[Doubles Discussion] Remove sleep clause

[Eggplant]

Hey guys.

I figure there isn't much of a discussion to be held here. But we're thinking of getting rid of it in officials.

There is a tickbox for it in tournament mode after all, so it's effectively possible to not enforce it.

 

If anyone wants to veto, please speak up! Otherwise we'll assume we have the go-ahead to just add this change in an upcoming doubles tournament like it's no big deal.

[fredrichnietze]

im quitting, but imo the question that matters is:

"do you want to encourage the game becoming more rng based or less rng based?"

every sleep move except spore/yawn has a chance at missing. there will be matches won and loss over sleep missing/early wakes/long sleeps, just like matches are won or loss over speed ties and flinches form rs. best out of three appears to be out of the question as does a swiss tourney, so people will loose tourneys due to rng. sometimes the better player will wind and sometimes not. it's not going to happen every match, but it WILL happen.

 

so original question. do you want a skill based game? or no?

 

also im not trying to say it's broken or uber or anything. just that is sometimes makes hax more important then skill.

 

if this is my last post here then good luck all and gambate

[spoiler]

gambate=do your best/good luck

[/spoiler]

[Eggplant]

You make very valid points that had me thinking for quite a bit longer than a few minutes.

While the intuitive answer to the question, "Do you want a more skill based game?" would be yes. And would imply leaning towards a decision to keep sleep clause, since removing it apparently promotes hax.

There are so many other mechanics that promote hax. Why would we restrict sleep of all things? Especially in doubles where "everything goes". Might as well ban confusion, low accuracy moves, crits, enforce freeze clause.

 

It's well known that an ideal meta is one where we have access to most of the original gameplay mechanics, bar the things that are overpowered in a game-breaking fashion.

Sleep isn't one of those things, and despite its unreliability, some people might see the fun in risking running it.

 

tldr we're letting doubles get away with so much hax, why make the exception for sleep clause. Just put it back the way it should be.

[OrangeManiac]

I'm definitely for removing the sleep clause, tbh. Every rule by default should always have heavy reasoning why it exists in competitive Pokemon. In singles, you would get why Sleep Clause exists since it gives pointless free turns with little or sometimes no risk.

However, for Doubles this is completely different. Let's consider the move Sleep Powder first. Not only does it have 25% of completely failing and missing a turn when opponent most likely is coming at you in full force but that 1-3 turn sleep is just absolutely jokingly short. 33% of the time the whoever got inducted to sleep misses as many turns as the one that attacked you if you got 1 turn sleep. Yeah 33% of the time it can give 1 free turns and 33% two free turns but let's remember the miss chance which often means horrible things happen to the Sleep user. There is a chance for it being "unfair" but there's two more factors to it. First: Lum Berry. This will absolutely destroy the life of a sleep inducter. 2) At worst you're just wasting a moveslot to a move which doesn't even give a higher chance to win.

A problem is the move "Spore". Due to no miss chance this has a higher chance of being just overall more beneficial but let's remember the only decent user of it is Breloom, standing at 2.22% usage. Also base 70 speed is just flat out ridiculously bad in a fast based tier like Doubles. It probably wont even get those two Spores off before it's dead not to mention the Lum Berry argument and the one that 1/3 of the time you just missed as many turns as the sleep inducter. And heck, if Breloom can even get one Spore off.. like I said that's already good.

You could argue that "it's a haxy move not promoting skill" but heck like Eggy said there are so many haxy things as well in this game. Why to suddenly limit only Sleep when it isn't even really that OP? If we had 1-5 turn sleep I might actually argue for having sleep clause mostly for the insane RNG nature of this but due to 1-3 sleep I feel like Sleep is like a high risk high reward but not even really convinced the reward is higher than the risk. If anything, quite opposite.

Edited July 17, 2015 by OrangeManiac

[Noad]

I support removing Sleep Clause from doubles, it is something a lot of the community want. 

[fredrichnietze]

im all for removing it, but i think the other side should be mentioned and considered(which it has).

the hax argument has 3 solution which are

-ignore the hax and play a balanced game usually

-make the game less hax'y through rules/changing mechanics

-play multiple games so the hax is less likely to decided the overall winner

 

2 is possible but very hard to do fairly and i dont think anyone wants this

 

3 is possible but it takes up minimum 3x longer to run. longer matches=more people needed to run the tourney and those people need to invest more time.

 

1 seems to be the easiest to do and what we have been doing for the most part. makes no sense to allow everything but sleep.

 

2,3,1 because ocd is bad and should be fought not accommodated 

[Eggplant]

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/55086-doubles-discussion-remove-clauses/?p=1101678

 

What's done is done!

Thanks for your input, guys.