Users selecting clauses(and other things to do with clauses)

Discussion in 'Implemented' started by destinybond, May 10, 2010.

  1. destinybond

    destinybond Server Staff

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to me that having the users select the clauses for find battle is a bad idea. Because for the ladder, shouldn't it all be the same clauses each time? Does selecting different clauses not allow someone to battle people with different set clauses? If so, then, doesnt it take off the randomness of the ladder?
    And then when you try to CC ladder, do you need to check the CC box? Also, the X's aren't explained as to what they do(the gray X is what i mean)
    Just a few suggestions/questions
     
  2. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree that the clauses should not be user selectable because it greatly divides the Find Battle quota. Now you have 5 people looking for a battle with sleep clause, 5 without it, 3 without freeze clause and another 8 trying to sneak past species clause. You get my idea?

    We need to agree on set clauses for laddering. When coyotte showed me the screenshot of the new find battle window, I had no way of knowing that the options were tickable/untickable. I figured they were just there to show what was being enforced on the ladder.

    I can't see any reason to debate what clauses should be set. They should always be: Sleep, Evasion, Freeze, Species and OHKO.

    Challenge Cup, Disallow Spects and Level Balance should be the only configurable options.

    No Time Out shouldn't be there. At all.

    As for which is grey, which is black - I think coyotte was just too busy to post the changelog which probably would have explained it.
     
  3. destinybond

    destinybond Server Staff

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, makes sense. I think zero explains my ideas much better than i do, listen to him :D
     
  4. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    I'd prefer it if you had a 'No Tier' option in which you can challenge with your own clauses and ban your own pokemon/items/moves etc. - and has no ladder. For the tiers, I think the unrated and ladder matches should be played with enforced clauses/requisites that are clearly displayed to the user when they challenge someone or use find battle. And those clauses/requisites also being displayed to the opponent who is challenged.
     
  5. Radiance

    Radiance New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree; the entire point of the ladder is taken away when every match can be played with a different ruleset.

    also, smogon decided that freeze clause will no longer be a standard rule but isn't being officially changed until the release of shoddy 2 (unless something dramatic has changed that im not aware of), so i would suggest going the same route.
     
  6. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    I am ENTIRELY against Freeze Clause being taken off. If 3 of your Pokemon get frozen in the same battle, you'd be very annoyed that half of your team is rendered useless.
    On top of that, Pokemon Battle Revolution, an official Pokemon battling game, has Freeze Clause as one of its clause options.

    I disagree with removing Freeze Clause from being a standard rule completely.

    I do, however, agree with having fixed clauses on for Find Battle.
     
  7. Radiance

    Radiance New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    the chances of 3 pokemon getting frozen is so incredibly low and situational, it doesn't mean anything.. and on top of that you can thaw out. the main reason behind removing freeze clause is that simulators are meant to simulate in-game battles, where freeze clause cannot be enforced at all (same applies to sleep clause which smogon is also changing, but that was much more contraversial). also its enforced in PBR because of 3v3, where two completely disabled pokemon is much more game breaking than it is in 6v6.
     
  8. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    I thought the whole freeze clause / sleep clause controversy started at the time of NB when in some "official" tournaments (I mean real life tournaments) you would lose if you froze / put to sleep more than one pokémon of the opponent.
     
  9. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    It doesn't matter that it is low and situational. It can happen, and eventually it will happen. If the battle is occuring in a snow/ice area (and going from your in-game simulation comment - and I know different backgrounds are not yet implemented), a Pokemon with Serene Grace using Secret Power will freeze your Pokemon 60% of the time, the same percentage that Jirachi's Iron Head has to flinch you. Would you say it was fair if I froze half of your Pokemon with my 60% chance to do so? For that reason alone, I think Freeze Clause should remain.
    Also, it is enforced in standard PBR 6v6 battles also, and I don't just mean in doubles. Trust me, I know. I have the game.

    And don't get me started on Smogon's Sleep Clause idea. It's a bad idea. That's all I can say without breaking some rules.
     
  10. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Out of sheer curiosity, what's smogon's sleep clause rule?
     
  11. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    The consequence of breaking the clause is losing the match as opposed to the (sleeping) effect of the (sleep) inducing move failing.
     
  12. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Like what happened in those tournaments...

    If I slept an opponent by mistake (like with an ability), I would hang myself :/ Or even worse, if I sleep a blissey and prediciting a Natural Cure I spore again on the switch, ARGH :O

    Their basis is maybe having a move failing is better than other options in some extremely rare situations, but that's just taking things way too much to the extreme, and I'm sorry PO won't be applying this one. And Oak's point on secret power (even though battle grounds are not implemented yet) just gives me the reason to judge the freeze clause necessary (before I disliked it lol).
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  13. Radiance

    Radiance New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    why are battle ground effects even being implemented? it's not possible in link battles on any game. atleast for ladder matches, the battle conditions should be exactly the same everytime you battle or it's not really fair.

    @oak, i don't recall PBR having 6v6, must have missed that.

    on new sleep clause, i don't think anyone can call it a "bad idea" until we actually experience it, but yeah.
     
  14. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    I dare call it a bad idea :/ Removing OHKO as a standard wouldn't be a bad idea :/

    Also i'm thinking of removing the clauses from find battle and use the standard ones in battles (except CC), as you said, Radiance. In short, it'll be the same as the old system, but with CC tier now hard coded. What do you guys think of that?
     
  15. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    Well the standard metagames should not have battle ground effects implemented - but it will be good to experience alternative metagames with these.

    I think most people can imagine what the sleep clause will be like. You'll have to worry about accidentally clicking a sleep inducing move when you aren't supposed to. Considering losing as a result has no more basis behind it than the effect failing does, I don't think the comfortability of playing the game should be sacrificed unnecessarily. I'd love for their to be an optimal solution but there just isn't. That's why I think we should stick to the user friendly way of the effect failing.
     
  16. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    For standard laddered matches (i.e. through Find Battle), I agree with Lutra that different battle ground effects should not be included. Just have it set to the building terrain permanently when they are implemented imo. For non-ladder matches, however, I reckon they should be free to choose whichever terrain they like.

    I'm personally against removing OHKO Clause from the ladder. 30% chance of killing any Pokemon on your opposing team that isn't immune to the move (non-Sheer Cold OHKO moves) or has Sturdy, regardless of either Pokemon's physical condition? That's 30% too much for me. Still, I've said this before in another topic, so I'll stop.

    As for the hard coded standard clauses, YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.
     
  17. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    What do you mean by CC tier now hard coded? If you mean hard coded into the tier menu, I'd much rather you expand the tier format to include the option on having a CC mode.

    I still strongly stand by the idea that non ladder matches should be able to conform to a metagame. If I don't want to play any of the listed tiers/metagames, I want a free mode. I want to be able to play the metagame rated and unrated. The latter without complexity.
     
  18. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    I can't do everything at the same time. I plan to work later on tiers to make it something much more comfortable and flexible. But the idea would be to have standard clauses set for each tier. Is that alright with you?
     
  19. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    It's ok with me as long as there is eventually a concrete way of knowing the clauses set without having to go into your first match to find out.
     
  20. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Ok. But what if you don't force same tier? How could you know the clauses beforehand?

    Edit: My judgement about sleep clause changed. In double battles, at least. Darkrai with dark void hits both opponents. So the guy actually would abuse sleep clause to have a better accuracy than with hypnosis. I think that in doubles breaking the sleep clause may make you lose the battle (in next release, I mean). In singles, I don't think it will be the case :/.

    What do you think about that, Lutra?
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  21. destinybond

    destinybond Server Staff

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope i can answer, even though you asked Lutra :)
    I think it should be made so that sleep moves fail if the oopponent already has a sleeping member, so since dark void has to hit one first, one will fall asleep, one wont (like in PBR iirc)
    But losing because of a misclick can just be plain stupid, so im against that
     
  22. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    Well to answer your first question, coyotte508, what was pointed out in the other topic was that the only reason for not forcing the tier was being able to have a more diverse challenge preference. Therefore I don't agree that when someone is in a set tier they should have the option of not enforcing that tier on the find battle. I will say again that I believe there should be a free mode - with a more open challenge preference on Find Battle.

    Though, regardless, there is nothing to stop something like enforce tier being present in the option menu that would enforce it for not only Find Battle but also work with other challenges as well. Based on that, you could then be presented with the clauses when you have selected the Force Tier option.

    As far as the Sleep Clause thing, everything what destiny bond has already said is correct. One misconception I believe you have is the fact that you are assuming the metagame with the instant loss is the basis on which everything is true and fair. Yes, you can increase the chances of sleeping one individual - but without the clause, you could be sleeping two. Who is to say that increase in luck is against what the clause stands for? It doesn't at all. With a clause, we have to make a decision on how a player is restricted. I personally don't see that example as being unfair because there is no obvious fair ground on which to base it on. The instant loss is one scenario; the effect failing is another. It is too difficult to compare them to the perceived unfairness in the original scenario.
     
  23. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Destiny bond: is it true that in PBR, one is asleep while the other isn't?
     
  24. destinybond

    destinybond Server Staff

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont know what youre asking, but if both start awake this is what happens
    "In Pokémon Battle Revolution, if the Sleep clause is active in a double battle, if Dark Void hits one foe, it will be forced to miss the other. "
     
  25. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Alright. Then I may as well keep the sleep clause as it is!
     
  26. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    Battle ground should be implemented the exact same way as shoddy.
    i like the way that smogon enforces sleep clause. as there are no moves that enduce sleep (EXCEPT SECRET POWER WHICH IS LINK BATTLED ANYWAYS), but what about effect spore?
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2010
  27. Quacks

    Quacks Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone could as well abuse Dugtrio. If you switch into choiced sleeper, they're forced to use sleep inducing again, after your trapper was put asleep. Free win. It's especially viable "strategy" in UU, where Dugtrio is extremely common and many Venusaurs run scarf with Sleep Powder. This is why I consider new idea of sleep clause flawed.

    Anyway, I'm posting here to agree with destinybond, allowing everyone to pick their set of clauses sort of beats the point of a ladder.

    Also, OHKO moves are generally way too luck reliant and can win one a match just by selecting those six times in a row imo.
     
  28. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    and about this ludicrous removing ohko clause from standard is just silly.

    its a standard clause in MANY places, going against the norm ends up turning you into netbattle

    edited last post too
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2010
  29. Akusu

    Akusu Guest

    I have to dissent, having had plenty of experience with Scarf Venusaur myself. Being aware of the Sleep Clause, and being capable of seeing the status ailments of your opponent's pokemon, you have to be damned stupid to get locked on Sleep Powder against a Dugtrio in most situations. On the first turn, I can think of no one that would be willing to risk a Leaf Storm or Power Whip from Venusaur on the off chance that he might catch a sleeper.

    It's a smart move on the player with the Dugtrio to switch into a predicted scarfed sleep powder, because all Sleep Powder will do is delay the inevitable, although it does give the Venusaur a chance to do some damage with struggle... eventually. And frankly, I haven't any Scarfsaurs besides my own (they're usually SubSeed or SD), and it's just as rare to run into an opposing Dugtrio.

    I wonder if you think it's common because I use it :P.

    OHKO moves are pure risk/return moves. There's nothing inherently bad about them, except that it's the ultimate hax move and that's why they were pre-emptively banned. No one can say whether or not making it a non-standard clause would change the metagame, but it's important to note that we haven't tried it. Also, it's a bit dubious to be quoting a battle tower loss, considering the fact that the game seems to increase the chances of it landing.

    Also note that the only abusers of Sheer Cold/Mind's Eye are Articuno and Smeargle, both frail cannons and neither can reliably survive the two turns necessary to destroy their opponent, let alone the 12 necessary to remove an entire team. Alot of good sweepers take down 2-3 pokemon before being killed unless their counter is brought out against them and I don't think this is any different.

    Regardless, like the Sleep clause, the OHKO clause prevents consistently frustrating games and should remain standard.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2010
  30. Astruvis

    Astruvis Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the clauses the way they are(In 9.6), however, simply making games without basic clauses unranked would fix it without annoying people as much.
     
  31. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    Freeze clause is a remnant from RBY days which should be removed. It is literally no better than saying "lets cut down the crit chance to 1/20 to reduce the luck element". Utterly arbitrary and directly contradicts the game mechanics, AND has little real effect on the game (you almost never get multiple freezes). PBR can't be used as an argument since PBR mechanics and platinum forms are mutually exclusive. tbh, I would argue for removing the freeze clause entirely. Keeping it on ladder is nonsensical.

    Ideally, rated matches should have set clauses, unrated matches (even from find match) should have selectable clauses.

    Also, Smogon style sleep clause is the way to go. If you select a move which would break the sleep clause, you lose the match (popup saying "if you do this you will lose" to prevent misclicks). Specifics of what breaks the sleep clause are debatable, but general consensus is that if you can't select any move other than one that would break the sleep clause, it's ok. Effect Spore and the like are ok. In a real match, sleep moves don't fail (again, PBR mechanics are mutually exclusive with important parts of the game).
     
  32. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'real' match. That seems rather ambigious. I'm pretty sure when you play link matches in the 4th generation, the mechanics don't force you to instantly lose when you would have induced a second pokemon with sleep. It's directly interrupting the flow of the game. I personally think interrupting the sleep inducing effect of a move has less of an impact than interrupting the game. In the quest of not interrupting the game, restriction are made. This is not the case for the sleep inducing effect failing. That's why I think only bad will come from it. I want to play a game that has as little external authoritarian presence over me as possible. I hope most other people do.
     
  33. Akusu

    Akusu Guest

    Agreed on the freeze clause, but I can't support any clause being enforced with an automatic lose. "Smogon-style" which is Shoddy simply makes the move fail. It doesn't cause the person to lose. You're forgetting cases where a pokemon might be forced to use their sleep move again, and situations such as Natural cure where it might actually make sense to use a sleep move twice in a row to try to nail something that it will stick to.

    In a real match, using sleep works if successful. In a real match, you don't lose for trying to sleep two pokemon. In a real match it doesn't always fail the second time either, so that argument doesn't work.
     
  34. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Just why is Freeze Clause on PBR then? Cuz nintendo Programmers are stupid?

    Anyway no point in discussing Freeze clause. When the new tier system will be made, it'll be up to the server to choose what clauses to use. If you want to discuss freeze clause go in "Beta Server Discussion.".

    About sleep clause... I'm not sure it should be in this thread either. But w/e.

    Also, if you're curious on how i'll implement the find battle clauses in the future, it'll be like this:

    The default is the server's standard clauses for the current tier. There will be a radio option going "Standard Clauses / Custom Clauses". Going to custom clauses will let you choose w/e clause you want. Going to standard clause will show the standard clauses for the tier and disable the check boxes. Hopefully you understand what I mean. For how to decide if a battle is rated or not, I've yet to make my mind. Because there are some uncertainties. In a perfect world the server will be able to have multiple sets of clauses for the same tier, deciding if the battle is rated or not or if the battle is even possible. Anyway, how this is implemented depends on how much I will work for the next release.

    There. :)
     
  35. destinybond

    destinybond Server Staff

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    So on the main server(the one you host) what will the standard clauses be?
     
  36. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    This is a beta server discussion. But for now it'll be sleep clause ohko clause evasion clause freeze clause species clause. If you want to carry on that discussion go on the beta server forum.