn't going to have any real teeth either.  So, how can we come to a consensus?  ARE we even trying to achieve a consensus?

Starting from my position, help me understand why I should want to REMOVE the freeze clause.  Why is the freeze clause BAD for the game?  Jorgen STARTS to mention something like this by saying the clause offered a strategic advantage in that battle that shouldn't have come up ... but then follows it up immediately by saying "it's not worth the repugnance of a mechanics change."  Okay, so say I don't think a mechanics change is repugnant.  Let's circle back to the point he started making and focus on that.  WHY ELSE is that bad?  What were the negative impacts in that match, or other theoretical matches?  Or taken from another angle, why SHOULD I believe philosophically that any changes from the cartridge is an abomination to the game?

[marcoasd]

Dec 29, 2014 19:56:34 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Why are freezes uncompetitive enough of a risk to be worth banning, when 255-missing Explosion or critting STAB Hyper Beam isn't?

Nice question, it's a fine line. But after all, the answer is pretty simple: cause you can't spam HB or Explosion the way you spam Ice Beam.
Overall, i think that the option to play without FC should be in, if possible. Having it on as the standard looks really legit, and it's a strategical element: two freezes are likely to happen (an early one and then a freeze war, maybe with a paralyzed Chansey- and it's tough to avoid that if the early freeze happened on Snorlax).
You didn't freeze often more than one because you play differently knowing FC is on, and due to your teambuilding, too.

[Lutra]

Good idea.

Searching for "RBY" returned 1807 logs.
Searching for "RBY Frozen" returned 483 logs.
Searching for "RBY Frozen Prevented" returned 21 logs.

So I guess it isn't much above the chance of 2 freezes in a row, sorry for assuming it is. I guess this is partly due to the fact there's only 1 set of Chanseys, so not many freeze wars. In RBY Ubers (which can be played on PO via adv. connect pokemonperfect.com), you have Mewtwo as another freeze warrior.

I would agree in RBY OU, freezes are the problem and freeze clause is not a very good way of handling it. With my stats, over 1/4 of games have freezes, but less than 1/20 of those freeze clause actually activates.

Edit:

Ironically, Freeze Clause is needed less in Stadium than it is in RBY, as Chansey etc hide behind substitutes. I think people are giving too much respect to the expectations of the developers who invented Freeze Clause.

[marcoasd]

C'mon please, every time I score a freeze I'm going to immediately paralyze Chansey because I know FC is on. That's why you don't get two: you play accordingly.

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 29, 2014 20:53:08 GMT -8 Golden Gyarados said:

Hmm so this is what I'm noticing about this debate as a whole: there are two completely different sides for people to come from in this debate, and what side you come from completely changes what arguments need to be put forth ... and to a degree, I don't think a lot of people are really having the "same" argument.  Here's what I mean:

The anti-freeze clause crowd is coming from a position of "Mechanics changes are bad. Freeze is not prevalent enough/uncounterable enough to justify doing something as perverse as changing mechanics."  To this group, the EXISTENCE of the clause needs to be justified.  But the pro-freeze clause crowd is coming from a position of, "Mechanics changes in and of themselves aren't a problem (as in, I believe there are exceptions to blind adherence to the cart, and a clause is one of them), so ... unless you can prove freeze clause is ACTIVELY BAD, why should I feel compelled to want to get rid of it?"  To this group, the REMOVAL of the clause needs to be justified.  You know what I mean?  If I don't believe that adhering to the cart supersedes anything else, simply saying, "But the cartridge doesn't do it" isn't going to have any real teeth.  And if you believe that adhering to the cart supersedes anything else, saying "But freezes are rough" isn't going to have any real teeth either.  So, how can we come to a consensus?  ARE we even trying to achieve a consensus?

Starting from my position, help me understand why I should want to REMOVE the freeze clause.  Why is the freeze clause BAD for the game?  Jorgen STARTS to mention something like this by saying the clause offered a strategic advantage in that battle that shouldn't have come up ... but then follows it up immediately by saying "it's not worth the repugnance of a mechanics change."  Okay, so say I don't think a mechanics change is repugnant.  Let's circle back to the point he started making and focus on that.  WHY ELSE is that bad?  What were the negative impacts in that match, or other theoretical matches?  Or taken from another angle, why SHOULD I believe philosophically that any changes from the cartridge is an abomination to the game?

Okay, here I go.

1) You say "why should I want to remove FC?". I submit this as assuming a faulty premise. We are starting from the game as-played-in-cartridge, whichever way you look at it (otherwise why actually play Pokemon and not Warhammer 40,000 or some other customisable-team turn-based tactics game - or indeed just make a new one up from scratch like RBYPlus?). I'll agree that "why should I not want to add FC?" is harder than simply negating "why should I add FC?", but not that hard.

2) Consistency. This is going to sound very much like the primary argument (of which you do not accept the premise), but it's subtly different. I hold that (ignoring my premise of faithfulness for a second, and accepting yours that the game can be changed to suit us) you should fix the squeakiest wheel first, and you should try to make the rules as parsimonious as possible. So, I hold that if you want Freeze Clause, you should also want the removal of 255s. 255s are not only unavoidable and impossible to plan for with any amount of skill (unlike freezes), not only just as deadly in the case of a 255 Explosion, but removing them would make the game simpler, instead of more complex. For that matter, I question the efficiency of Freeze Clause as a solution to freeze hax. Instead of adding an additional caveat to the mechanic "freeze side effect", would it not be simpler to scrap the effect entirely? I mean, freezes aren't reliable at the best of times (thus, they're "hax", a luck-based element), and one freeze can often decide a match in an instant without any need for a second (Egg freeze before sleep, Snorlax freeze in most situations). What do you lose? Chansey freeze wars. Gee, what a skillfest those are. So yeah, I think that if you do indeed feel freezes are haxy and worth limiting (and this is where point 1 comes into play; I argue that in the tie case of there being no reason to do it but no reason to not do it, it goes by default to the original mechanics, so you do need to actually want - to some degree - to remove multifreeze hax to institute Freeze Clause, rather than just adding it for a lark/ebil lulz/whatever), then to be consistent you should not only wish to also undo 255s but in fact to remove the freeze mechanic altogether.

(The obvious counterargument here is "well, Stadium had Freeze Clause". The problem is that that counter rests essentially on faithfulness - the very premise of my primary argument that you deny - and as such that primary argument returns in full force if you use that excuse.)

3) The dual role of freezing moves. Essentially, the Ice moves do two things. They deal Ice damage, and they have a chance to freeze. The issue here is that both of these are things that you will often want to do, but that they aren't separable (sleep moves, of course, are separable from damage because they don't inflict damage). Now, the only situations in which Freeze Clause is relevant are when two things are declared frozen by the RNG - if only one freeze occurs, then whether Freeze Clause is in play or not clearly doesn't matter. The problem then is the vexed question of what to do when you correctly know an Ice-weak Pokemon will be hit by your Ice move, given that no opposing Pokemon are frozen and at least one freezeworthy Pokemon is unstatused on the opponent's team. The obvious answer is to use the Ice move, but then you risk freezing them and rendering their freezeworthy Pokemon immune. And this isn't a freeze "absorption" by your opponent out-skilling you; you have in fact outpredicted them (switching an Ice-weak target into an Ice move is stupid so they made a mistake, and the Ice move is the most damaging so you guessed right). And remember, we know that that later freeze attempt will succeed without FC in play (because otherwise it's moot), so you've been cheated of a legitimate, played-for intentional freeze by sheer luck-of-the-draw, because you can't separate Ice attacks' typed damage from their side effect and Freeze Clause is in play.

Now, it's pretty clearly the case that if you're "fated" to get one played-for freeze and one random unintended freeze, it's 50-50 which comes first. Two intentional freezes? Preventing one is neutral to the luck element, because you tried for both of them knowing that success on one would stop you succeeding at the other; that's exactly fair. The case where both freezes are totally random and not played for does provide a competitiveness argument for Freeze Clause, but you've got to weigh that against the fact that preventing those random freezes is possible without Freeze Clause for the defender (with an Ice-type or statused Pokemon and superior prediction), while it's not for the attacker with Freeze Clause in play (if Rhydon's in on your Chansey and you need to damage it, your correct play is to hit it with Ice Beam, and no amount of skill can stop it from sometimes freezing Rhydon). I think that stacks up pretty well against the ludicrously unlikely FREEZES FREEZES EVERYWHERE scenario. Now, all in all, I don't like this argument by itself, but I think it should convince you that there are downsides of implementing it even from a competitiveness perspective.

(And of course, note that argument #3 completely falls to pieces when applied to a proposed "no freezes" alteration as in #2.)

Conclusion: I do have to admit that if competitiveness and reduction of luck elements is all you care about, then removing freezes, 255s and maybe a couple of other things would make sense. But you can't wrangle that view around to justify Freeze Clause as it's proposed. The only argument that endorses Freeze Clause is faithfulness (to Stadium), and like I said I have no issue with Freeze Clause when it's used in Stadium. Trying to bring it outside of that while still trying to use the faithfulness argument is sheer sophistry and leaves you open to the much larger faithfulness argument - my primary argument - of "Freeze Clause is unattainable in cartridge".

[piexplode]

if only we had stats for the amount of double/triple freezes from matches without the clause with respect to matches with 1 or 0 freezes

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 30, 2014 4:16:34 GMT -8 piexplode said:

if only we had stats for the amount of double/triple freezes from matches without the clause with respect to matches with 1 or 0 freezes

Does Showdown keep logs of battles? Because it wasn't in place on there for quite a while.

[kristoph]

Even if you don't think cartridge mechanics are important, freeze clause should still be questioned, and that's because it makes the game's rules more complex.  If you don't have a good reason, you generally should avoid adding finnicky rules or bans to a game.  Otherwise you could do all sorts of weird stuff like "if a crit happens twice, that player must give up a turn, unless they were already winning, as defined by total remaining hp, but this all only applies on Wednesdays, using Singapore's time zone as the standard."  That rule is super complex, so we'd expect it to be really really important and good for the health of the game (otherwise we'd get rid of it).  Freeze clause is the same: though it's a pretty simple rule, we still want it to be useful enough to justify the increased complexity it brings. 

I personally think freeze clause has nice dynamics and is simple enough to be an okay rule, but when you layer that on top of the fact that it's completely impossible in cartridge play, I really can't get behind it. 

[Isa]

Dec 30, 2014 3:07:57 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Conclusion: I do have to admit that if competitiveness and reduction of luck elements is all you care about, then removing freezes, 255s and maybe a couple of other things would make sense.

Hey I'd be all for that. Freezes and Wrap moves are the two things in RBY I despise the most and I'd love to see both gone, with 255's being removed as a nice thing but not central to my enjoyment. Unfortunately most people draw the line at having Freeze Clause included and I'm not gonna fight for the removal of freezes completely, so yeah.

[jorgen]

For anybody getting it messed up, Nintendo World Championships following the release of Stadium were played on Stadium using 3-on-3 Stadium rules. So it doesn't really apply directly to cartridge play, let alone 6-on-6 play, but it does sort of establish Freeze Clause as a sanctioned, just rule of Pokemon from the word of God himself. Or something like that.

OF course, depending on how you spin it, Nintendo's enforcing of Freeze Clause might be interpreted as a Greedo Shot First sort of thing, but in the age of regular releases of patches for major games, you have to be some sort of fuddy-duddy to opt for the former interpretation over the latter.

[piexplode]

Dec 30, 2014 4:33:02 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Dec 30, 2014 4:16:34 GMT -8 piexplode said:

if only we had stats for the amount of double/triple freezes from matches without the clause with respect to matches with 1 or 0 freezes

Does Showdown keep logs of battles? Because it wasn't in place on there for quite a while.

You can save a replay, but by default they're only saved if you click the save replay button or type /savereplay (both then directly give you the link - i'm not sure if Instant Replay will save it). Replays can also be found by searching a specific user's nickname at replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ however there's a limit to the amount it displays, and it'll only display the most recent, albeit if you save a link then that will always work.

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 30, 2014 7:26:29 GMT -8 jorgen said:

For anybody getting it messed up, Nintendo World Championships following the release of Stadium were played on Stadium using 3-on-3 Stadium rules. So it doesn't really apply directly to cartridge play, let alone 6-on-6 play, but it does sort of establish Freeze Clause as a sanctioned, just rule of Pokemon from the word of God himself. Or something like that.

OF course, depending on how you spin it, Nintendo's enforcing of Freeze Clause might be interpreted as a Greedo Shot First sort of thing, but in the age of regular releases of patches for major games, you have to be some sort of fuddy-duddy to opt for the former interpretation over the latter.

Of course, the fact that we're all choosing to play a really old game with a zillion bugs that would be subject to such patches suggests a lot of us are in fact such fuddy-duddies.

Isa: Okay, we're at an impasse with regards to removing freezes, since you don't care about faithfulness. But I maintain that you should argue for what you want, not some Frankenstein's monster that doesn't actually do what you want.

[Raish]

Golden Gyarados makes a great point about the ideology difference between our 2 sides and most posts I make will not carry much weight to the other side because I'm in the second group. Marcoasd makes a great point about what the difference is between Freeze and a lot of the other quirks of RBY that can swing games in a single turn.

The biggest difference between Freeze and Sleep versus 255s, Exploding on Subs, Counter-Sleep, and other things like that is the combination of how frequently using these moves would be part of an optimal strategy (or a strategy close enough to optimal that the added benefit is worth the risk) and the amount of interaction provided to your opponent (their ability to make conscious choices to outplay the strategy). Explosion on Sub can still be outplayed by switching to a damaged or sleeping mon; Hyper Beams can be outplayed by switching to a healthy mon; setting up sleep-counter is risky, can be outplayed by your opponent not using a counter-able move, and most likely won't work more than once per match if that; 255s only happen every few games on average; etc.

Ice moves would not be run or used much less than the high frequency at which they are currently used if they couldn't freeze because Ice is such an offensively valuable type. The setup for Sleep and Freeze is your opponent having unstatused pokemon, a condition which cannot be played around by your opponent because there are no ways of self-inducing status expect Rest. Yes, the freeze-proof Lapras and Jynx can take some amount of Thunderbolts, but they do still have netural to losing matchups versus most pokemon running boltbeam.

Without Freeze Clause, some not high but still very significant percentage of games would essentially be lost from close to the start (without MAJOR comeback hax) due to double Freezes that had almost nothing to do with decision making given how much Ice is currently thrown around. Even as someone who heavily dislikes Wrap because of its lack of interaction, if the Wrap player played quickly enough that the match wasn't boring, I'd rather lose to Wrap where at least I have the choice to try to stall out PP and feel comfortable in the presence of a counter-strategy than lose multiple percent of my games to a third or more of my team getting completely nullified almost regardless of my choices due to an RNG much more powerful although less present than crits, which can be accounted for in decision making and somewhat played around as long as your opponent isn't critting like 3 times as much as you.

As Marcoasd pointed out, the stats given on double Freeze prevention most likely represent the spread of Paralysis after Freeze has been achieved more than how many Freezes are really prevented. Nintendo recognized the power of Freezes and implemented Freeze Clause in a medium in which they could. While staying close to cartridge is great and I'm cool with switching to most of these new discoveries if that's what happens despite mourning the loss of some of my favorite strategies, at least I get the opportunity to come up with new strategies, whereas allowing multiple Freezes is a choice limiting change which brings with it much less depth than it removes and therefore I'm in favor of keeping Freeze Clause.

Isa has made clear what he wants on multiple occasions in the past and doesn't have to repeat himself in every thread. He's reasonable enough to understand where compromises are acceptable. While many of us would enjoy having a guaranteed way to avoid facing Wrap, there are enough ways to avoid having to play against it that the fight over it died out at least for now due to compromise with the people in the community who like having it around. While some people like him don't like Freeze at all, there's an understanding that as a community, allowing at least a single Freeze is fine with most people and he gets that effort spent trying to remove Freezes completely would most likely not produce results worth his energy. However, he does believe that it is worth his energy putting his foot down against removal of Freeze Clause, so there's not really inconsistency behind his actions as much as logic.

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 31, 2014 8:11:39 GMT -8 Raish said:

As Marcoasd pointed out, the stats given on double Freeze prevention most likely represent the spread of Paralysis after Freeze has been achieved more than how many Freezes are really prevented. Nintendo recognized the power of Freezes and implemented Freeze Clause in a medium in which they could. While staying close to cartridge is great and I'm cool with switching to most of these new discoveries if that's what happens despite mourning the loss of some of my favorite strategies, at least I get the opportunity to come up with new strategies, whereas allowing multiple Freezes is a choice limiting change which brings with it much less depth than it removes and therefore I'm in favor of keeping Freeze Clause.

Well, that might be part of it. Okay, assume 80% of cases where there would be a double freeze without FC are avoided by the knowledge of FC leading to greater para spread (this is very generous, IMO, particularly now that an unparalysed Chansey threatens to just outright sweep you if you don't get the freeze). Then you've still got only a 5% chance of double freeze per game i.e. one in every 20 games on average, between both players.

Isa has made clear what he wants on multiple occasions in the past and doesn't have to repeat himself in every thread. He's reasonable enough to understand where compromises are acceptable. While many of us would enjoy having a guaranteed way to avoid facing Wrap, there are enough ways to avoid having to play against it that the fight over it died out at least for now due to compromise with the people in the community who like having it around. While some people like him don't like Freeze at all, there's an understanding that as a community, allowing at least a single Freeze is fine with most people and he gets that effort spent trying to remove Freezes completely would most likely not produce results worth his energy. However, he does believe that it is worth his energy putting his foot down against removal of Freeze Clause, so there's not really inconsistency behind his actions as much as logic.

Faithfulness: Freezes > Freeze Clause ~= No Freezes.
Parsimony: No Freezes > Freezes > Freeze Clause.
Competitiveness: No Freezes > Freeze Clause > Freezes.

Freeze Clause is dominated. If people are more willing to accept Freeze Clause than No Freezes then they're being stupid. I'm trying to enlighten those people.

[Dre]

What I don't get about pro FC people is why they're keen to change the mechanics of the game (turning it into a mod and not legit RBY) when the game will still be heavily RNG intensive.

I could possibly understand if FC was the only thing keeping the game from being non-RNG intensive, but the game is still hugely luck-based regardless. Not only that, but there are more probable events that are more damaging to the competitiveness of battles that we haven't claused. Multi freeze is nowhere near the worst thing you have to worry about RNG wise. It actually has more counterplay than most other RNG elements yet we've claused this mechanic of all things for some reason.

Not only is it completely arbitrary, but it's as if people want the crap end of both sticks. If you want to play real RBY you play with pure cart mechanics. If you're going to arbitrarily edit one of the several RNG mechanics and turn it into a mod, you might as well just make mod that's a balanced and an RNGless version of RBY seeing as it's not real RBY anymore anyway. Instead with FC we lose the legitimacy of real RBY but we're still playing a huge RNG-intensive game.

[Golden Gyarados]

To Dre, and others who have asked the same question: it's not completely arbitrary because freeze clause isn't something we just made up on a whim.  It's a real thing that exists at all.  It may not exist in the cartridge, but it is out there, and it exists in Gen I.  That's the answer.  Now, we all know that for the anti-FC crowd, that's not a good justification, but it absolutely is not arbitrary and asking why we don't accept other completely random mechanics changes as examples (why not eliminate 255? why not eliminate some random glitch? or whatever) is disingenuous.

[longfellow]

Another possibility is making it so two frozen Pokémon on one team gives you the right to ask to repeat the match (and could even be extended for two non-rested asleep Pokémon, increasing parsimony across the ruleset never mind that would be a horrible idea). This arguably preserves the mechanics (depending on whether you see win/draw/loss/null conditions as inherent to the game or not) while being as parsimonious and competitive as freeze clause.

[piexplode]

that's essentially a gentleman's agreement, any way of implementing that further than that just sounds yuck without even thinking about philosophy.

also what does parsimony mean?

[Raish]

Dec 31, 2014 17:50:03 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Freeze Clause is dominated. If people are more willing to accept Freeze Clause than No Freezes then they're being stupid. I'm trying to enlighten those people.

Thank you for trying to enlighten us out of our stupidity. Just wanted to let you know that the ad hominem tone to many of your arguments has not been appreciated throughout this process.

Can't speak for others, but my reason for supporting Freeze Clause comes from enjoying both the competitiveness and the faithfulness aspects of RBY but not being absolutely tied to either having to be perfected. I enjoyed Freeze as a part of RBY when I was playing solo on cartridge, so I wouldn't want to see it totally removed because then I would feel like I was missing out on a nostalgic aspect of the game.

I also enjoy the competitive depth that comes from the times when you choose to take that 1/10 chance to go for a Freeze when another move could be argued to be superior if the Freeze doesn't occur. Also with Freeze Clause active, getting a Frozen Pokemon opens up new strategies in which you must value the worth of your Frozen Pokemon as a Freeze blocker against its value as a "free" switch or Explosion sponge. While there is a competitive aspect to Freeze that is enjoyable, removing Freeze Clause gets rid of the most common part of that aspect and adds the non-competitive aspects I described above.

[marcoasd]

Dec 31, 2014 17:50:03 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Freeze Clause is dominated. If people are more willing to accept Freeze Clause than No Freezes then they're being stupid. I'm trying to enlighten those people.

No. Wouldn't even need to elaborate on that, but oh well I will... it' because those stupid ones want that secondary effect of an ice move to happen, but they don't want this to ruin games too much (in my opinion RBY would be better without sleep moves, but it's not a fair denial to pokemon that get them). It's a legit point: if it's not for you, that's your problem.

About the rest, I quote Raish.

[magic9mushroom]

Dec 31, 2014 20:42:17 GMT -8 Golden Gyarados said:

To Dre, and others who have asked the same question: it's not completely arbitrary because freeze clause isn't something we just made up on a whim.  It's a real thing that exists at all.  It may not exist in the cartridge, but it is out there, and it exists in Gen I.  That's the answer.  Now, we all know that for the anti-FC crowd, that's not a good justification, but it absolutely is not arbitrary and asking why we don't accept other completely random mechanics changes as examples (why not eliminate 255? why not eliminate some random glitch? or whatever) is disingenuous.

If you want to play Stadium, play Stadium.

If you want to make a mod that imports one and only one of Stadium's mechanics, don't call it "RBY cartridge". Because "RBY with Freeze Clause" is not possible on cartridge. It is a game mod.

You're trying to equivocate here. Freeze Clause is not more faithful to cartridge than removing freezes entirely.

Jan 1, 2015 1:54:24 GMT -8 Raish said:

Dec 31, 2014 17:50:03 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Freeze Clause is dominated. If people are more willing to accept Freeze Clause than No Freezes then they're being stupid. I'm trying to enlighten those people.

Thank you for trying to enlighten us out of our stupidity. Just wanted to let you know that the ad hominem tone to many of your arguments has not been appreciated throughout this process.

I see.

I wasn't actually trying to refer to anyone in the debate. I was saying that the correct reaction to ingrained nonsense ideas in a community is to refute those ideas and educate the community, not to pander to them. That is not an ad hominem attack.

And, y'know, I get frustrated when people are not only wrong, but deliberately choosing to keep being wrong. I don't understand it whatsoever.

Can't speak for others, but my reason for supporting Freeze Clause comes from enjoying both the competitiveness and the faithfulness aspects of RBY but not being absolutely tied to either having to be perfected. I enjoyed Freeze as a part of RBY when I was playing solo on cartridge, so I wouldn't want to see it totally removed because then I would feel like I was missing out on a nostalgic aspect of the game.

I also enjoy the competitive depth that comes from the times when you choose to take that 1/10 chance to go for a Freeze when another move could be argued to be superior if the Freeze doesn't occur. Also with Freeze Clause active, getting a Frozen Pokemon opens up new strategies in which you must value the worth of your Frozen Pokemon as a Freeze blocker against its value as a "free" switch or Explosion sponge. While there is a competitive aspect to Freeze that is enjoyable, removing Freeze Clause gets rid of the most common part of that aspect and adds the non-competitive aspects I described above.

The most common competitive part of freeze is when you try to avoid paralysing Chansey so you can freeze it. Having one Pokemon already frozen and using that to block further freeze only really matters if Chansey is unparalysed, because if it's paralysed they're highly unlikely to freeze anything anyway. And when you do freeze something not Chansey - usually by accident - that competitive option is denied to you.

Not to mention that almost every complication you can add to rules will add some sort of play that abuses them. This can't be used as a reason for a complication to be implemented because that leads to obviously absurd conclusions.

[Golden Gyarados]

Jan 1, 2015 20:17:55 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Dec 31, 2014 20:42:17 GMT -8 Golden Gyarados said:

To Dre, and others who have asked the same question: it's not completely arbitrary because freeze clause isn't something we just made up on a whim.  It's a real thing that exists at all.  It may not exist in the cartridge, but it is out there, and it exists in Gen I.  That's the answer.  Now, we all know that for the anti-FC crowd, that's not a good justification, but it absolutely is not arbitrary and asking why we don't accept other completely random mechanics changes as examples (why not eliminate 255? why not eliminate some random glitch? or whatever) is disingenuous.

If you want to play Stadium, play Stadium.

If you want to make a mod that imports one and only one of Stadium's mechanics, don't call it "RBY cartridge". Because "RBY with Freeze Clause" is not possible on cartridge. It is a game mod.

You're trying to equivocate here. Freeze Clause is not more faithful to cartridge than removing freezes entirely.

Two things, here:

1) I'm not trying to equivocate, because being faithful to cartridge to a fault isn't the foundation upon which I'm basing my argument, so I'm not trying to, like, avoid coming down on one side or the other of the cartridge-faithfulness line you've drawn.  Again, you're making assumptions about the others in this debate because YOU PERSONALLY find tweaks to mechanics abhorrent.  If others don't, we aren't viewing this debate the same way you are.  You call it equivocating, we call it, "Dude, you don't get it - we don't care about it the way you do."  I don't want to play Stadium.  I want to play RBY with a Freeze Clause.

2) My response to Dre was specifically to try to stop the slippery slope fallacies that get thrown around all over the place with this argument.  "If you want Freeze Clause, then why don't you want X, Y, Z random change?" is just as unhelpful an argument as saying "If you support gay marriage, then why don't you support people marrying their dogs?  Cuz that's what's coming next" (which is, sadly, a very common argument here in the U.S.).  Slippery slope arguments are pretty worthless.  Just like you might be able to say "If you want Freeze Clause, then it's stupid not to prefer [some other change] over it," or "If you support Freeze Clause, why not support [some other random change]" or whatever, using the exact same logical fallacy I could say, "If you are so committed to faithfulness to the cart, why do you play it online?  Online play wasn't available on the cartridge, so you should only be comfortable playing RBY Cartridge on a Game Boy with a link cable."  That is a stupid as hell argument, and so is any other slippery slope argument.  I am not going to make that argument, and I think we should all stop making those arguments.

Look, when we play RBY online, there are some changes.  The line that YOU have drawn (the simulator interface is acceptable to you, the fact that you can play online is acceptable to you) is a line that you have drawn, it was not a line that was drawn by the Pokemon Gods who chose you as their emissary on Earth.  A REAL purist could draw a different line and say that online play is banned, or all simulators should emulate the Game Boy interface - including graphics and color palette - EXACTLY or it isn't "REAL RBY Cartridge."  For those of us who want Freeze Clause, that's the line we draw and it is just as valid as the line you have drawn because no matter what, we're not playing these on a cartridge. 

And hey, you are never going to be convinced otherwise.  We all know that.  But you're making the same arguments over and over and I'm not really sure what you're looking for.  I've asked this a few times, but what is your goal here?  Are you trying to get a unanimous consensus?  Are you trying to get the simulators and tournament directors to disallow freeze clause (since Smogon locked the thread down, is your goal to come up with some consensus here and then use it to convince Smogon admins to change their minds)?  Since Smogon locked the thread, do you just want a place to vent and debate for fun?