• Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!

Fly and Dig implementation and possible ban, opinions wanted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowbro can be PP stalled IF you got a team of unparalyzed Chansey/Starmie SOME of the time vs. the Psychic set, but paralyzing Chansey has never been difficult and Starmie is absolutely not seen on all teams (and some times when it is, it takes sleep). That's it.

Just because you don't get a 100% guaranteed auto-win in all of the possible scenarios and outcomes does NOT mean that getting an invulnerable Pokémon isn't broken.

And then you imagine the cases where you end up versus BOTH a paralyzed Dig Rhydon and Dig Slowbro...


I can't believe that I have to explain why having invulnerable Pokémon is a broken and bad thing. Seriously?
 
lol okay tbf I am pushing the envelope and I'm willing to concede on this I'd just rather see legitimate arguement about why it's broken before giving my full agreement.

alright I'll be pro-ban now because it's potentially kinda dumb
 
It is broken and if it's implemented, both moves will be banned. That was never up to discussion. The discussion is whether to Clause-Mod those moves or ban them to follow a more purist approach to the game.
 
Charizard gets Swords Dance, the only way to wall it off the top of my head is a defense booster like AA Vaporeon or Withdraw Slowbro. Sandslash, Parasect, lolfarfetchd... Mew of course but uber. (And Sandslash is more difficult to paralyze.) Golduck and Slowbro get Amnesia so you need a Special tank to wall those, which as far as I can think would only be Light Screen Chansey and other Amnesia users. Your options are pretty slim for any of the boosters.
 
PP stalling slowbro or taking it out via explosion and related methods are what's used normally for slowbro, and golduck would probably be similar.
 
I still think it should be implemented, even if that means banning the moves.
If in a custom game someone wants to abuse Dig + Paralysis mechanics that are on cart, he/she should be able to do it.

While I'm against implementing game-breaking glitches (like desyncs), glitches that lets both players continue to play (even if one is basically invincible) should be implemented imho.

(Stadium fixes Dig and Fly, btw)
 
My opinion on RBY OU bans:

RBY%20OU%20Bans_zpsnipx6dxl.png
 
I agree but feel that we should also have a variant where freeze clause doesn't exist, sleep moves are banned/gentleman's agreement-type sleep clause (and possibly freeze clause?) are in place, and desyncing moves are banned (unless it's possible to avoid desyncing in some way, and thus the moves not banned but whatever causes the desyncing is) just so we have some form of totally cart legal playable version too :] would be nice to have that in all gens xD I guess RBY's just the one where the most modifications are implemented, and with a playerbase that's very well informed about the mechanics
 
I agree w/ that. Who's supposed to 'make' the decision? Been a while since I looked at the thread, but I don't remember anyone unsupportive of fly/dig coded correctly+banned
 
The general consensus was to implement properly and ban for the most part. Unless you're going with some super gimmicky set, there's not much use for them. But as pointed out before, at least Dig Might be thrown on something.

(Unless, the policy was changed to allow moves in cases such as these to be corrected to emulate what was intended by developers, since this wasn't in Stadium if memory serves)
 
Last edited:
Can we make a clause for it? Just to link Dig and Fly together somehow.

Disaster Area suggested Invincibility Clause when I talked to him about it.
 
Dig is usable on Arcanine/Ninetales, if for some reason you really felt like using them...
 
arcanine sux, ninetales has better stuff to run (lol) and moltres is the only rly viable fire type anyway but I guess it's true.. nevertheless I support merely implementing the game mechanics as it was, instead of trying to fix things to our liking (or otherwise you'll see people doing shit like limit the amount of layers of spikes that can be mechanically laid, etc. if we give precedence to mechanics-changing being agreeable even just for bugs that break the game to some degree). Also why I support implementing acid rain + banning castform.
 
Disaster Area said:
nevertheless I support merely implementing the game mechanics as it was, instead of trying to fix things to our liking (or otherwise you'll see people doing shit like limit the amount of layers of spikes that can be mechanically laid, etc. if we give precedence to mechanics-changing being agreeable even just for bugs that break the game to some degree)
Click to expand...
you can't use this as a reason when we've played with the "fixed" mechanics for the whole lifespan of rby up until incredibly recently, and even then only on one simulator
 
well it's not the core reason I just felt like saying it at the time; valid counterarguement.

nevertheless my stance is still for implementing the game mechanics as they exist rather than as how we intend them to be [I'd support freeze clause removal + decision-based sleep clause in every gen (or ban sleep moves! :> maybe not but mechanically i'd be happy) for example] even though I'm very much a simulator-baby we should be emulating the games as they exist and we shouldn't reach scenarios in which are unrealisable on the cartridge other than for ease and practicality of use [e.g. the simulator interface and buttons, the cancel button is definitely nice], i.e. features that on a fundamental level don't affect the game, etc.

fwiw tho I think that sleep clause and if you want freeze clause would be fine for ladder play, for simplicity's sake for newer players, but I feel as if it would be better to do away with these niceties in a tournament scenario, where the players should have the experience to understand how clauses work et cetera.
 
Marty said:
So for example in this case you could have "No invulnerability glitches: An interrupted Dig or Fly does not cause the Pokemon to remain invulnerable to most moves."
Click to expand...
In context, we'd call this something like "Glitch Removal Mod". But in practice I'm guessing no one cares enough to do anything other than ban them.
 
What are peoples thoughts on allowing fly and dig but with the requirement that if you ever become invulnerable you must only select charge moves or switch. Maybe explosion could be allowed as well. It just has to be a move that will end the invulnerability.

I am not really sure why we havent thought of this before. It could be implemented on the sim by greying out all other moves when in the invulnerability state. And it allows us to be true to the cart and doesnt require banning some occasionally useful moves. Plus it could have the fun side effect of allowing people to launch solar beams from underground.
 
Dose cartridge purity really need to extend to blatantly unintentional game breaking glitches, I don't see what we gain from it.

We already sweep desycs under the rug under the category of "rby is fucked", I don't think this needs to be any different
 
For me though, being true to the cart means not adding additional mechanics too. So making the odds of full paralysis in an invulnerability state zero or returning the Pokémon to a vulnerable state following a full paralysis is not all that different to what you're suggesting, in my reasoning.

Comparing to sleep and freeze clauses, I'd say ice and sleep moves reach the threshold of high enough viability for changing the status quo a hard option. I haven't got any specific justification for allowing these modifications yet though.

Personally, I consider simple move bans, where the moves are simply not allowed to be brought to the battle, such as the banning of Evasion and OHKO moves, the default ban option. I feel reluctant to embrace new complex bans or modifications for RBY, but I do agree Endless Battle Clause (to stop seemingly infinite battles) is necessary for RBY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top