I'm arguing that instead of wasting your time arguing with people, go give it a go. Smogon's suspect ladder isn't the only way to test things. Once Pokemon Online gets Gen 6 going, find or make a server that supports item clause. If it turns out that it is better from your experience, maybe people will actually listen and add it as a suspect. Right now, you don't have evidence that it wouldn't kill the game either. Thus there isn't a need to change; especially since changing takes more effort and there are more pertinent things to test.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Other Item Clause
- Thread starter amplafied
- Start date
- Status
Look, many of us are people who've played the game for a few years. Now I'm not saying that those arguing in favour of item clause haven't. But they haven't provided any data that is backed up by any such experience.
I've played comp since Gen 4 myself. I've played my fair share of other, smaller, tournaments with Item Clause on. I can tell you this much that item clause on wasn't good for the metagame. I can also tell you why. It's because you throw out perfectly legitimately good sets just because it means two pokemon on your team will have the same item and you switch in terrible gimmicky sets for that. You're acting as if Item Clause is a new thing. It's not. It's been tried before. Many people have played a few games with it on before. It doesn't work. I can tell you that much.
The main question is "Why?". Sure, I get that you want "variety" but you're perfectly allowed to do that on your own. Is forcing every defensive team to run a poison type and a Big Root abuser variety? Making every weather team forced to use an ability inducer due to only one weather rock variety? No Item Clause isn't broken so don't change it.
I agree because of an annoying breloom. But I do abuse sleep myself sometimes. Evasion Clause too... I met an AI blissey with minimize mud bomb softboiled and toxic. Annoying
Well, Spore and Evasion both received nerfs this generation. More than anything I wish that GF would just create their own sleep clause. What happened last VGC finals was atrocious. Strategy completely lost its meaning, it was like the final battle of Code Geass just spamming FLEIJA/Spore until somebody won. I've used my horrific Prankster/Swagger/Sub/Foul Play teams to know that a game which relies heavily on luck isn't fun for either player.
I think making the game more like the Nintendo formats can only be beneficial (minus sleep clause, although we don't know how effective the sleep nerfs this generation will be) but seeing how hard a lot of people are rejecting small adjustments like level 50 and item clause shows that there is still a lot of ground to cover before there will ever be a more universal format.
This is starting to feel like a Goku vs Superman argument.
I think a lot of people have lost sight of what the thread was, a discussion about the merits of item clause.
I do not believe Item clause would suddenly stop or make pokemon viable, although I think it would change the usual line ups. Garchomp does not suddenly stop being Garchomp because of an item clause, just the same way Raticade does not stop being Raticade because of an item clause, so that discussion is going way off topic.
I know some people are discussing about why official 3v3 has an item clause and if you want item clause you should go play 3v3, but I think the main reason people who play smogon, enjoy playing smogon, is because of 6v6. So getting up in arms that item clause is the first step towards 3v3 is wrong and way off topic too.
Also Item clauses forces Gimmicky sets and ruins the meta game? Well no it does not, I could throw together a quick sand team in 10 seconds with item clause, hell I bet I could just list the items and everyone else could think of their own pokemon to attach them too and most teams would look different: Assault Vest, choice scarf, choice band, life orbs, focus sash and Leftovers.
Now it might be starting to read more and more like I am pro clause, but this is just because the people who are anti clause are being way too dramatic, so lets hop to the other side of the fence for a moment.
With item clause we might actually see a more yugioh like meta where it becomes obvious what the top team is and people quickly copy it (which would be awful). Think VGC, most final teams looked identical. Now I might of listed six items and everyone might be able to make teams with different pokemons but they would all be set in a standard role and eventually it would become just as predictable as it is at the moment. Thus not actually changing anything.
So I say, why not put it to the test? get a group of people together for a research tournament. Get them to build two gen 6 teams, one with item clause, one without, see how this changes game play, pokemon used, strategies and which in the end their believe is better rather than making silly sweeping statements like a lot of people are doing now. Plus we would quickly find out which side of the argument promotes more diversity in the meta.
I think a lot of people have lost sight of what the thread was, a discussion about the merits of item clause.
I do not believe Item clause would suddenly stop or make pokemon viable, although I think it would change the usual line ups. Garchomp does not suddenly stop being Garchomp because of an item clause, just the same way Raticade does not stop being Raticade because of an item clause, so that discussion is going way off topic.
I know some people are discussing about why official 3v3 has an item clause and if you want item clause you should go play 3v3, but I think the main reason people who play smogon, enjoy playing smogon, is because of 6v6. So getting up in arms that item clause is the first step towards 3v3 is wrong and way off topic too.
Also Item clauses forces Gimmicky sets and ruins the meta game? Well no it does not, I could throw together a quick sand team in 10 seconds with item clause, hell I bet I could just list the items and everyone else could think of their own pokemon to attach them too and most teams would look different: Assault Vest, choice scarf, choice band, life orbs, focus sash and Leftovers.
Now it might be starting to read more and more like I am pro clause, but this is just because the people who are anti clause are being way too dramatic, so lets hop to the other side of the fence for a moment.
With item clause we might actually see a more yugioh like meta where it becomes obvious what the top team is and people quickly copy it (which would be awful). Think VGC, most final teams looked identical. Now I might of listed six items and everyone might be able to make teams with different pokemons but they would all be set in a standard role and eventually it would become just as predictable as it is at the moment. Thus not actually changing anything.
So I say, why not put it to the test? get a group of people together for a research tournament. Get them to build two gen 6 teams, one with item clause, one without, see how this changes game play, pokemon used, strategies and which in the end their believe is better rather than making silly sweeping statements like a lot of people are doing now. Plus we would quickly find out which side of the argument promotes more diversity in the meta.
Last edited:
So far this paragraph has made the most sense out of this whole thread.
As I floated out earlier, maybe petitioning for another ladder where the item clause is in effect, or as Kyrone said, just running a few tourney's using it would be ideal. Test the waters, allow players from both sides to actually see what the changes would be first-hand. Experimenting leads to progress, and if it turns out to be a horrible idea after we've all played it in whatever format then it'll be dropped. However if it looks good then why not dedicate it it's own tier? Or even try suspecting it.
This. I'm not saying we need to jam Item Clause down everyone's throats (nor should we), but a ladder in which IC is part of the deal would prove enlightening, I think. Item Clause doesn't prevent you from using any build in current Smogon nomenclature, after all- it simply prevents you from using two builds at the same time that use the same item.
There are already IS a schism, if you could not tell.
This sounds like a fine offensive team. Now, the issue is, can name six items that can all enable a defensive team to be up to par with that? Defensive play is hard enough as-is, and I still have not seen one reason to induce item clause.
The largest argument by pro-item clause people are "It encourages diversity!" Ok, answer me this. When was the last time you saw a team of six choice band users? When was the last time a team used six focus sashes? Six choice scarfs? Hell, when was the last time you saw TWO choice scarf users on one team? In fact, most people don't ever USE an item more than once on their team right now. Having two choice specs or choice band users on the same physical/special side often overlaps with each other, and is a spot you can be using much more effectively with anything else. So what's all this crying about a lack of diversity? There's plenty of item choices for most teams to use, so there's no reason to "promote diversity!" when there already is plenty already. Even if item clause exists, would anyone use any items but Assault Vest, Choice Scarf, Choice Band, Choice Specs, Life Orb, Light Clay/Custap Berry/Focus Sash, Leftovers, or Weakness Policy? These are all widely used or likely will be used plenty in the coming generation. The diversity argument is pure garbage because it would honestly not change the appearance of most of the teams seen now. The only ones that would get hurt are bulky offense and stall--and for zero reason, because there's no reason for people to use copies of the same item now, so why would making a law preventing them from doing that increase item diversity?
Hey Kyrone- And what if, like me, you detest Choice items? I've never, EVER, made a team with one choice item, let alone two. You know why? It doesn't fit my playstyle. Now how about you make an offensive team without using Choice items? And by the way, good fucking luck using an offensive team with two choice items- I sure hope you don't let anyone set up on you with all those free turns you're giving them.
Funny story, I hate choice items, I hate life orb, but in a lot of cases if I do not run it, I am not going to win. (one of the reasons I am testing DD MS dragonite with weakness policy) and a few other newbies, such as assault vest tyranitar and Mega Scizor.
So has the argument boiled down to Pro people hate stall teams and Anti people do not want to run stall teams without multiple leftovers? (please correct me if I am wrong I got lazy skimming back through some posts to refresh my memory).
If that is the case we might have to wait and see how the meta is altered by defog and infiltrator and if there are any new strategies that arise from item abuse. (such as my defog+sturdy+weakness policy plans >=) )
So has the argument boiled down to Pro people hate stall teams and Anti people do not want to run stall teams without multiple leftovers? (please correct me if I am wrong I got lazy skimming back through some posts to refresh my memory).
If that is the case we might have to wait and see how the meta is altered by defog and infiltrator and if there are any new strategies that arise from item abuse. (such as my defog+sturdy+weakness policy plans >=) )
It's not a matter of a personal hatred of choice items. It's the fact that it is very difficult to nearly impossible to build a full offense team that has some semblance of strategy which involves a choice item. The reason being choice items WILL give your opponent a free turn. Some teams can afford that. Full offense can't.
I'd just like to start by remarking how pleased I am that this debate has moved on from Smogon vs Gamefreak (an argument that, I am ashamed to say, I got involved in).
Right so here are my opinions on the various items, based off zero gen VI experience but good experience previously:
Leftovers: Probably the most useful item in the game. It's not just used on nearly every wall, it's also found on most Substitute users and several bulky set-up sweepers. Its popularity may dip slightly due to the disappearance of permanent Sand, but I doubt it will stop being the most versatile item around. The metagame would be significantly changed if you only had one of these per team.
Life Orb: An item that creates Pokemon with frightening attacking power even before they set up. A great attacking item, but really only favoured on frail Pokemon since recoil would undermine bulkier attackers (except OTR Reuniclus). Really, hyper offense would be the main playstyle hurt by this restriction. Not many people seem to have pointed this out, by the way; stall isn't the only thing hurt.
Choice Scarf: Arguably the most balancing item in the game. The existence of Choice Scarf prevents a fast, frail Life Orb user with good attacking coverage from being able to sweep opposing offensive teams without setting up, so it keeps hyper offense in check. To a lesser extent Trick + Choice Scarf can also be useful in breaking stall. However, since the scarfer is choice-locked, fast scarfers can't sweep through teams as fast Life Orb users could in a metagame without Choice Scarf. Needed on nearly every team, but, conversely, most teams only need one, so item clause schmitem clause
Choice Band/Choice Specs: These are somewhat double-edged - immensely powerful, but requiring prediction to work well. My only concern is that some users are so ridiculously powerful that they don't care if you switch in a resist. You could potentially have one of each, so that's two wallbreakers, which is more than enough when there aren't even that many walls hanging around.
And the gen VI additions:
Mega Stones: Highly dependant on the Pokemon but naturally limited to one per team anyway, so no issue there.
Assault Vest/Weakness Policy: These seem gimmicky, and both seem to suit bulky offense.
Conclusion: from what I've heard, it seems that this generation is going to be more about bulky offense anyway. Since restricting Leftovers principally hurts stall, and restricting Life Orb principally hurts hyper offense, it seems that Item Clause could centralise the metagame around bulky offense / balance teams. Why not let full stall and full offense floruish?
Right so here are my opinions on the various items, based off zero gen VI experience but good experience previously:
Leftovers: Probably the most useful item in the game. It's not just used on nearly every wall, it's also found on most Substitute users and several bulky set-up sweepers. Its popularity may dip slightly due to the disappearance of permanent Sand, but I doubt it will stop being the most versatile item around. The metagame would be significantly changed if you only had one of these per team.
Life Orb: An item that creates Pokemon with frightening attacking power even before they set up. A great attacking item, but really only favoured on frail Pokemon since recoil would undermine bulkier attackers (except OTR Reuniclus). Really, hyper offense would be the main playstyle hurt by this restriction. Not many people seem to have pointed this out, by the way; stall isn't the only thing hurt.
Choice Scarf: Arguably the most balancing item in the game. The existence of Choice Scarf prevents a fast, frail Life Orb user with good attacking coverage from being able to sweep opposing offensive teams without setting up, so it keeps hyper offense in check. To a lesser extent Trick + Choice Scarf can also be useful in breaking stall. However, since the scarfer is choice-locked, fast scarfers can't sweep through teams as fast Life Orb users could in a metagame without Choice Scarf. Needed on nearly every team, but, conversely, most teams only need one, so item clause schmitem clause
Choice Band/Choice Specs: These are somewhat double-edged - immensely powerful, but requiring prediction to work well. My only concern is that some users are so ridiculously powerful that they don't care if you switch in a resist. You could potentially have one of each, so that's two wallbreakers, which is more than enough when there aren't even that many walls hanging around.
And the gen VI additions:
Mega Stones: Highly dependant on the Pokemon but naturally limited to one per team anyway, so no issue there.
Assault Vest/Weakness Policy: These seem gimmicky, and both seem to suit bulky offense.
Conclusion: from what I've heard, it seems that this generation is going to be more about bulky offense anyway. Since restricting Leftovers principally hurts stall, and restricting Life Orb principally hurts hyper offense, it seems that Item Clause could centralise the metagame around bulky offense / balance teams. Why not let full stall and full offense floruish?
Last edited:
i'll have the time this weekend to finally begin reading through threads but i wanted to just pose questions to the OP, sorry in advance if this discussion took a turn already toward these questions (i see people complaining about a smogon/gamefreak debate though, which i'll clean up when i get home tonight)
Why? What is inherently more skillful about knowing you don't have to worry about one more threat after it's been revealed than having to judge the likelihood a threat is carrying a specific item, regardless of what you've seen so far. I could easily argue there is just as much skill in making educated guesses of the opponent's team based off of information you already know ahead of time or thinking about what they could potentially have and how to play around it (I've seen two scarfers already, so I can try to predict this mon isn't scarfed; I've seen Choice Band on a mon I didn't expect already, how can I play around multiple Choice Band Pokemon; etc) instead of having that information just handed out to me once I see a Pokemon. If the argument is "maximizing the potential of your items", why doesn't this apply currently to Pokemon? We still have to decide between which item maximizes the effectiveness of our mon, but we're making the decision between more useful items such as Leftovers, Life Orb, Assault Vest, etc for every Pokemon.
How? Even though you're limiting Leftovers and other defensive items, you're limiting Life Orb as well, one of the key items to a "faster" paced style, as well as Choice Scarf. Why is faster paced better in the first place? If skill is determined by the strength of your play, and the lack of your misplays, then wouldn't logic dictate that the longer a game goes on, the better chance skill plays a larger role by increasing the number of turns one person has to misplay?
Why? We talk about how diversity/variation is good, but what exactly makes them a true showing of competitiveness. In Yu-Gi-Oh!, the one-deck formats have proven time and time again to normally be the most skillful formats. So why in Pokemon do we believe having more options available to the player makes the game more competitive? This is a question that needs to actually have an answer, because otherwise the suggestion is limiting item use for no reason whatsoever.
All of this what teams are helped/hindered by item clause bullshit is completely irrelevant. Smogon uses clauses to limit broken or uncompetitive strategies. That is IT. There are zero clauses that do not exist for that reason. Using multiples of the same item is not a broken or uncompetitive strategy. Thus there is not justification for the implementation of an item clause.
I want to address the "well why not test it" argument because I get the impression a lot of the proponents of an item clause test are newer players who do not understand the enormous amount of work put in to suspect testing even a single Pokemon. Discussions must be hosted and moderated, votes must be scheduled and counted, dozens upon dozens of battles must be played by voters if they are to have an accurate impression of how things change. It's not as simple as throwing up a ladder on Showdown and playing a few games to see what the item clause metagame is like. This is a huge investment of time and effort and it would be foolish to launch into it without a considerable stockpile of accumulated evidence, not theories or half-relevant suggestions but actual damage calculations or well-reasoned examples or something to convince Smogon to spend resources that are already stretched thin with the generation shift to try out a stupid bullshit rule than nobody has yet provided any non-anecdotal evidence for.
I want to address the "well why not test it" argument because I get the impression a lot of the proponents of an item clause test are newer players who do not understand the enormous amount of work put in to suspect testing even a single Pokemon. Discussions must be hosted and moderated, votes must be scheduled and counted, dozens upon dozens of battles must be played by voters if they are to have an accurate impression of how things change. It's not as simple as throwing up a ladder on Showdown and playing a few games to see what the item clause metagame is like. This is a huge investment of time and effort and it would be foolish to launch into it without a considerable stockpile of accumulated evidence, not theories or half-relevant suggestions but actual damage calculations or well-reasoned examples or something to convince Smogon to spend resources that are already stretched thin with the generation shift to try out a stupid bullshit rule than nobody has yet provided any non-anecdotal evidence for.
It's not necessarily about certain strategies being OP, we're talking about variability and strictly that. If you've ever played VGC style double, you'd know that Item clause is actually really healthy for that metagame (granted it's a faster paced metagame than OU). But my point is, it really does force players to think of more creative strategies and make every pokemon have a more defined role that they can fulfill that other pokes on their team cannot do as well. However, since they are vastly different metagames, I think a limited item clause would be beneficial in this case, like say, a limit of 2 leftovers and/or life orbs per team. And this is just my opinion as a guy who's played lots and lots of VGC; I honestly think it's a lot more fun when you're forced to think harder and deeper (heh heh) about what roles a poke is gonna fulfill and how a specific item may fit better on a different poke. Honestly, give VGC a try if you don't believe me.
Anyway, I just think people should keep an open mind about this since we're at the dawn of an entirely new metagame.
Fastflygon raises some good points about the practicality of implementing Item Clause. Smogon has enough work just balancing metagames, and suspect tests require a lot of effort from many people. Not to mention, at the end of the day, since reusing items isn't broken, the result would probably be "no ban". since that is the yardstick by which banning decisions are made. For those of you new to tiering/banning etc, sorry, that's how it works, and is the very ideology on which Smogon is built, so it's unlikely to ever change.
If you want to discuss rule changes, try sleep, or Stealth Rock, or Sticky Web, or even evasion or Mega Stones. These are all things that you could argue are broken, but, equally, you could argue are not broken. No one can reasonably argue that Item Clause would be banning broken stuff, only that it would be "interesting".
If you want to discuss rule changes, try sleep, or Stealth Rock, or Sticky Web, or even evasion or Mega Stones. These are all things that you could argue are broken, but, equally, you could argue are not broken. No one can reasonably argue that Item Clause would be banning broken stuff, only that it would be "interesting".
I do agree that not having Item clause is in no way broken, I just think it's kinda uncreative to run more than maybe 1 or 2 items on the same team, even if you are trying to accomplish a single of goal of say, stalling or a hyper-offensive sweep. I don't really think adding GameFreak's version of item clause is necessary, but players would certainly benefit from taking it into consideration on their own teams anyway. People just like to argue and get butt-hurt about these kinds of things. I sort of had the same opinion on the evasion thread yesterday; I don't really think it's broken as a strategy, it is pretty uncompetitive though as well as annoying as balls.
(edit: last sentence sort of unrelated to this thread)
Fine, it's uncreative. However, not everyone has to be creative all the time; quite a lot of the time people will be using standard sets by necessity, because that's what "standard" means. So it shouldn't be banned. Can we agree on that?
This is a very odd thread to me.
People are discussing Item Clause and how it would affect the meta game as if there isn't already a metagame in existence that uses Item Clause.
Can't we just compare and contrast the Smogon-meta to the Nintendo-meta and see which one is better?
Realistically, since they both already exist, can't people who prefer item clause just play Nintendo meta?
This entire thread seems kind of redundant in projecting the affects of things that have already happened elsewhere.
People are discussing Item Clause and how it would affect the meta game as if there isn't already a metagame in existence that uses Item Clause.
Can't we just compare and contrast the Smogon-meta to the Nintendo-meta and see which one is better?
Realistically, since they both already exist, can't people who prefer item clause just play Nintendo meta?
This entire thread seems kind of redundant in projecting the affects of things that have already happened elsewhere.
I'm seeing a lot of arguments in this thread coming from people who base their arguments on experience from other metagames. The biggest example of this that I've noticed is from VGC players, so while I love VGCs and respect that metagame, I'd just like to explain why experiences from the VGC metagame aren't great justifications for a change like this.
First, VGC teams are smaller than Smogon singles teams. When you're only using 4 Pokemon per battle, it's going to be a lot easier to maintain diversity in your choices. Smogon singles have 50% more members per team, and so there's a 50% greater chance that you'll have to adjust a set because of duplicate items.
Second, VGCs are based on doubles instead of singles. There are many items that work much better in doubles than singles and vice versa. Take, for example, Leftovers. Most of the time, defensive Pokemon in Smogon singles are going to be staying in for well over 4 turns. This makes Leftovers far more efficient in the long run than something like the Sitrus Berry. This passive recovery is extremely important for not only healing damage from attacks, but also for mitigating passive damage from entry hazards, status, weather damage, etc. In Doubles, however, many Pokemon aren't going to live more than a couple of turns. This makes the Sitrus Berry much more efficient on bulky Pokemon for surviving that second attack. Another example is the use of Gems. In singles, Gems occasionally have a use on sets trying to nail a certain KO (SubSD Rock Gem Terrakion) or trying to abuse Flying Gem Acrobatics. However, it's usually better in the long run to use a Life Orb or Choice item for the extra damage over time. In Doubles, the fact that many Pokemon don't survive for very long makes that one-time 1.5 boost a lot more efficient.
Third, VGCs are much more offensive on average. It's really hard to wall your opponent when you're facing down two Pokemon at the same time. VGCs are far more offensive, but as has been said before, offensive teams don't suffer that much from an item clause because of the raw number of items they can abuse effectively. For example, I can build an offensive team with Pokemon like Scarf Genesect, SubSD Rock Gem Terrakion, Life Orb Landorus-I, Choice Band Dragonite, Choice Specs Latios, Double Dance Landorus-T with Leftovers, Focus Sash Alakazam, Expert Belt Keldeo, Fighting Gem Breloom, Custap Berry Skarmory, etc. and not repeat a single item. On the other hand, defensive teams really need Leftovers. The passive recovery is essential for constantly dealing with attacks and passive damage. You can use Black Sludge as a replacement for some Pokemon (although that would force you to run a Poison-type, a thorn in the side of the "promoting diversity" argument), and some modern stall teams run a single Scarf user, but that still leaves you with 3 other slots for Pokemon that would really want those Leftovers. Sure, some of them can make do with some other items, but there's a reason defensive Pokemon usually run Leftovers: it's simply the best item available for them. By forcing these teams to use other items, you're forcing them to run sets that are worse off than they would be with Leftovers.
This point about defensive teams brings up another big issue about improving diversity. First of all, you may think that making people run different items will make the metagame more diverse, but it really won't. Most of the sets will still be the same, just with less than ideal items. As I explained before, an Item Clause will also put a lot more pressure on defensive teams than offensive ones, even as defensive teams are already suffering more with each subsequent generation. This will cause offensive teams to continue to dominate to an even greater extent, and as defensive teams get less popular while offensive teams get more popular, the diversity of the metagame will decline. This whole "promoting diversity" argument just doesn't hold water.
First, VGC teams are smaller than Smogon singles teams. When you're only using 4 Pokemon per battle, it's going to be a lot easier to maintain diversity in your choices. Smogon singles have 50% more members per team, and so there's a 50% greater chance that you'll have to adjust a set because of duplicate items.
Second, VGCs are based on doubles instead of singles. There are many items that work much better in doubles than singles and vice versa. Take, for example, Leftovers. Most of the time, defensive Pokemon in Smogon singles are going to be staying in for well over 4 turns. This makes Leftovers far more efficient in the long run than something like the Sitrus Berry. This passive recovery is extremely important for not only healing damage from attacks, but also for mitigating passive damage from entry hazards, status, weather damage, etc. In Doubles, however, many Pokemon aren't going to live more than a couple of turns. This makes the Sitrus Berry much more efficient on bulky Pokemon for surviving that second attack. Another example is the use of Gems. In singles, Gems occasionally have a use on sets trying to nail a certain KO (SubSD Rock Gem Terrakion) or trying to abuse Flying Gem Acrobatics. However, it's usually better in the long run to use a Life Orb or Choice item for the extra damage over time. In Doubles, the fact that many Pokemon don't survive for very long makes that one-time 1.5 boost a lot more efficient.
Third, VGCs are much more offensive on average. It's really hard to wall your opponent when you're facing down two Pokemon at the same time. VGCs are far more offensive, but as has been said before, offensive teams don't suffer that much from an item clause because of the raw number of items they can abuse effectively. For example, I can build an offensive team with Pokemon like Scarf Genesect, SubSD Rock Gem Terrakion, Life Orb Landorus-I, Choice Band Dragonite, Choice Specs Latios, Double Dance Landorus-T with Leftovers, Focus Sash Alakazam, Expert Belt Keldeo, Fighting Gem Breloom, Custap Berry Skarmory, etc. and not repeat a single item. On the other hand, defensive teams really need Leftovers. The passive recovery is essential for constantly dealing with attacks and passive damage. You can use Black Sludge as a replacement for some Pokemon (although that would force you to run a Poison-type, a thorn in the side of the "promoting diversity" argument), and some modern stall teams run a single Scarf user, but that still leaves you with 3 other slots for Pokemon that would really want those Leftovers. Sure, some of them can make do with some other items, but there's a reason defensive Pokemon usually run Leftovers: it's simply the best item available for them. By forcing these teams to use other items, you're forcing them to run sets that are worse off than they would be with Leftovers.
This point about defensive teams brings up another big issue about improving diversity. First of all, you may think that making people run different items will make the metagame more diverse, but it really won't. Most of the sets will still be the same, just with less than ideal items. As I explained before, an Item Clause will also put a lot more pressure on defensive teams than offensive ones, even as defensive teams are already suffering more with each subsequent generation. This will cause offensive teams to continue to dominate to an even greater extent, and as defensive teams get less popular while offensive teams get more popular, the diversity of the metagame will decline. This whole "promoting diversity" argument just doesn't hold water.
There's a lot of wisdom in this statement. Smogon and Nintendo are two very different entities with different purposes. One of the great things about these differences is that they give you distinguishable choices. If you prefer options like 3v3, Item Clause, no Evasion/Sleep Clause, and level 50 battles, you can enjoy Nintendo's Wi-Fi metagames. If you prefer 6v6, no Item Clause, Evasion/Sleep Clause, and level 100 battles, you can play on Smogon's simulators and have fun there. Changing rules we use here for the purpose of conforming to Nintendo is pointless because there's already a medium in which you can enjoy those rulesets, so there's no need for us to provide one. When we make changes, we should do so because they are in the best interest of the metagames designed and maintained here. Now, if there suddenly becomes a surge of broken strategies involving multiple copies of certain items that could be fixed by implementing an Item Clause, I say go for it. Otherwise, I'd rather give players the freedom to run whatever items they wish.
- Status