Hax Clause

Discussion in 'Simulator Suggestions' started by Knots the Notorious, Apr 25, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    The shoddy people discussed this millions of times. I think it would be pretty neat if this actually got implemented in Pokemon Online.

    In general, a "hax" clause would be a non-standard clause that limited the effectiveness of "hax" strategies. There could be several "hax" clauses, I'll address the two main ones.

    Clause A: Criticals
    -If this clause is active, the chance for a critical hit is either severely reduced or non existent.

    Clause B: Serene Grace/Flincing
    -If this clauses is active, the mechanics of flinching is altered to either:
    --1. Disable flinching altogether
    --2. Make the chance for a flinching move to flinch be reduced by some percentage (50% seems good to me) every time the move is used, very similar to how protect operates.

    What do the devs think?
     
  2. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    I want to make it clear, I'm not looking to make this a standard feature on the ladder or something. I'm not asking that we remove flincing/crits from the game altogether, I just think they'd be interesting clauses to have around just like our other non-standard clauses.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010
  3. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    Smogon had this before (yes 2009 april fools)

    its a terrible idea, smogon took it as a joke, it's a joke.

    no, imo.
     
  4. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    Why is it such a bad idea? It's a clause no one would ever use, it wouldn't be allowed on ladders and such things. It'd be completely optional in custom matches. I just want the option open to experiment with it! What's so wrong with that?
     
  5. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  6. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    So why are you so against it being an option then? All you did is reiterate your point. You're not being reasonable. :<

    It'd be easy to implement, and then whenever someone wanted to play with it it'd be there. I think a pokemon simulator ought to have lots of options like this to make the experience more rich, you know?

    It's like how in some FPS games you can turn down the gravity or give everyone rocket launchers. No one plays competitively that way but it's nice to have around.
     
  7. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because the fact that it is an option will make it become the norm.

    As the find battle function is barely used (or maybe its just me), challenges are sent instead. So tons of challenges will be sent with this clause simply because "I h473 h4x 17 r t3h ph41l!!!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone"

    Secondly what do you define as "Hax"? Misses? Crits? Flinches? Added Effects? Min Damage? Max Damage? All these are generally classified as "hax"

    It would change too much of the games mechanics to a point where you might as well make a clause saying all you can choose for attacks is "Attack" and "Dodge it" like in the anime.

    Edit: A post made by coyotte in the past, there are only a limited amount of clauses we can really fit on the challenge window, so if we add to many, we need to make a new challenge window.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010
  8. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    Perhaps disable it on a server basis?

    This sounds partially like a problem with the way that find is set up right now. It needs to be more obvious that it's there. That's an entirely different issue, though I do understand where you are coming from.

    Perhaps there could be an "advanced" clauses window to hide shit from idiots. I don't know. I would just really like to see what it's like.

    I'm just talking about crits and flinches.
     
  9. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Luck is an integral part of Pokemon and it is one thing that helps nerf stat boosters. Do you really want to face Stockpile Hippowdons and not be able to critical hit them? That's only one example.

    Critical Hits help deter stat boosters because the more moves that you spend boosting, the more likely you are to get critted. As for status hax like paralysis, that's totally on the user. If you can't handle being paralyzed for any amount of turns then start using Lum Berries or carry a cleric.

    Min/Max damage is good because it helps randomize the damage - if every single move hit with a set amount of damage, people would be able to manipulate IVs and EVs to ensure their Pokemon survives a specific hit or scores a KO with a specific hit (works both ways).

    This would eliminate a lot of the 'fun' from the game. If you are tired of getting lucked then go play something like chess.
     
  10. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    Well I believe it is wrong to not allow users of the simulator to be allowed to create and use the clauses they want via a scripting language (by the server). The challenge window clauses should ideally be editable anyway. The compatibility argument should just be the server's responsibility. If no one can challenge each other due to one's own interpretation of OU being with their long list of desirable clauses, people aren't going to want to hang around in that server. The challenge window could also be not much of an issue if we had a metagame mode where anyone who chooses that metagame is informed of the server's chosen clauses. As far as the hax clause is concerned, the server can define it any way they want. Like I mentioned though, there definitely needs to be a concrete way of informing people. Otherwise the hax clause could differ from one server to the next. If it was just a no CH clause, it would be better if it was just called that.
     
  11. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree that it should be possible via server scripts (for both the hax clause and the custom clauses) but I definitely wouldn't like to see something similar hard coded into the program itself. I highly support the idea of having a warning appear in the server if the server is running such a script.
     
  12. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    I never said I was interested in making this clause standard. Please read my original post more thoroughly. This is especially frusterating because I've already explained it three times in the thread. I don't want this to be a clause that people use all the time, I just think it would be neat to have around and I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented to have around as an option.

    Read the thread and you'll understand better where I'm coming from. I'm not asking that we remove crits/flinching/minmax from standard matches.

    Are you confused as to what I mean by "standard matches"? If not, what are you so confused about?
     
  13. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    I'm pretty sure this won't be implemented with the current battle clause system we have. As mentioned, there is only limited space on the challenge window and servers don't have the ability to change what is on there. I believe there is also higher priorities than this such as Self-KO clause and SR clause. This is indeed still a popularly suggested clause though.
     
  14. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    SR clause?
     
  15. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    Stealth Rock Clause - or even Spikes Clause etc. (entry hazards) It is more popular than this hax clause suggestion.
     
  16. Darkness

    Darkness DN

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    7
    Let not make it a built in clause. If really needed, we can script clause it. That is all.
     
  17. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Script Clausing it means using in-battle scripts...
     
  18. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    I never said you were. I just said it shouldn't be implemented at all, except as a script function.
     
  19. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    Alright. Fair enough. Scripts sound neat in dealing with this. :3 I just wanted to experiment with this sort of clause to see how it changed the metagame.
     
  20. Pokérob

    Pokérob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, by placing in Hax Clause. You will then get into this situation.

    You just lost in a final of a giant awesome tournament due to a parahax on your latias, you then say to your opponent "Oh I could've beaten you if that hax didn't happen." then you'll rant about it and you will get so worked up that you'll want a match through hax clause.

    The fact here is, as soon as you place in Hax Clause, you'll get a load of nobs playing that clause for the simple reason to show OH LOOK I CAN WIN WITH SKILL and throwing it in your face. Plus, if we didn't have hax, what is stopping me from walling your entire team to pieces whilst you hope for a crit with your poorly EVed Ice Beam?.

    You add Hax Clause then guess what? Look out for the hyper offensive v stall team wars.


    Finally, it's not about "wouldn't it be good to have" which is why everyone is against it, it's ABOUT "Wouldn't it stir the wrong kind of play". People will become so bent on hax being inferior in normal game play and by doing this your bluntly saying "I wanna play a game which doesn't have a luck factor".

    Plus, where would the boundaries on this be? Would it be hax if my sleep powder with 55 accuracy misses? In hax clause would that go to 100% accuracy so then it becomes a case of assured sleeping first turn? Wheres the line?

    It's too debatable and it'll stir too many rants and pisses at everyone. It's like a conspiracy, just fathoms the wrong kind of attitude for a simple pokemon battle. Hax is at the heart of the game.
     
  21. Darkon

    Darkon Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bad idea man. =/

    Hax are party of the game, make the game fun.
     
  22. pikaachi

    pikaachi Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it gets annoying when people QQ about getting haxed. Now I'm not promoting this mode. I'm only bringing out the fact that there are people who don't understand what you said.
     
  23. Eternal

    Eternal こんにちは。

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    If the chances of hax is reduced. And if I get hit by a critical hit, I would be even more pissed because my opponent just got even luckier. I think this is a bad idea. And hax is part of the game as Darkon stated. We're mimicking the actual game. We shouldn't change it.
     
  24. Kioku

    Kioku Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is probably the worst idea I've seen proposed. Critical hits are a component of most RPG systems; in the Pokemon games, it's fairly common. Unless if I'm mistaken, the standard rate is 6.25%. Most added effects seem to be 10%. With each turn that passes, the chance of a single critical hit or extra effect occuring becomes more likely. It will simply compound and happen eventually down the line in long battles. It's a part of the game that would be pointless to remove.

    Adding clauses to actual game mechanics would just open a Pandora's box. What would be next, a "no switching Pokemon" clause? I agree with one post I've seen in this thread, though. Servers could be allowed to add their own ridiculous clauses if they wish, however. People could disable critical hits, prevent the use of Stealth Rock ( obligatory "lol" from me ), ban red colored pokemon, or whatever hogwash I'm seeing here and it wouldn't be hard coded.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2010
  25. 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
    /thread
     
  26. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Hax clause won't be added, or not before a long long time. SR clause can be script coded easily (checking pokes don't have the corresponding moves before battling), just take example on how the little cup script bans Sonicboom and Dragon Rage.
     
  27. Steve

    Steve Active Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    45
    This should be hard coded.
     
  28. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  29. Steve

    Steve Active Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    45
    I was quoting Kioku's suggestion.

    [/joke]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.