|
Post by kristoph on Jan 1, 2015 23:15:35 GMT -8
it's not correct to say that slippery slope arguments are worthless. they're usually fallacious, that's true, but they can't just be dismissed out of hand.
when people say "you want gay marriage? well then what about dog marriage? that's what's next," that's fallacious because there's no actual reason at all for that to even happen. nobody wants dog marriage in any way. dogs probably don't even comprehend the idea of marriage, nor are they capable of communicating that they want it. it's just radically irrelevant to the gay marriage issue in almost every conceivable way.
the "why not remove freezes entirely" argument is not the same though. there's literally someone in this thread who said that he'd be cool with getting rid of freezes, for example. getting rid of freezes or 255s really would be pretty similar to having freeze clause, and i think it's important to establish a clear justification for why the line is currently drawn at freeze clause and not 255s or multiple crits or whatever.
it's pretty easy to justify "the simulator accurately simulates all of rby's mechanics." if you then say "okay well what about interface? why not ban simulators entirely? why not use a link cable, that's even more accurate," yes that is a bad slippery slope argument, which can be demonstrated because there's a real, satisfying rebuttal: "the whole point of having simulators is to avoid annoying bad interface limitations so we can play the game comfortably online. we're only interested in the game itself (as in, its rules). if you are interested in having weird bad interface limitations, then there's already something for you out there, which is the cartridge itself. mimicking those limitations would be of literally no use to anyone at all."
on the other hand, i don't really know how you justify "the simulator accurately simulates all of rby's mechanics, except for freeze, where there's some weird exception rule that's taken from a different game but impossible to enforce in rby, which is pretty much there to reduce luck." if i ask, "okay, why not add a bunch of other impossible rules that reduce luck, like getting rid of 255s," i don't really know that you have a satisfying answer to that. "it was grandfathered in and we're just sticking with it out of inertia" is the best i can come up with. i guess that's an okay justification, but i think it's easy to see why lots of people are dissatisfied with that.
|
|
|
Post by marcoasd on Jan 2, 2015 1:17:44 GMT -8
Freeze Clause is more faithful to cartridge than removing freezes entirely. Again, the whole thing that is misleading you is that critical hits, 255s and freezes are not comparable. CHs are about damage, freezes are about status (we all know it's basically a free KO). So you have a FC the same way you have a sleep one, and that it's faithful enough: you can score that status, but that is limited. In magic the gathering you have banned cards and limited cards. There's a difference, and it's legit; same thing here. OHKOs and evasion are banned entirely, sleep and freezes are limited. The line is obviously arbitrary, and I can appreciate your metagame with no FC, or a metagame with OHKO moves allowed. The community decided back in the days, and looking at the game as it is, I think it works so that's fine as the standard for me. I played on PS with no FC and I found it was funny as a different metagame, but it was not as competitive, and there was not enough diversity to let it be the standard (forced to use an ice type to avoid bullshit). The community felt the same.
|
|
|
Post by kristoph on Jan 2, 2015 2:17:24 GMT -8
Freeze Clause is not more faithful to cartridge than removing freezes entirely in terms of emulating what is possible on the cartridge. I agree that it's 'more faithful' in terms of 'feeling similar' to the cartridge in some nebulous sense. But the question being asked here is not about gamefeel, the question is whether the cartridge is even being properly emulated in the first place. And if it's not being properly emulated, then "are we okay with that," and "why."
You're basically saying "if we removed freezes entirely, it would be super weird. It would totally feel like we're not even playing the same game as cartridge RBY. That's not true of Freeze Clause though. It feels totally fine and natural that you'd only be able to freeze one Pokemon, because that's already how Sleep Clause works, and they're both official rules in other versions of the game. Plus, everyone's been playing this way for 15+ years with basically no complaint. Clearly it's a natural rule change that feels like it belongs in RBY competitive play." And yes all of that is true. But the reason m9m etc are bringing this up has nothing to do with any of that. It's not about "does this feel like a logical progression in terms of gamefeel," it's about "does this, in absolute terms, properly emulate what is possible with the cartridge, yes or no."
This is a debate that's happened a lot on Smogon, especially during 4th gen. As mentioned earlier in the thread, it's really really hard to avoid talking past one another. I'm not super active in the community anymore, but I'm generally a pretty big "pro-accurate mechanics" guy, so maybe I can give some insight as to how those people "tick." Usually what we want (other than accurate mechanics of course) is just a clear and consistently-applied philosophy that justifies why some mechanics are faithfully emulated while others aren't. Is it just "we can break mechanics, but only ones that apply to status effects?" Or "we can break mechanics, but only if Nintendo has done it before too?" As long as there's a clear philosophy that the community consistently plans to follow, usually that's a decent compromise for the peeps who like accurate mechanics. Or at least it is for me.
Smogon has shown over the years that it doesn't really have any consistent philosophy. Politics and social elements rule the land over there, which can be difficult to swallow for people who crave consistency and structure (like me, or, I suspect, m9m and others). It's not the wrong way to go-- it's okay, maybe, to have an inconsistent ruleset that doesn't follow any particular philosophy other than the whims of the playerbase. In that case though, I think it's best to just be honest about that.
Sorry for the wanky post when I've basically never posted here before, I had a couple things I wanted to say but couldn't because of the Smogon lock.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Jan 2, 2015 4:15:46 GMT -8
Another reason why you might do away with simulators is that they're always slightly inaccurate. Mind you, they need not necessarily be so, but in practice, the likelihood of some mechanics being wrong is very large. Generally, we accept that as the interface is so much more convenient and the inaccuracies are pretty innocuous after the major bugs have been fried under a microscope, but as Crystal_ showed us recently, there's always the risk that they're not so innocuous after all.
Also, talking about what deviation is "more faithful" to the cart is pretty silly. Granted, it's likely pedantic semantics, but faithfulness to the cart is Boolean (it either is or isn't), so the phrase you're looking for is "less repugnant a deviation from cart mechanics". And I think we can all agree, pro- or anti-clause, that faithfulness to the cart is a criterion that, in all but the most game-breaking cases, takes priority over all others.
Oh and welcome kristoph, for what it's worth I appreciate your points and don't find them wanky.
|
|
|
Post by longfellow on Jan 2, 2015 7:17:05 GMT -8
also what does parsimony mean? The quality of being economical (either literally or figuratively). In this context, "parsimony" means giving the rules as few conditions/clauses as possible. Saying "we will change the mechanics so freezes never happen" is more parsimonious than saying "we will change the mechanics so that while a team has one already-frozen Pokémon, more freezes never happen" because the second rule has more conditions. Parsimony is (if I understand correctly) why people prefer to broadly ban perish trapping in GSC rather than addressing specific Misdreavus sets; it's considered a bit unseemly to surgically remove a single moveset from the metagame versus removing a principle.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Gyarados on Jan 2, 2015 8:23:22 GMT -8
on the other hand, i don't really know how you justify "the simulator accurately simulates all of rby's mechanics, except for freeze, where there's some weird exception rule that's taken from a different game but impossible to enforce in rby, which is pretty much there to reduce luck." if i ask, "okay, why not add a bunch of other impossible rules that reduce luck, like getting rid of 255s," i don't really know that you have a satisfying answer to that. "it was grandfathered in and we're just sticking with it out of inertia" is the best i can come up with. i guess that's an okay justification, but i think it's easy to see why lots of people are dissatisfied with that. The justification is this: RBY and S are the same generation - that's a fact, they're both Gen I (proof: Surf Pikachu is available in RBY, it is not a "tradeback"). Stadium was designed at least partially as a tournament medium - Nintendo learned from their initial cartridge-only tournaments that certain restrictions would make the game more competitive and interesting in a tournament setting (proof: Species Clause, defined and named as such during earlier tournament battles that were cartridge-based; Stadium creating different "Cups," a tournament-style of play, and a variety of Clauses). Okay, so there's the background. Now say I'm a tournament director or a simulator programmer. Say I'm starting up some RBY play and I find freezes problematic. What possible solutions do I have? I could make something up on a whim, like I could say ice moves are banned, or I could alter the simulator code to remove the freeze side effect entirely. I could do BOTH of those things, and both of those things MIGHT be "more faithful" to the cartridge. But those don't sit right with me, for reasons Raish and marcoasd have illustrated very well. So I need a better answer, and so I look to other media within Gen I for inspiration. I see Stadium has a freeze clause, and I use that as a sort of "legal precedent." Freeze Clause does exactly what I want it to do (see marcoasd and Raish's posts). It DOES alter the RBY mechanics slightly, but I'm okay with that for two reasons - 1) The clause is essentially a tournament "base rule" that simply has mechanical enforcement, rather than actually ALTERING the game mechanics in a major way (Clauses are a set of tournament-style "base rules" that mechanically enforce a set of rules, rather than change the actual mechanics surrounding the gameplay [this isn't really a point of 'proof,' but it's a philosophical way of viewing clauses that I personally find helpful to adopt, I've described this line of thinking in previous posts here and on Smogon], and 2) The justification for the creation of Clause in Stadium is completely sound, and the justification is comparable/analogous/applicable to RBY. Back in the day, someone came up with Freeze Clause as a solution, and implemented it at the time in the only medium they could - by creating a new game for it. As Jorgen mentioned, we live in an age now of constant game patches. By utilizing the technology available to me in my current media of simulation, I can apply the Freeze Clause to my cartridge tier like a patch. So there's the scenario - and I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY how Freeze Clause came to be implemented anyway, although I wasn't hanging with the developers at the creation of the simulators themselves so I can't say for sure, but it seems pretty likely. So with this scenario in mind (remember my premise: "I think freeze is a problem; what can I do about it?"), we don't need to bring up things like 255, or ask why we don't implement "Bring 6, Pick 3" tournament mode, because those things have nothing to do with the premise - that's not the problem I was trying to solve. So let's focus on freeze. Why freeze clause mechanically, instead of a non-mechanical rule (don't use ice moves after freeze 1) [answer: didn't preserve RBY gameplay elements in satisfactory enough way] or a different mechanical change (remove all freezes) [answer: no precedent]. So you can see, we DO care about faithfulness, the faithfulness just isn't to the actual cartridge at the expense of any other consideration. Our other considerations include balancing faithfulness to the RBY gameplay experience with faithfulness to Gen I as an overarching umbrella. It is a SLIGHT hodge-podge, we all admit that, but there is logical precedent that led to the creation of the change in a way that doesn't exist with any of the other proposed mechanical changes. This is what I mean when I say faithfulness to the cart isn't the be-all end-all for those of us in the pro-FC camp. That's not the line we draw in the sand, but that doesn't mean we throw faithfulness out the window. We BALANCE faithfulness to the cart as a PRIORITY, tempered with this particular change that doesn't impact the RBY gameplay experience in a detrimental way, while using precedent as a guide to find the best solution. Hopefully what I just wrote answered those questions. And I hope that clears up the argument from this side. I've said before that we seem to be debating with walls, but one of the primary 'rebuttals' to the pro-FC crowd is the anti-FC crowd saying, "Your argument makes no sense" or "Your argument lacks logic" or "Your argument is stupid." Again, you don't have to agree, but my goal here is to explain why WE answer those questions in a way that hopefully you can accept as understandable with logic you can follow, even if you don't hold that view. For longfellow: I don't know that I can argue that freeze clause has more MECHANICAL parsimony than removing freezes entirely, but I argue that it has more PHILOSOPHICAL parsimony because of the Gen I precedent for it. It's simpler to retroact an EXISTING rule than it is to make up a new one. I don't know if that's a great argument, but there's the logic.
|
|
|
Post by marcoasd on Jan 2, 2015 10:48:02 GMT -8
Ok, let's push for removing sleep clause as well because in the cartridge you are allowed to sweep the entire pokemon league with a level X Parasect without taking a single hit.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Jan 2, 2015 11:15:47 GMT -8
Everyone agrees that some level of modification has to be done in order for any Pokémon generation to be competitive (Sleep Clause), the rest is a matter of drawing a line in the sand which can be called "not redundant" by a satisfactory amount of people.
And to Kristoph: I do indeed want Freezes removed from RBY completely but during all the years of Freeze Clause existing, I have never once propagated for it. I've never heard anyone else state the same demands. There's no grounds for a slippery slope today or you would have seen the results ages ago.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Jan 2, 2015 11:23:39 GMT -8
Most people in GSC prefer the specific sleep-perish-trap ban. A select few prefer a blanket sleep-trap ban (I might put myself in that camp, although I'm certainly open to and have wrestled with both positions), but not solely because of parsimony.
|
|
|
Post by kristoph on Jan 2, 2015 17:51:35 GMT -8
re: Golden Gyarados, okay. If I'm understanding correctly, your line in the sand is "faithfulness to the RBY cartridge, but in the event that there's some perceived problem with the game, it's also okay to pull from Stadium to solve that problem. So there's imperfect faithfulness to RBY, but perfect faithfulness to Gen 1 as a whole, and we think that's good enough." Okay makes sense
This is actually not true, surprisingly enough. To the mechanical purist, Sleep Clause is currently implemented incorrectly in every generation. It's possible for it to be implemented in a way that's enforceable on-cart, and that's exactly what some people have argued for since 4th gen. It never got off the ground for some reason, but it's definitely not true to say that everyone agrees some modding is necessary. No, it's definitely realistic to expect simulators to simulate the cartridge perfectly--it's just a matter of whether the community really wants it.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Gyarados on Jan 2, 2015 18:10:47 GMT -8
This is actually not true, surprisingly enough. To the mechanical purist, Sleep Clause is currently implemented incorrectly in every generation. It's possible for it to be implemented in a way that's enforceable on-cart, and that's exactly what some people have argued for since 4th gen. It never got off the ground for some reason, but it's definitely not true to say that everyone agrees some modding is necessary. No, it's definitely realistic to expect simulators to simulate the cartridge perfectly--it's just a matter of whether the community really wants it. Not quite - the point Isa and marcoasd were making is that sleep clause, species clause, self-KO clause etc, even if they aren't mechanical, are MODIFICATIONS to the game. They are rules that, by their very existence, modify the way in which you play the game. As marcoasd noted, without any modification, you could sleep everyone and win without your opponent firing a shot. And so for folks like you, you draw a line in the sand when you say, "Modifications and rules are okay, so long as they aren't mechanical." That's the line you've chosen. And that's fair enough. But Isa's point still stands - the rules are modifications none the less. That's what I was saying in my previous post on Page 1 of this thread - that everyone has a different line but unless you're playing on a cart with a link cable with no rules, you're accepting some modification. Whether it's through tournament rules like species clause, or a non-mechanical sleep clause, or just accepting the fact that you're playing online AT ALL which ALSO isn't possible if you are being 100% faithful to cart, or if you incorporate mechanical freeze/sleep clauses, you are accepting modifications. The line is different, but the point is the same. Essentially, the argument is that there *is* no such thing as "100% Pure Cartridge RBY" when you're playing on a simulator, so while we can strive to different levels of faithfulness, a modification is a modification whether it's mechanical or not.
|
|
|
Post by kristoph on Jan 2, 2015 19:04:14 GMT -8
when i use the term 'mod' i'm talking in the standard software sense. like when people play smash bros, banning a stage is a ban or a rule change, not a 'mod.' project m is a 'mod.'
And yes there are two different lines in the sand here. But the fact that there are two lines in the sand does not release the "we can alter some mechanical stuff, but only if there's precedence in other versions of the game" line from scrutiny. There needs to be clear and satisfying reasoning to go with that line. Otherwise I could easily make up and advocate my own 'line in the sand,' and it would be 'just as valid.'
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Jan 3, 2015 2:09:47 GMT -8
Regarding Sleep Clause, how does purists even tackle that? It's a change in mechanics as it is currently implemented on all simulators for starters, so justifying it must be difficult. The fact that it exists in Stadium makes no difference. To me, the solution from a purist stand point is to just ban sleep inducing moves as a whole, since they are the source of a broken mechanic that needs to be kept in line for the game to be playable at a competitive level (and even then, I've participated in a No Sleep Clause tournament and placed in second behind Crystal_). It is much simpler to ban the moves outright than to make up a rule that says that if you use this move to cause its effect twice, you automatically lose the game. There's no collateral damage involved either, since all moves that have a chance to trigger sleep have that as its only effect.
So what is the reasoning from a purist stand point to have Sleep Clause instead of a ban on sleep moves, similar to how in a purist POV the broken moves Dig/Fly should be banned instead of fixing the invulnerability glitch?
|
|
|
Post by kristoph on Jan 3, 2015 2:48:21 GMT -8
Really? I don't think it's much simpler. Maybe a teensy bit? And with the huge benefit of not totally hugely radically changing the strategy of the game (which is what banning all sleep moves would do).
In any case, whether it's "have a sleep clause that abides by mechanics" or "ban sleep moves altogether," the mechanical purist is happy here. If you ask the mechanical purist which one of those they'd prefer, they might prefer either of those options. But it wouldn't have anything to do with mechanical purity, it would be a separate discussion altogether.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Jan 8, 2015 2:51:21 GMT -8
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. You have said you do not care at all about faithfulness. I am quite capable of comprehending this even though I don't agree with it. Kindly refrain from making assumptions about my thought processes while denouncing my understanding of yours; this is known as hypocrisy. What I am saying is that a position of not caring at all about faithfulness is in fact incompatible with wanting to play with Freeze Clause, because the only reason Freeze Clause is even a considered option is that Stadium had Freeze Clause. Without that precedent, you would instead be pushing for a freeze ban. You have assumed both that faithfulness is of zero importance and that it is of nonzero importance; this is best described as a fallacy of equivocation. Slippery-slope arguments are fallacious when and only when they draw false analogies. The gay marriage one draws a false analogy (and is thus fallacious), because there is the extraneous variable of consent - a dog cannot consent to marriage, while a same-sex partner can, so the situation is not analogous. The slippery-slope argument you cite against me also draws a false analogy, because there is the extraneous variable of replicability. RBY OU with only bans can be played on cartridge, while RBY OU with mods cannot. Ergo, false analogy. The slippery-slope argument I am making against you could potentially be fallacious. There is one - and I claim only one - extraneous variable that could make Freeze Clause more palatable than the other changes I mentioned. And that variable is faithfulness - that Freeze Clause existed in Stadium and that those changes were not made in any Generation I game (I believe this reasoning specious, but that's not the point for now). But, you have claimed that you don't care about faithfulness at all. Ergo, that variable is irrelevant, and the analogy holds. You have, therefore, contradicted yourself; the correct thing to do now is to re-examine your position and modify it so that it no longer contradicts itself. False analogy. Your position draws a line in the sand; mine, however, does not. I do not tolerate any departure from full simulation of cartridge play. By the rules I support, any simulated battle is a perfect replication of a cartridge battle that would have happened had the players played with link cables, each player made identical choices, and the RNG spat out the same numbers. Battles with Freeze Clause fail this criterion, because they diverge at the moment when the cartridge battle has a second freeze occur and the simulated battle doesn't. I'm looking for a few things. 1) When people make counterpoints that don't make sense, I want to help them correct their viewpoints to consistent ones. (You will note that I stopped attacking Isa's arguments when he found a consistent position, even though I still disagree with it.) 2) When all parties have consistent positions, I want to know how many are on each side. 3) If the outcome of 2) is in favour of the position I support, I wish to appeal for its implementation on sims (PO and PS) as the standard. Ok, let's push for removing sleep clause as well because in the cartridge you are allowed to sweep the entire pokemon league with a level X Parasect without taking a single hit. Everyone agrees that some level of modification has to be done in order for any Pokémon generation to be competitive (Sleep Clause), the rest is a matter of drawing a line in the sand which can be called "not redundant" by a satisfactory amount of people. And to Kristoph: I do indeed want Freezes removed from RBY completely but during all the years of Freeze Clause existing, I have never once propagated for it. I've never heard anyone else state the same demands. There's no grounds for a slippery slope today or you would have seen the results ages ago. Sleep Clause can be implemented on cartridge. The way it can be done is not the way simulators currently implement it, and I indeed disagree with that method of implementation; I do intend to push for that as well. Not quite - the point Isa and marcoasd were making is that sleep clause, species clause, self-KO clause etc, even if they aren't mechanical, are MODIFICATIONS to the game. They are rules that, by their very existence, modify the way in which you play the game. As marcoasd noted, without any modification, you could sleep everyone and win without your opponent firing a shot. And so for folks like you, you draw a line in the sand when you say, "Modifications and rules are okay, so long as they aren't mechanical." That's the line you've chosen. And that's fair enough. But Isa's point still stands - the rules are modifications none the less. No, actually, they aren't modifications. Because you don't need to modify a cartridge to be able to play them. Two unmodified cartridges with a link cable can play RBY OU with choice-based Sleep Clause, bans on evasion/OHKO moves and a species clause. Two unmodified cartridges with a link cable cannot play RBY OU with anything remotely similar to Freeze Clause as it's currently implemented. It's impossible. This is false. See above. Regarding Sleep Clause, how does purists even tackle that? It's a change in mechanics as it is currently implemented on all simulators for starters, so justifying it must be difficult. The fact that it exists in Stadium makes no difference. To me, the solution from a purist stand point is to just ban sleep inducing moves as a whole, since they are the source of a broken mechanic that needs to be kept in line for the game to be playable at a competitive level (and even then, I've participated in a No Sleep Clause tournament and placed in second behind Crystal_). It is much simpler to ban the moves outright than to make up a rule that says that if you use this move to cause its effect twice, you automatically lose the game. There's no collateral damage involved either, since all moves that have a chance to trigger sleep have that as its only effect. So what is the reasoning from a purist stand point to have Sleep Clause instead of a ban on sleep moves, similar to how in a purist POV the broken moves Dig/Fly should be banned instead of fixing the invulnerability glitch? From a purist standpoint there's no reason to have Sleep Clause instead of a ban on sleep moves. I wouldn't blink an eyelid if we decided to go down that route. As far as our position, we believe it should be implemented (if at all) by restrictions on choice rather than by modification of results. That is, if you've slept something, you should not be able to choose moves that induce sleep. With, I suppose, the exception of if you have only one Pokemon remaining and it has no other PP (not that it really matters in that case). Under that specific implementation, Sleep Clause is a ban and not a mod, and thus, while there's still no compelling reason to prefer it over a total sleep ban (compared to a lack of restriction on sleep there's a competitiveness argument), there's no purist argument against it either. I mean, it is kinda a weird rule when you think about it, but it's not unfaithful so I don't really care that much.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Gyarados on Jan 8, 2015 7:03:03 GMT -8
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. You have said you do not care at all about faithfulness. I am quite capable of comprehending this even though I don't agree with it. Kindly refrain from making assumptions about my thought processes while denouncing my understanding of yours; this is known as hypocrisy. What I am saying is that a position of not caring at all about faithfulness is in fact incompatible with wanting to play with Freeze Clause, because the only reason Freeze Clause is even a considered option is that Stadium had Freeze Clause. Without that precedent, you would instead be pushing for a freeze ban. You have assumed both that faithfulness is of zero importance and that it is of nonzero importance; this is best described as a fallacy of equivocation. You quoted my post here, but then proceeded to completely misunderstand and misrepresent it. I *literally* said, in this quote and elsewhere, "that we don't care about [the cartridge mechanics faithfulness] the way that you do" which means it is not the be-all end-all, but that we consider faithfulness as an important criteria. You responded to this by saying "You have said you do not care at all about faithfulness. I am quite capable of understanding this even though I don't agree with it." That is ... that is not at all what I have said, anywhere. You are, one, putting words in my mouth by completely misunderstanding what you're reading, and two, you are creating a false dichotomy - either faithfulness has to be 100% or faithfulness must not matter. This is a black and white issue to you - we get that - but it's not black and white to everyone else. There are shades of grey here - and there is nuance in my position and others' position that you don't seem to be picking up on. The rest of your post takes a stance assuming you were "correct" in that false dichotomy and assuming that I do not care about faithfulness at all. Because that is easily proven untrue (by BOTH reading comprehension - discerning my overall point through context - and literally just reading exact quotes where I say "faithfulness does matter, it's just not the ONLY factor"), I'm not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal to your post. I will respond to this one, though: Modification doesn't mean ONLY what you think it means, and that's the point I'm making. From Merriam Webster: To *you,* you're using "modification" to mean a technical "mod." But a modification doesn't have to be a technical change to code in order to be a modification. Using a sleep clause, even if it is not mechanical, is a change to the STYLE of the way you play the game. That easily and unquestionably counts as a "modification to the game" as it is played. Is it a modification to the cart? No, it's not. Again, read my exact quote again: You responded to this by saying "No, actually, they aren't modifications. Because you don't need to modify a cartridge to be able to play them." You completely missed my point. They ARE modifications because that is literally what the word "modifications" means. They are not how YOU define modifications in terms of this conversation, but that's a choice you make when using the word, not a reality of the word's definition. I'm usually not so pedantic, but I also know that you are quick to pounce on even the slightest ambiguity or questionable statement in a post, and since this was your thread I actually made an effort to be as clear on my position and its origins as I possibly could be ... so it's completely baffling to me that you would try to create a massive post with point-by-point rebuttals filled with quotes that you immediately proceed to completely misunderstand or ignore.
|
|
|
Post by piexplode on Jan 8, 2015 10:01:14 GMT -8
hehe this is getting kind of tight. I think Golden Gyarados's point is relevant; if we are talking about mechanical modifications strictly then indicating that in your post should be done, and likewise if you're purporting to be discussing modifications in all senses, and if you're trying to draw some other line (sleep clause and freeze clause blur the picture naturally). That I guess refers to drawing a line in the sand within your posts semantics, as well as within your stance upon the issue. Also whilst I appreciate there are game-breaking glitches that aren't implemented due to clear unplayability, I think we should consider it a valid and different tier RBY OU which you could play on the cartridge with the guarantee of it not breaking the game (can't counter, fly, and psywave all desync or something depending on the scenario - marcoasd you made the comment about dig/fly but Crystal_ doesn't seem to know what the issue you speak of is).. it'd be nice to have a version that you could legitimately play on the cartridge and be sure that it is essentially the same thing as simulator play, at least in terms of the fundamental battling gameplay [naturally, different forms of sleep/freeze and maybe other clauses would be needed to be used]. I feel it's fine for a version of RBY OU where games that can break the game on the cartridge in certain circumstances are permitted without the game-breaking effects is considered standard, but we should also have a similar version with essentially full cart playability.. I suspect it'd be very similar to the standard, but without counter? That'd be a large difference, but yeah for people who do do battles on cart - I know marco, bomber, allala, some others do it - it'd be useful to know exactly what the metagame's rules are first [Under the DON'T DESYNC OR BUG THE GAME Clause]
|
|
|
Post by subsmoke on Jan 29, 2015 13:43:29 GMT -8
I think freeze clause is good because it lowers the chance of getting a lucky win. Only by a little but I think it's worth it.
|
|
|
Post by piexplode on May 30, 2015 11:14:42 GMT -8
Well.. this was interesting and worth a re-read. Just a small thing I'd like to note out of interest, is that a difference between the options of sleep clausing can make a difference in a certain scenario [the difference here being between no choice of using sleep moves whilst something is asleep, and the mechanical altercation preventing sleep induction whilst something is currently asleep]. I've done it before, and marco has done it against me, at least once, although rare; sometimes when facing an opponent that is asleep (and may well have burnt any number of sleep turns), whilst you have a sleeper in, you may decide to use your sleeping move versus the opponent to catch them and reset their counter as soon as they awaken. When sleep moves are banned whilst the opponent has a sleeping Pokemon, this scenario changes somewhat - and it can certainly be relevant - if I remember correctly I had a scenario like this where one player has a sleeping chansey or something, and the opposing player a paralyzed exeggutor, and the exeggutor player uses Sleep Powder on the turn the Chansey or w/e wakes up.
I mean it's not a huge thing but I thought it would be curious to mention that this distinction does have an impact once in a while, even though this distinction is as-of-yet unmentioned in this thread, so I thought I ought to bring it up!
|
|
|
Post by Mantishuffle on May 30, 2015 17:02:25 GMT -8
I'm glad someone brought up that scenario Piexplode mentioned. I thought about it myself as I have had it happen to me from both sides a few times. In the cartridge if one were to switch out the sleeping Pokémon to a healthy one it could be put to sleep by the slower Pokémon's sleep inducing move. That right there proves that "Sleep Clause" cannot be forced to the same effect in the real game. If such an instance were to occur what would we do to keep it "fair", disqualify the player who used the sleep move? Or stall turns without inflicting damage until this 2nd sleeping Pokémon wakes up? Or what if we changed Sleep Clause on the simulator to a clause that disables the selection of sleep inducing moves until the target wakes up, effectively the same as agreeing not to use any sleep moves until the target wakes up in link play? Then one would never be able to put a faster Pokémon to sleep on the turn it wakes up, which is a valid tactic.
My understanding of the simulator since I first started playing online around 2011 is that it tries to run the game as true to the game as knowingly possible with a few rules in effect to try and make the game more competitively fair and balanced. The fact that there is a significantly large element of luck in Pokémon means that naturally some rules would be made. Evasion Clause and OHKO Clause are obvious. The question is if we are willing to stray from being true to the cartridge mechanics in order to make battles more competitive.
I am of the opinion that the simulator should be as true to game as we know the game to be. Any community made rules should be applicable to the same effect in the real game. However, one must keep in mind that we play on a simulator. A simulator that shows you the moves your opponent has used along with how much PP they have, allows you to cancel a move, shows the percantage of HP that they have, shows the Pokémon they have sent in and their status ailments, time control for selecting moves, and a live log of every move that has been used in battle. Imagine doing that on Gameboy; players with calculators, note books for logging, and stop watches. That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Not to mention that moves cannot be canceled once made in link play, how would one incorporate time control? You won't know your opponent has made a move until you make yours. This makes the time of move selection secret in a way, unless you are looking directly at your adversary or listening for button presses.
My point is that I don't believe the simulator can have its rules and still be true to the game without being untrue even in small ways.
RBY is drastically different than future generations (I think we can all agree on that), and as such I can understand if some rules would apply to RBY and not other generations, like banning Dig and Fly because of their invulnerability glitches, which by the way has its downsides. Some Pokémon have Dig as their best or only move against Gengar. Some have Fly as a usable STAB option. Also they are good for dodging Explosion from slower foes (sorry for getting off topic but I wanted to make that point). With Ice Beam and Blizzard as common as they are, I can understand the appeal for a "Freeze Clause", and with the points I brought up in my 3rd paragraph about how the simulator's basic window options and functions aren't true to the game, and how even Sleep Clause isn't true to the game, I don't think the fact that Freeze Clause is not applicable in link play warrants that it should not be applied on the simulator, despite my opinion of the simulator's duty to be true, and considering that I think the game would play worse without Freeze Clause. I think more would agree than disagree.
It would be interesting to suspect test Freeze Clause if it hasn't already been done, but I don't think anyone cares to try sadly. I would like to try, just to put that out there. It would be good to know the effect on play that the absence of the clause would have. Would Ice Type Pokémon be more common? Would Ice Type moves rise or fall in usage if Ice Type Pokémon were more common? Most importantly, would 2 Freezes on one team be common? If the answer to the last question was a very low statistic, I would be happy to be in favor of not having a freeze clause.
I know points have already been made about not going for the freeze because of having the clause in effect and how it effects strategy, but think about how knowing you can keep freezing would effect strategy. A game plan to bait and KO Ice Types and start spamming Ice Beam with something like Chansey with Reflect seems sensible I guess. Knowing other Pokémon that could be the target of a Freeze war are now immune to Freeze because of the clause is another matter.
Final points: the fact that something is not true to the game does not warrant that it should not be in the simulator if it makes for a more competitive environment only if its absence would create for a less competitive environment. I like Freeze Clause but I would be happy to be truer to the game without it if its absence was proven to not have as bad an effect on fair play as others and myself think it would have.
EDIT: After actually bothering to read more of the other posts I have reconsidered my stance. I believe the standard should be not to have Freeze Clause. It is true to the game to not have it, and after considering other things that may be considered uncompetitive like clutch critical hits and 1 / 255s, I have made my choice.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Jun 8, 2015 16:26:27 GMT -8
Ugh. I'd forgotten why I stomped off the scene in a huff. Reading this thread reminded me.
One thing I don't think I ever put out there was what I think the full set of rules for RBY OU should actually be. So here you go.
Mechanics: Cartridge. Legality Clause: You may not use glitch Pokemon, glitch moves, or Pokemon with illegal movesets, levels, or stat distributions. No Tradebacks: Trading back Pokemon from GSC is not considered "legal" for the above clause. Pokemon banned: Mewtwo, Mew. Moves banned: Guillotine, Fly, Horn Drill, Fissure, Dig, Double Team, Minimize. Species Clause: You may not have more than one of the same Pokemon. Pre-status Clause: Your Pokemon may not begin the battle under a status effect. Sleep Clause*: You may not use sleep moves (Sing, Sleep Powder, Hypnosis, Lovely Kiss, Spore) if you have already put a Pokemon to sleep with one of these moves and it has not yet awoken. Exception if you only have one Pokemon left and it only has sleep moves remaining.
*I'd be fine with removing this and just adding those five moves to the "Moves banned" list.
The interesting alternate metagames are: Stadium mechanics (with mechanical Sleep Clause/Freeze Clause on and choice-based Sleep Clause removed), Tradebacks allowed, other tiers (i.e. switching out the "Pokemon banned" list), and/or no Pre-status Clause.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Jun 19, 2015 1:56:26 GMT -8
I know this is super late, but I think the main justification on the pro FC side for FC, but not other RNG tweaks is that FC was implemented later in the same gen. So they feel like this tweak is justified because Nintendo in a sense 'corrected' it later in the gen.
Firstly, I don't understand why what happens in other games should affect what is done in this one. Even assuming the criteria of 'well it was in the same gen so it's ok' isn't completely arbitrary, it wasn't even the only tweak. Why not fix focus energy too? Or remove 255s? I can't remember if 255s were corrected in Stadium or Gen2, but I know at least FE was corrected in Stadium.
I'm not even stretching to things like the substitute or hyper beam mechanics in Stadium, because those mechanics are why you play Stadium over cart. But in the case of FE, it was simply a coding error, so why not just mod it?
Frankly, I think people just decided on the FC years ago, and now people defend it because it's been normalised and it's what we're used to. Had it never been implemented and we had always played without legit cart mechanics, you'd probably never get it passed. Fixing focus energy is a perfect example, most people would be against altering this mechanic, because they didn't spend over a decade playing with it.
|
|
|
Post by Ortheore on Jun 20, 2015 4:00:53 GMT -8
I'm inclined to agree that the freeze clause is an arbitrary mechanic change that can't really be justified if we're staying true to the mechanics (we should be). At this point the main problem is that there's no way you're gonna be able to put into motion changes to a metagame this old.
As for sleep, I agree with an implementation like m9m described, though I'd adamantly oppose banning sleep altogether lol.
I think the impact on the meta would be relatively small. The sleep thing, while a valid tactic, is still extremely situational and is seldom relevant, while tbh I don't see a lack of freeze clause being a massive gamechanger. As things stand, it's rare to see freeze clause come into effect. As for changing your play... idk in my experience playing for a freeze isn't the best option, and I only really do so out of opportunism- it's just too unreliable otherwise imo, and it comes with some drawbacks as well (depending on what's spamming Ice and what stage of the game it is). Basically, even after you account for changes in play I don't think it will ruin the game
One thing that interests me is how this would change rby ubers. RBY Ubers already has serious issues, and getting rid of freeze clause might render it unplayable. Idk, I mean at least you've got Mew acting as sort of a wild card to punish stalling for freezes (and maybe bait para) and there's always booming but still, a lot of the game would boil down to spamming IB. I really want to give all non-ou tiers a fair go, but at the same time I think it's more important to not change mechanics where possible.
I'd be up for giving it a try, but at the same time I wouldn't expect any serious change to occur, this is rby after all.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Jun 20, 2015 4:19:44 GMT -8
One thing that interests me is how this would change rby ubers. RBY Ubers already has serious issues, and getting rid of freeze clause might render it unplayable. Idk, I mean at least you've got Mew acting as sort of a wild card to punish stalling for freezes (and maybe bait para) and there's always booming but still, a lot of the game would boil down to spamming IB. I really want to give all non-ou tiers a fair go, but at the same time I think it's more important to not change mechanics where possible. I've thought about this quite a bit too. I'd agree that cartridge Ubers is not particularly playable. Stadium Ubers, of course, can legitimately have Freeze Clause.
|
|
|
Post by piexplode on Jun 20, 2015 4:39:15 GMT -8
I'd like to make my stance clear that I support the current sleep clause for ladder play, but no freeze clause, whilst in tournament play I'd rather choice-based sleep clause in some form, and no freeze clause.
Also imo in 'new meta' freeze is not powerful enough to warrant a clause.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Jun 22, 2015 19:48:40 GMT -8
I'd like to make my stance clear that I support the current sleep clause for ladder play, but no freeze clause, whilst in tournament play I'd rather choice-based sleep clause in some form, and no freeze clause. Also imo in 'new meta' freeze is not powerful enough to warrant a clause. Why do you think that on the ladder people should be able to use sleep moves and have them not work? I'm a bit puzzled.
|
|
|
Post by piexplode on Jun 23, 2015 6:17:19 GMT -8
Well for the ladder I just want whatever's the most simple thing for new players that keeps core gameplay similar to that which we play at a competitive level (i.e. not scrapping sleep clause or banning sleep moves completely) but doing the most simple form of the clause. If you feel the other version would be simpler for a newer player to grasp, then I'd be for it on ladder play too.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Jun 24, 2015 0:46:40 GMT -8
Well for the ladder I just want whatever's the most simple thing for new players that keeps core gameplay similar to that which we play at a competitive level (i.e. not scrapping sleep clause or banning sleep moves completely) but doing the most simple form of the clause. If you feel the other version would be simpler for a newer player to grasp, then I'd be for it on ladder play too. Well, graying out the button would seem pretty easy to notice. I mean, you're always going to have noobs trying to sleep everything and then complaining about it in ALL CAPS until somebody explains it. At least with the button grayed out they wouldn't keep trying it. Maybe stick a reminder (like the "you are trapped and cannot switch" one) on the screen when Sleep Clause is making a sleep move unusable.
|
|
|
Post by piexplode on Jun 24, 2015 12:07:36 GMT -8
I think what I'm after though is some compromise between the two. I think that what you're suggesting there would be appropriate for ladder play, but in tournament play, a form of choice-based sleep clause where instead of preventing you from choosing stuff, rather it provides a warning message when you select something that risks you breaking a clause and asks you to reconfirm that this is what you want to do. That would allow the situation we currently have with the current implementation of sleep clause when you have a para'd sleeper vs a sleeping mon that's burnt some turns, except without breaking mechanics - if you select the move, and your opponent switches and another Pokemon is slept, then they are victorious because you broke the clause. Obviously it's more complex and better-suited to tournaments where players will understand what is going on in the first place, as it both maintains mechanical accuracy but is the least limiting of player choice - however it does create a possible alternate win condition scenario, that's Pokemon for you though and it's not likely (like well under 1 in a thousand) that a situation where this alternate win condition will be met. It's by far and away more practical to try and win by other means than to force your opponent to activate this clause, so I don't see an issue, in the current metagame (or indeed any?)
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Jun 24, 2015 18:39:57 GMT -8
Well, yes, if you were doing that it wouldn't be appropriate for the ladder. I'm not sure it's worth doing that, though; it doesn't increase faithfulness (they're both faithful to cartridge mechanics, they're just different rules applied over the top) and it's a small change (which is arguably not even an improvement) for a significant increase in complexity.
|
|