Brightpowder and Double Team

[sims796]

Ok, remember this. The "rules", are all player made rules. Nothing more. Not everyone plays by them, and they are in no way official, until Nintendo decides to make it so. We can use wi-fi as an example,because wifi doesn't recognize what we call the rules, they only see what Nintendo made.

However, as a general rule in compettitive battling, yes, it is a rule. It has been explained why. It isn't really a strategy, as 100% accuracy moves WILL miss. Waterfall has 100% accuracy, yet that will miss after at least 1 Double Team. It removes the element of strategy, since it is such an easy to pull off stunt. It's been explained already,so I won't waste my time.

 

[shedinjask]

what with the strict damage clause etc

Strict damage clause doesn't work the way you're thinking. My god, does anyone who believes this take the time to actually look up Shoddy rules?

 

[sims796]

Well, remember that not everyoone are hardcoar pogeyman MASTAHZ. I never heard of strict damage clause, personally, but I'd like to learn.

 

[shedinjask]

I didn't mean that everyone should know it, just the people that try to talk about it and are totally wrong.

Shoddy's Strict Damage Clause is often misinterpreted as 'moves always do maximum damage', possibly from the name. The actual definition has nothing to do with that. It means that if you use a massively powerful Earthquake on a Heatran, instead of getting something like 'Heatran took 2374832794% damage! Heatran fainted!' you'd get 'Heatran took 100% damage (or however many HP it has left)! Heatran fainted!'. It's there so you can't judge the item of a Pokemon based on how much overkill there is, like you can't in the game.

 

[sims796]

Ah, I see. That does make sense.

Yeah, comparing definitions, you were rite, at least understand the rule before you mention it.

 

[Pogiforce-14]

Just to comment on the whole "Nintendo doesn't enforce player made rules" thing, Pokemon Battler Revolution let's you set your own rules, including various clauses such as freeze clause and sleep clause, so at the very least Nintendo acknowledges some of the player made rules and finds them viable, to provide the means for the player to enforce them.

 

[Aquilae]

One issue that has come up with the enforcement of these rules is that PBR and the Stadium series, to my knowledge, only allow Stadium type battles, 3 on 3 selected from your six pokemon and being able to view the whole of the opponent's team. This questions the notion that these clauses were implemented ingame, but I can't be bothered with sticking to Nintendo's rules.

 

[sims796]

Even if, Nintendo gave us the option of setting these rules. So they heard of the rules, big whoop, wanna fite about it? It still isn't a rule inforced soley by Nintendo, as it is a game made for children. If it wasn't meat to be used, it wouldn't be here.

Granted, I still vouche for it's banning, but still.

 

[Pogiforce-14]

Aquilae, while the random battles are preset standard 3v3 battles, as are all teh NPC battles in game, when fighting another person via Friend Code, you can completely customize the rules. For example, one of my rule sets for custom PBR online is:

Level 50 All
1-6 Pokemon
Same Pokemon Clause (No two of the same pokemon)
Freeze Clause
Sleep Clause
Double Knockout Clause

They also have the item clause and set damage move clause rules available for custom play.

Sims, I'm not saying that Nintendo is enforcing the rules, but I am saying that Nintendo understands that there IS a competitive environment for Pokemon, and that they are willing to provide accomodations for those players. Yes, it's a game for children, but not only children play it. yugioh and Pokemon should have taught everyone by now that just because it was intended for children doesn't mean it can't be highly competitive.

 

[sims796]

Sims, I'm not saying that Nintendo is enforcing the rules, but I am saying that Nintendo understands that there IS a competitive environment for Pokemon, and that they are willing to provide accomodations for those players. Yes, it's a game for children, but not only children play it. yugioh and Pokemon should have taught everyone by now that just because it was intended for children doesn't mean it can't be highly competitive.

Not at all. They had those exact same rules for Pokemon Stadium for the N64. They did not add those rules so that the compettitive can play compettitive, nor did they add those rules so that adults can have fun. The graphics in that game, as well as the very limited options show that it was intended soley for children. I never said it couldn't be highly compettitive, but those rules alone does not prove that they are trying to cater to the compettitive market, small as we are.

Also, I don't really see what bringing this up in the first place really proves. It doesn't show that Nintendo is banning Double Team or hax items, & the fact that they may be options (I dunno, I don't own PBR) only shows that it isn't arule they enforce. It's merely a rule made up by those more "mature" battlers.