Other Item Clause

[amplafied]

MODS WITH ITCHY THREAD DELETING FINGERS READ HERE
(I think this topic is worthy of its own thread, as this requires comparing and contrasting the strengths of various items to come to a conclusion, something which would only derail other move topics. I hope smogon can keep an open mind and discuss this peacefully instead of what happened to the Lv 50 cap topic. I didn't find another topic like this when I searched, but if I messed up somehow, feel free to delete it.)

ITEM CLAUSE - The six items you choose become more important than ever before.

Generation VI has given us two amazing tools to play with, assault vest and weakness policy, will there be a need for item clause? Could weakness policy or assault vest spam be a problem in the upcoming metagame? The introduction of mega stones will obviously create more variation in held items among teams, but I for one would love to see leftovers being limited to one per team. This would allow the incredible new items such as Safety Goggles to shine. I would also really like the added element of strategy in teambuilding as you need to decide which wall needs leftovers the most and so on.

This would promote skill-based play in a way similar to team preview. If you knock out your opponent's choice scarf user, you know there are no more left on their team and you can plan your moves based on that. It might even promote the usage of underused items such as the Shell Bell and weakness berries.

Basically this clause would promote a faster paced play-style with far more variation in the items we see being used. More variation = good?

Discuss.

 

[Yeah Galo Sengan]

Honestly, I have to agree with this. There are so many more useful items this gen that implementing an item clause could really be worthwhile.

The only strategy I can really see this negatively affecting is full stall (and possibly semi stall) but it's something that people would have to play around (black sludge, sitrus berry if we change the singles format to level 50).

e: This would have the added benefit of making the singles metagame mirror wifi which would further erode the barrier between the two communities. I can't see a downside here.

 

[raddaya]

How are you planning to create more variation by stifling variation?

 

[Kriptini]

I really do like the idea of Item Clause, BUT it's also cool that Smogon doesn't have it so people can do stall teams and stuff. It does get tiring when every single Pokemon page on Smogon lists Leftovers/LO/Choice as BiS for every single Mon, though. I'm indifferent to the idea and would be fine either way.

How are you planning to create more variation by stifling variation?

You're going to have to explain yourself because this sounds like a troll post.

 

[raddaya]

Item Clause is stifling variation by not allowing you to use two pokemon who use the same item on the same team.

So I repeat, how are you planning to create more variation by stifling variation?

 

[Scorpiopt]

item clause forces variation since you cant have the same item twice . people would need to use their heads instead of relying on standart sets all the time (item clause is noting new to me and learned how to live with it)
even though i would love to see it applied here , its better not because with it in effect stall play-style ( witch i hate btw) would be impossible to use since it relies on leftovers as one of the main items used, and the metagame is already biased to offence (talking about gen5)

 

[raddaya]

Forcing "variation"(note the quotes) is not going to give you any kind of variation. If you want to mean "variation" as "Hey, I hate the current OU teams and want new ones" then say that and don't hide it under the guise of the word "variation."

I fail to see how this would be necessary in this generation any more than last generations.

 

[amplafied]

Forcing "variation"(note the quotes) is not going to give you any kind of variation. If you want to mean "variation" as "Hey, I hate the current OU teams and want new ones" then say that and don't hide it under the guise of the word "variation."

I fail to see how this would be necessary in this generation any more than last generations.

What you mean by "variation" is total possible combination of items and what I mean by "variation" is the number of different items being used. It's not necessary, neither are tiers, we could all just be playing ubers. It's interesting to discuss though.

 

[Xenon Blastiose]

I personally don't want an item clause, however I'd love to see a "Choice Clause" where you can only have one or two Pokémon with a choice item, so as to put more variety into offense and teambuilding generally.

 

[CQC]

You're going to have to explain yourself because this sounds like a troll post.

I completely agree with him, actually. There are several problems with item clause:

1. Some pokemon rely on a specific item and therefore lose a lot viability
A perfect example would be Choice Scarf; You basically need a scarfed base-100+ to reliably revenge kill, however, there are also several under base-100 who are too frail to survive most hits, so they're unviable without a scarf. But since they now suddenly have to compete with the revenge killers, even though they often serve different roles, it won't be reasonable anymore to use them. It's somewhat similar to the weaker Megas; They would be still decent pokemon on their own, but they have double competition, on the one side from pokemon who serve the same role, on the other from those who don't but wear the same item.

2.There is no "broken" team abusing the lack of item clause
Most clauses exist to make OP strategies unusable; However, this is not the case for item clause. Smogon usually runs on the principle "If it ain't broken, don't change it" instead of "I just feel I'd probably like this".

3.It promotes offense in a meta that is already dominated by offense
Let's look at offensive items:
Choice Band, Choice Specs, Choice Scarf, LO, Expert Belt, Gems already are enough to fill a whole team with only offensive mons, not to mention there are a lot more who are just quite specific, but nonetheless definitely usable.
Now, defensive items:
Leftover is the only universally usable one; Assault Vest is actually the perfect item for Bulky Attackers and maybe tanks, but walls can't legitimately use it; To make use of Black Sludge, you NEED to have poison 'mon, so it stiffles viability and variety on more defensive teams. Weakness berries also can't be called defensive items since their one-time-use-only means it's only viable on pokemon who can OHKO back. So all in all, you can't have more than 3 legitimately defensive mons, meaning, again, item clause stiffles variety.

So, all in all, it would promote greater item variety, but severely stiffles pokemon variety, and imho, the second one is much, much more important.

 

[Kriptini]

Forcing "variation"(note the quotes) is not going to give you any kind of variation.

Okay then, let's get rid of Species Clause and tiers while we're at it. Give everyone the option to run six Arceuses, because if you don't, you're not allowing variation!

Item Clause absolutely promotes variation. Suddenly you have to choose between a Life Orb on your Lucario or your Hydreigon. It opens up a whole new universe of theory behind strategies, and makes matches harder to predict.

I fail to see how this would be necessary in this generation any more than last generations.

It's not necessary, nothing is "necessary." It's just an interesting idea to consider and discuss because it adds a lot to competitive battling, and this is a competitive battling site.

 

[Kriptini]

1. Some pokemon rely on a specific item and therefore lose a lot viability.

If lowering the Speed tier tables is a direct result of one Choice Scarf per team, that can only be a good thing. There are lots of Pokes around the 70-80 Speed area who would love to see more play.

2.There is no "broken" team abusing the lack of item clause
Most clauses exist to make OP strategies unusable; However, this is not the case for item clause. Smogon usually runs on the principle "If it ain't broken, don't change it" instead of "I just feel I'd probably like this".

I can agree with this.

3.It promotes offense in a meta that is already dominated by offense

I can also agree with this, though on the other hand, it opens up more opportunities for things like Screen Support.

 

[Senju]

I dont think stall would be hurt as hard as it would have been last gen with an item clause. Poison types are going to be more common and get a second leftis with black sludges. Goggles and AV were mentioned before. Some new drain moves were introduced, weather doesnt hinder moonlight etc permanantly plus rest is back as a "reliable" recovery. Stall wise i think it would be allright.

Knock off would be greatly buffed - delete a revenger from enemy team. Trick would be greatly nerfed, because you cant afford to cripple an enemy with the only scarf/band/speccs you have. Unusual teamcomps would not be possible (several scarfer for example).

I would be curious if somebody would use more then 1 mega evolution stone and evolve the pokemon he needs more in the current matchup or to fake a set - but besides that, I'd say an item clause would just hinder teambuilding.

 

[MoxieInfinite]

I really like the idea of this, Item Clause is really fun, and the Gems and Weakness berries gives it a VGC-ish feeling, which is something I like. However, I can also see Stall dying out with Item Clause, which is something I wouldn't enjoy.

As long as we have a no Item Clause metagame as well (which basically is standard play), I would vote for this.

 

[amplafied]

Honestly, I have to agree with this. There are so many more useful items this gen that implementing an item clause could really be worthwhile.

The only strategy I can really see this negatively affecting is full stall (and possibly semi stall) but it's something that people would have to play around (black sludge, sitrus berry if we change the singles format to level 50).

e: This would have the added benefit of making the singles metagame mirror wifi which would further erode the barrier between the two communities. I can't see a downside here.

Actually, to draw an interesting comparison Team Fortress 2 is a game in which competitive play is very different from casual play. There is a huge rift between the two communities and all it does is hurt both sides. Valve, like nintendo, is not going to bend over backwards for the extremely small niche 1% of competitive players, they're working for the casuals. The competitive scene, especially in Europe has been stifled by competitive veterans who fear new weapons and content messing with their existing strategies which "work" and therefore stopped the game from growing and developing new ideas which made the metagame stiflingly boring.

The more similar competitive play is to casual play, the better it is for both communities. Competitive TF2 had the potential to be so big, and so does the stuff we do here on smogon. I really, really don't want Smogon to fall in the same trap as the competitive TF2 community fell into. I really hope people on this forum can get over their fear of change so we can be as similar to the official game as possible, and both communities will prosper.

 

[Kriptini]

[snip]

but besides that, I'd say an item clause would just hinder teambuilding.

I think the Item Clause might hinder the way we build teams now, but if it were implemented, we would find another way to build teams. Heck, official Nintendo players already do.

I'm still not convinced that Smogon should or shouldn't implement it, though.

The more similar competitive play is to casual play, the better it is for both communities. Competitive TF2 had the potential to be so big, and so does the stuff we do here on smogon. I really, really don't want Smogon to fall in the same trap as the competitive TF2 community fell into. I really hope people on this forum can get over their fear of change so we can be as similar to the official game as possible, and both communities will prosper.

There's a huge problem with this argument: Smogon competes with official Nintendo tournies, and guess who has all of the legal rights...

 

[CQC]

If lowering the Speed tier tables is a direct result of one Choice Scarf per team, that can only be a good thing. There are lots of Pokes around the 70-80 Speed area who would love to see more play.

It's actually much likelier that people just stop using even the few that were viable due to Choice Scarf, so the only ones who would survive the item clause would be the bulky ones who never relied on speed in the first place and were already used a lot before. In other words, it would just make the speed tiers even more critical since there is now way around anymore.

 

[Ketsuban]

Okay then, let's get rid of Species Clause and tiers while we're at it. Give everyone the option to run six Arceuses, because if you don't, you're not allowing variation!

Funnily enough this is something that actually occurred to me at one point. Species Clause made sense in Gen I because six Alakazams was obviously overpowered, but the amount of type balance in the modern game is unprecedented - does it actually shut down any overpowered strategies, or is it a vestigial organ?

 

[Dennis Moberg]

I'll put a few words in.

I like item clause. I've been playing VGC for a while and for me it felt natural from the start that you couldn't use multiple same items. I always thought this felt odd when playing on Showdown.

There are so many fun items in Pokémon and unfortunately so many aren't used in the Smogon formats because others are just better. I think team building would be more fun if you added this aspect to it. I'd like to compare with the newly added Mega Stones; they show that some added restrictions forces you to creativity.

My opinion really is if you don't have an item clause you might as well skip the Pokémon clause, but that's me. Hope this will turn out to be a healthy debate, I think it's an important subject. It even made me take a break from breeding to write this!

 

[amplafied]

Snippity snip

There's a huge problem with this argument: Smogon competes with official Nintendo tournies, and guess who has all of the legal rights...

It it was up to me we'd all be playing doubles to, but hey, that's getting off topic. (It's a crying shame that we're not practising the official meta all the time. . .)

The new berries, Kee and Mangara look really promising! It seems a lot of items this generation are leaning towards the route of bulky offence. I was going to ask if we have ever implemented item clause on the official ladder before but then I realised that because there are so many interesting new items this generation it's likely to be very different in terms of item usage.

Funnily enough this is something that actually occurred to me at one point. Species Clause made sense in Gen I because six Alakazams was obviously overpowered, but the amount of type balance in the modern game is unprecedented - does it actually shut down any overpowered strategies, or is it a vestigial organ?

I've got a feeling that I would dislike fighting MULTIPLE Gengar but I'd love to give it a try!

 

[Kriptini]

It's actually much likelier that people just stop using even the few that were viable due to Choice Scarf, so the only ones who would survive the item clause would be the bulky ones who never relied on speed in the first place and were already used a lot before. In other words, it would just make the speed tiers even more critical since there is now way around anymore.

That's not a bad point, though I think it could go either way.

Funnily enough this is something that actually occurred to me at one point. Species Clause made sense in Gen I because six Alakazams was obviously overpowered, but the amount of type balance in the modern game is unprecedented - does it actually shut down any overpowered strategies, or is it a vestigial organ?

Six Wobbufetts.

 

[raddaya]

Species Clause breaks the game; Item Clause doesn't. That's a terrible comparison.

 

[Kriptini]

Species Clause breaks the game; Item Clause doesn't. That's a terrible comparison.

Depends on what your definition of "breaking the game" is. Clearly, Official Nintendo thinks that it does.

 

[raddaya]

Depends on what your definition of "breaking the game" is. Clearly, Official Nintendo thinks that it does.

No, it depends on what Smogon's definition of breaking the game. Being able to have two Scizor would break the game significantly- especially if one was Bulky Dancer and the other was Choice Band. You would have to pack TWO counters to it, instead of one, and there goes the metagame. Meanwhile, being able to slap on leftovers to every pokemon doesn't make anything overpowered in the slightest.

 

[56k]

The nerf to leftovers just completely overrides any benefits the game might have if all items had to be different. Leftovers isn't just for stall teams, it's for bulky offensive teams too; things like dragonite and gyarados