I modified the clausebox myself here: http://wiki.pokemon-online.eu/view/2nd_Gen_OU. Idk if this means anything though. But yeah ofc there should be freeze clause.
I'm in the minority here, but I don't really think Freeze clause is "necessary" in GSC. Sure, it's annoying when multiple freezes happen, but that's Pokemon. Going for freezes isn't nearly as common in GSC as in RBY, and it's not nearly as game-breaking because 1) there's heal bell, 2) shit thaws eventually, and 3) Fire moves are actually worth using. What I'm saying is that Freeze clause is the tradition, and it does make the game better (less luck-based) by preventing BS multiple freezes. However, its removal is little more than an annoyance in the long run, and certainly doesn't break the game.
I think it should be in every gen, as my luck sucks. I've had my team completely frozen once, and my opponent was like "LOL U MAD" and then I... never mind.
Going for freeze is 100% playable. It just hasn't been abused because there has never been a time that GSC's been played without freeze clause. Shit lasts so much longer, there's far more opportunities to just "go for freeze". As for "shit thaws eventually", average freeze duration is about 6.5 turns (I think it's 10% chance per turn). That's pretty game breaking. And fire attacks are just as non-existent in GSC as RBY for the most part.
FC isn't as neccesary as SC, obviously. +1 sleep is a lot more gamebreaking, but +1 freeze will still make an impact and make going for freezes a more reliable (or just viable) win condition, especially on long battles. Idk, despite it won't make that much of an impact, I think FC should be standard even though if it's on being a tradition alone. In fact, the tradition argument is easily the most reasonable argument we can possibly make about this topic.
yeah, tradition is a good argument. The rest of the world plays with FC why not use FC on ladder? But everyone who has played on PO already noted that is not difficult do get a freeze on pokemon online. It is totality possible to play around to get a 2 freeze if you want like borat said. Two freeze is game breaking, GSC has not a lot of clerics and fire moves are not abundant in OU metagame (I can think some movesets of ttar/nidoking/gengar/snorlax and the BL houndoom/charizard for use fire moves).
Bumping this. Can we get freeze clause back in the GSC ladder? GSC has always been played with it. And multiple freezes are annoying.
It'll be added again when the tiers update. (Since it crashes on update at the moment we kinda have to plan them out a little... :x But they'll be done in a few days or so) EDIT: Should be in now.
Freeze clause is not available in cart play, and does not significantly improve the game in GSC later gens, so should not be considered standard there. We removed freeze clause from all ladders intentionally some time ago after a debate (admittedly this was before PO had early gens, but it was not arbitrarily removed). "Annoying" is not enough to break game mechanics for, and tradition is a poor argument. RBY is kind of a different matter since things don't unfreeze, but you can thaw out everywhere else.
I still fail to see the need to change past generations. We play them because we want to experience them just like we did back then, hence why "tradition" is so important in the older generations and not in the current one. Freeze clause was played by pretty much everyone. Just let sleeping dogs lie, keep all the clauses that were used back then and focus on improving the current generation, BW.
freeze is monstrous in gsc though because it is really unlikely that you'll thaw although it is certainly "possible." in adv if you get more than one pokemon frozen at once you'll pretty much automatically lose (recently i've had three pokemon frozen in one game and two of them were at the same time). it's not just annoying, it ruins games. there's no species clause or self ko clause in the carts either or any other clause so i don't see how that matters?... i don't care what you decide for the bw ladder since it's a crapshoot anyway but i do not see why "tradition" isn't a viable argument for the old metagames when it isn't like freeze clause was arbitrarily created and made mandatory in the first place... who cares if you had a debate last year or something. the point of looking to the tradition argument is that the debate is old and it's already been won in favor of freeze clause.
Nor was species clause, sleep clause, and anything else for that matter, I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking dial-up era here. I also don't see how it's relevant that the newer plays had some sort of debate, because it's not like we arbitrarily tacked on freeze clause either. This is literally implying that new gen players who can't even grasp the simple concept of switching in GSC have better understanding than those who've amassed over a decade experience, so our decisions to implement a freeze clause back then is stupid because we clearly don't know any better. That's quite the subtle backhand. The whole tradition argument comes from the fact that this shit has been debated hotly, so often, and so long ago, that it needn't be brought back in for round 2. Everything that will be said, has been said, and it hasn't made a difference then, so there's little reason for it to change anything now. This makes it a perfectly valid argument, it's what makes the older gens so robust and not wishy-washy like B/W DPP stuff. Think iOS vs WebOS or something.
Need is not necessary for it to be preferable. And while some people play just to feel like the old days, some value the old gens for their current interest and saneness. The freeze clause is not, in my (or many other people's) opinion, remotely justified. No one's going to actually suggest altering tiers or the like, but fixing clauses is not an absurd idea. Same could be said about multiple crits. Something being luck baised or annoying is not a reason to remove them by altering game mechanics. Freeze clause is impossible to enforce ingame, unlike those. They are rules. Freeze clause is an entirely unnecessary alteration to the mechanics. Why don't you all read the debate before making assumptions about the reasons or who was involved? This post is particularly fun. I'll try and track down old gens specific stuff when I get back, but the arguments given there apply virtually identically to all gens.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about before Smogon existed, as the idea of restarting a battle on your game boy when another pokemon was frozen or something isn't all that absurd, especially considering how Sleep Clause is handled: the person who sleeps more than 2 pokemon just loses in a wifi battle, as in they run/forfeit. Regardless of if that was actually done back then, I just think arguing with old veterans is stupid. Especially since, you know, people could have had the debate before Smogon was created(since Smogon's not the be all end all overlord of pokemon), seeing as how Gold and Silver were released at the very latest in 2001. Then there's the fact that old gens don't need fixing. They're perfectly fine and playable, and I don't see the need to change anything about them that wasn't changed back when they were the current generation. Why don't we just remove Sleep Clause from the ladder, anyway? Having the ability to sleep multiple pokemon is only broken if you stay asleep for more than 2 turns. If your pokemon sleeps for more than that, well, you got unlucky. Tough shit. It's also impossible to stop more than one pokemon from being slept on cartridge as well. I still fail to see why we're wasting energy and ignoring what has happened in the past. Even if people didn't like Freeze Clause, it still became standard when people used to play GSC. Obviously there wasn't enough of an outcry to stop it from doing so. And Freeze Clause was active in Stadium 2. So really, it was a "holdover from the RBY days."
Altering game mechanics in the sense that freezing fails when another pokemon is frozen? Kind of in the sense that sleep fails when another pokemon is asleep? The competitive scene isn't the same now as it was back then. The fact is, you can play competitively with in-game link battles. That was NOT an option back then. Right now you can replicate the cart experience on PC and get a very competitive environment, this was not the case back then. Most of what's said now doesn't apply to the past gens. Freeze is needed for competitive reasons, and simply "replicating the in-game experience" is a step in the WRONG direction when considering GSC/RBY. Quite frankly, I don't think "going for freeze" is even a viable strategy for the latter gens. The fact is, and I don't think you can really doubt this, is that freeze clause RARELY comes into play anyway, getting rid of it is sort of irrelevant for the majority of the people. It's literally there, and not affecting the game at all. It's kinda like self-ko clause in some ways, since it's so god damn rare for that to ever affect a game. I searched the thread you pointed me to for "freeze", and it seemed like literally no one gave a shit about freeze. There was an debate on tvsian forums (old netbattle forums, before netbattle supremacy stuff, before smogon) that resulted in freeze clause remaining the standard (hence it's still grouped with sleep in later gens). This was when NB beta just started to support adv. Pretty sure there were similar debates on gfaqs, azura, yadda yadda communities. The NYPC clause was a much better argument, freeze clause wasn't even close. And ps: freeze clause was always an option even on gsbots. In fact, so were HP clause, and iirc, "curse clause".
something that the shoddy battle auth decided to program into shoddy to make the dppt ladder and only the dppt ladder more like dppt wifi should not be inherently applied to all of the old metagames that do not even have wifi and are rarely actually used for "link battles." freeze clause was used on netbattle because Stadium, Stadium 2, Colosseum, and XD (although Colosseum and XD came out after netbattle but they remained consistent with the old games meaning that was Nintendo's intention) all used freeze clause. JAA (a nationwide ADV tournament as i'm sure you know) and I believe most previous nintendo events also used freeze clause. so that ill-informed post by supreme competitive battler chaos is not as impressive as perhaps you may have hoped it would be. secondly, no clauses can be "enforced" on wifi. both players agree on them, unless it is a regulated tournament, in which case the rules are arbitrarily made up by whoever regulates the tournament, just like PO's rules are arbitrarily made up by those who program it (but they should use community input and not be made or unmade on the whims of the authority). the difference is with PO and other simulators you have the capability to actually enforce rules and alter the mechanics of the simulator and the game to help you do so. for JAA, the rule was that if you froze a second pokemon on the same team, you would forfeit, just like you would if you broke sleep clause or the self-ko clause. that's the way sleep clause is "enforced" on wifi but that is not the way it works on PO because that would be a waste of time and kind of silly to change now when you can just keep it from happening in the first place (which i suppose the shoddy programming staff eventually conceded was true as well since sleep clause still works the way it always has). similarly, the banning of mewtwo with perfect IVs and things like that from the shoddy uber ladder never came into effect because ultimately they saw to some degree that wifi/in-game regulations and limitations should not get in the way of keeping the game as competitive as possible. i'm not going to even bother arguing about chs versus freeze because that is stupid and you should try to keep in mind that there has never been a ch clause on any simulator or in any major regulated tournament or video game and there has never been an outcry by the competitive community that would necessitate a ch clause. chs are shitty sometimes but they are an accepted part of the game, and always have been, and honestly, they aren't as shitty as freeze is, particularly in GSC, but in ADV as well, although freeze is somewhat rarer. that is a completely empty statement. did you ask the adv/gsc communities if it was preferable? clearly you did not because this is the reaction you're getting. who are you trying to please?
If Freeze Clause is being removed strictly for in-game correctness, we may as well remove the strategically handy % indication of the opponent's health, too, since that isn't a thing in-cart. Simulator Pokemon isn't quite Cart Pokemon, in the sense that you can add little bells and whistles like Sleep Clause, Freeze Clause, and showing the opponent's HP (all innovated in an official Pokemon title, Pokemon Stadium) to make the game more strategic and less...dumb. Without mechanics tweaks like these, Pokemon is a much less strategic and more horribly broken competitive game. As for the Critical Hit point, something like "Crit Clause" has no precedent in the official Pokemon games, whereas Freeze Clause does (the aforementioned Stadium), so the former has been shunned in simulator Pokemon even though Crits and Freeze admittedly add a comparable level of BS to matches. It's all about a balance between faithfulness to the official games and having a game that's actually worth playing competitively, and since Freeze Clause actually has precedent in the games, why subject people to more BS and less competitiveness? Removing Freeze Clause does almost nothing to change the metagame, so it's not like there's an extra dimension of strategy we're missing out on that's present in the carts. The clause simply serves to make a select few matches playable that otherwise wouldn't be, and it does so without totally removing going for the freeze as a legitimate strategy (you're only likely to get one, anyway).
Where are these many other people that agree with you? I don't see any in this thread. Show me a comprehensive list of competent RBY/GSC/ADV players on the server who support your point of view. And show me a single decent player that actually prefers playing without Freeze Clause. We don't play old gens "just to feel like the old days", we play old gens because we find them much more enjoyable than the current gen. It's as simple as that. Thats why we play them consistently. If we played based on a twinge of nostalgia, we wouldn't be getting riled about it. But the fact is that we're the players that are not only the most experienced with the matter, but the most annoyed, because decisions have been made by people who, without intend to offend, are not as well informed to make said decisions, and we're just supposed to sit there and go "yeah, thats fine". You've got a good chunk of the veteran playerbase here disagreeing with you, you might want to stop taking our opinion with a pinch of salt. If people want to jump into an older gen, thats fine, but it entirely defeats the point for them to do that if we just go around changing the rules that have been laid out for the past 10 or so years.
I don't know what say I have in this, but I also agree that Freeze Clause should be used on the GSC ladder.
Not going to quote everyone, but the main point people seem to be making (since I've replied to tradition/we don't need to do this already): "Sleep clause is also not mechanically possible, so it's ok for freeze clause not to be." Sleep clause dramatically improves the game. Freeze clause, in your words: "The fact is, and I don't think you can really doubt this, is that freeze clause RARELY comes into play anyway, getting rid of it is sort of irrelevant for the majority of the people. It's literally there, and not affecting the game at all." "Removing Freeze Clause does almost nothing to change the metagame" It has a minimal effect and, even if that effect is positive, it seems like perhaps we should only violate game mechanics for a significant improvement in enjoyment of a metagame. I'm not going to really push it, but I think it's good to have a strong argument for keeping each rule. I'd not want to remove it if a vast majority of the players of the meta want it (which they seem to), but think about it from a game designers perspective a little, not just a player's perspective.
If you're going to quote someone, quote their whole statement. It can dramatically change the context. The preceeding sentence of borats statement- "I don't think "going for freeze" is even a viable strategy for the latter gens." See that? Latter gens. The whole point of this thread is that Freeze matters a whole lot more in the older gens, why would he say it didn't matter?
I misunderstood that sentence. It seemed like he was saying that it was not a viable strategy "even" in later gens, implying that it's not a viable strategy in early ones either. My apologies.
also you aren't really violating the game mechanics when many non-cart (i.e. the games that were meant to more focused on the battling aspect of the game like stadium) games included freeze clause and nintendo themselves enforced it at JAA and most (all?) tournaments before it. honestly one might ask why it is wifi doesn't have freeze clause or any clauses automatically enforced at all and invariably the answer has to be that the carts haven't been made with competitive battling in mind. so a better question is, why try to stay as faithful as possible ONLY to wifi when they are so clearly uncompetitive? but since this argument is about metagames in which wifi is of no concern (the only comparable battling outlet is link battling...) and the competitive battling outlets (tournaments, older simulators like netbattle etc.) and games like stadium and stadium 2 all used freeze clause, i hardly see why anyone should be inclined to say including freeze clause is a violation of anything. it is more competitive, there's tradition behind it, there's nintendo behind it, there's the playerbase behind it; there's no reason NOT to keep it.
The clauses are stadium mechanics, so at the end of the day you're arbitrarily using one or two stadium mechanic with all other cartridge mechanics. It's basically an arbitrary mod meta like RBY Plus, because it can't be played on the actual games (be it cartridge or stadium). Point is if you're going to deviate away from cartidge legitimacy and make arbitrary tweaks, you might as well do things like fix focus energy and counter in RBY. You can enforce clauses whilst retaining cartridge legitimacy by simply DQing anyone who freezes or sleeps a second pokemon.
So instead of having a clause to physically stop it, you propose to simply disqualify anyone "lucky" enough to land a second freeze? That fixes things... just forget the whole reason why this clause is wanted in the first place (to help prevent otherwise good games being ruined).
Yeah, I meant that people in latter gens don't give a shit about freeze clause cause it doesn't affect their games. This naturally creates a biased view on the legitimacy of such a clause.
this is an unreasonable argument. you're suggesting that because we follow a rule that happens to be enforced in stadium, rby should follow stadium's mechanics. however, as i've mentioned, the rule was also enforced by nintendo in rby cart tournaments. the mechanics you are referring to are not the same as the rules of a competitive battle. if you play with stadium mechanics, you are not playing rby, just like if you are including tradebacks from gsc, you are not playing rby. my point is you do not have to base the competitive metagame on the limitations of the carts, because the carts are not made with inherent conditions conducive to competitive battling, it is NOT that you should arbitrarily take mechanics from different games to make some sort of ideal game. also, freeze clause and sleep clause and such do not COME FROM stadium (i never said that anyway), but they are inherently enforced there and it is an official pokemon game, meaning employing freeze clause would not be a violation of nintendo's intentions for competitive battling any more than sleep clause or any other clause. freeze clause is also available in stadium 2 and later pokemon games, meaning it is canonical, but that doesn't mean i am suggesting using stadium 2 mechanics to play rby, obviously. however, since we have the same opportunity to inherently enforce clauses when programming battle simulators, doesn't it make sense that we should take advantage of that opportunity rather than force people to forfeit if they accidentally freeze or sleep the opponent? my point is not "stadium has freeze clause so use freeze clause because i think that's a handy mechanic." that is a simplification of one aspect of the argument i am making. the point is, freeze clause has been employed by nintendo in non-cart games and in official cart tournaments for rby, gsc, and adv. it is no less an official rule than sleep clause is, and it's not a violation of game mechanics to enforce it, because it exists within historical competitive rulesets prescribed by nintendo themselves, as well as in several non-cart videogames. additionally, the competitive community wants it around, and it been around for considerable time, so it is unnecessary to remove it. since it is competitively desirable, canonical, and not in violation of any game mechanics, there's no reason NOT to keep it.
How did Nintendo enforce it on carts? Did they just restart the battle? My point isn't that we should use stadium mechanics. My point is we should either DQ people for getting the second sleep/freeze to retain cartridge legitimacy, or we might as well alter the metagame to make it as competitively desirable as possible, because once we've deviated from cartridge mechanics there's no point sacrificing competitive desirability for cartridge legitimacy. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But if Nintendo enforced it on carts, then I guess if we enforce it the same way they did then we'd be maintaining cartridge legitimacy.
sure there's a point. again, mechanics and rules are not the same. playing rby with freeze clause or sleep clause is still "true rby" because those rules were enforced in cart tournaments. the method of enforcement from stadium is more convenient and simple, so that is the one that has been used on simulators and is still used on simulators. you are not infringing on game mechanics. you cannot dictate game mechanics. but you can dictate rules. it doesn't seem you are questioning the legitimacy of freeze clause now so much as how it is enforced, or so much as you are questioning the use of any clauses at all, which seems a little extreme... it doesn't have to be an either or scenario though, because rules are always arbitrarily dictated. either way we choose to enforce them falls in line with a method that was somehow endorsed by nintendo though, so it doesn't matter, since rules and how they are enforced do not affect things like game mechanics (game mechanics do affect rules to some degree however, which is why freeze clause's legitimacy in rby is not even debatable).
There is a difference between a rule and a mechanic. Species clause is a rule that is enforcable without altering the mechanics. F/S are mechanics that are implemented as a result of rules. The mechanics we use to enforce the rules aren't usable in cartridge. For example if we made a spc drop clause that only allowed one spc drop from psychic until the pokemon switches out, that's altering the mechanics of a move for the sake of a rule. How did Nintendo enforce the clauses in cartridge tournaments? I guess my question is, if we have no problem altering the mechanics, what problem is there with fixing things like focus energy and counter in RBY?
i thought i already said that nintendo enforced the clauses with forfeits. the reason the stadium version of the clause (the inherent inability to freeze and sleep multiple things) is used is because it is simpler and more convenient. this has already been decided on and reiterated even in that thread that eric the espeon posted and i would assume that it was reiterated again in whatever thread lead to the decision to keep the old sleep clause instead of wifi sleep clause, since that has not changed. you are barking up the wrong tree here... secondly, the difference is that you are not altering any mechanics that change the flavor of the game. again, if you fix those things, you are effectively playing a different metagame, closer to stadium (why not just fix all of the rby bugs? why not just play stadium?), not rby. again, it's like playing with tradebacks; the game is no longer the same. again, this is different from using the stadium freeze clause because that version of the clause only enforces a RULE that nintendo condones for official cart tournaments with a simpler, more efficient, more convenient method, a method that nintendo implemented themselves in non-cart games which proves that they condone that method as well. freeze and sleep are things that have always existed in rby and in each subsequent metagame, and similarly, there have (almost) always been clauses for them. the way you clause them should not and does not matter, because they have been officially claused both ways, but it has been decided upon and RE-decided upon that they should be enforced by preventing double sleeps and freezes from ever happening. on the other hand, changing a mechanic like rby counter would be akin to adding the dark type to the game or adding a new move. it doesn't make the metagame more or less fair or competitive, but it changes an aspect of the metagame's flavor. it causes a discrepancy without achieving anything concretely beneficial. if later games were hypothetically never released, there wouldn't be anything to "fix" about counter, but regardless of the existence of future releases, freeze and sleeps' behavior would still call for clauses for the purpose of balance, and did call for clauses according to nintendo, hence the existence of such clauses in tournaments. to be clear, i am saying that you do not have to strictly adhere to the limits of the carts (ie having to forfeit because you accidentally broke freeze clause), but not that it's okay to completely alter the face of an established metagame to make it arbitrarily "better" (or in the case of the things you are mentioning, just to make the metagame different). i am not suggesting you change whatever you want, like eliminating critical hits. i am suggesting things that have been done before, done consistently, and things that remain within the confines of the natural contours of each DEFINED metagame. fixing counter does nothing beyond making the game a different metagame, clausing multiple freezes or sleeps does nothing beyond making the game more fair and competitive. again, freeze and sleep clause are acknowledged parts of the rby metagame as well as each subsequent metagame, and they're condoned by nintendo as official rules. it is not a case of either or. again, the reason the stadium method of clause enforcement is used over forfeiting is for convenience, and simplicity, and because that method is naturally more conducive to a more fair metagame as meteor64 explained quite clearly. additionally, unless you seriously do not see the distinctions between these two alterations, it would seem that you are being pedantic. furthermore, i do not see how this argument can be applied to later metagames, in which the cart mechanics are rather consistent with the mechanics of the non-cart games (except for present in gsc but that is of no importance), and i do not see why you are arguing about the enforcement of freeze clause in rby when the fate of that rule is not even debatable.
Ok I can see that argument. However, your point about it being enforced by Nintendo is wrong. Nintendo used the rule, but the not the mechanic. I only have an issue with the mechanic, not the rule. You could also employ a mechanic where if a pokemon lands a second sleep/freeze, they automatically faint. That's still using a mechanic not present in the cartridge games. I'll admit though it's not as arbitrary as simply removing the possibility of a second sleep/freeze because that was at least a stadium mechanic.
Not sure if this was ever announced and everyone probably knows already, but freeze clause was added back to the ladder about a month or two ago. Just in case. Also, we have no plans to change how either sleep or freeze clause work in the foreseeable future.
It wasn't to ADV, I just checked Tier: Adv OU Mode: Singles Variation: +74, -16 Rule: Rated Rule: Sleep Clause Rule: Species Clause ...and that's it :<