Clauses in Generation V

[Firestorm]

We've sort of just ignored this for now, but we had that whole clause debate multiple times over the past generation. It was something that was on the table at the beginning of Generation IV, but then just forgotten about as tiering processes were tested instead.

For Generation V, most competitive battles I've seen have been running with just sleep clause and species clause. However, we don't have this explicitly stated anywhere. I think it has just been assumed that we'll be starting mostly fresh while not grandfathering everything from the first generation in - especially with our view on Pokemon themselves.

Would anyone be opposed to a simple poll like we had with Dream World on clauses? I'm thinking it could be set up like this:

[ ] Start with Sleep Clause
[ ] Start without Sleep Clause
[ ] Start with Species Clause
[ ] Start without Species Clause
[ ] Start with OHKO Clause
[ ] Start without OHKO Clause
[ ] Start with Evasion Clause
[ ] Start without Evasion Clause

We can use 2/3 + 1 supermajority for any of the clauses to go through and be activated right from the beginning. You can vote for one of each category (and we'll leave it public to cut off people who mistakenly / trollingly vote for both options). We'll use checkboxes. 7 days for the poll maybe? I didn't really consult with anyone before this. It's just a proposal to get things done so if you have different ideas on how to settle it, please post!

I think everyone is in agreement on Freeze Clause and Item Clause not being a part of the standard rules so that doesn't need a spot here. Self-KO Clause isn't so much as a clause as it is a tie-breaker so that's not here either.

[JabbaTheGriffin*]

Would anyone be opposed to a simple poll like we had with Dream World on clauses?

sounds good to me

[reyscarface]

as i said the only ones i really care about are species and sleep. sleep would be very broken if you let it pokemon like darkrai, breloom, roserade, etc. spam it, and species is just insane.

evasion and ohko can be tested though, i really dont care, you choose to waste turns in order for a "slight chance of something good happening", so its really your lose if you use them.

[Philip7086]

I am very opposed to holding a poll before setting up a proper topic where users can debate it out and say their piece first.

[Firestorm]

Yeah, I wasn't sure if we wanted to go into why we're going to vote what we likely would or do that in the upcoming thread, but I'm with reyscarface. OHKO and Evasion are options available to people that most better players really likely won't be using. If I'm not mistaken, they were first put into effect in RBY when speed played a role in the accuracy of OHKO attacks and Evasion. Not to mention in the case of a weather-based metagame, Evasion may not even be close to viable if we have 100% Thunder and Blizzard flying everywhere. I dislike the idea of telling people they can't use something without a really justifiable excuse as to why.

I support Sleep Clause and Species Clause but that's more because I prefer the game that way and we can always point to Nintendo and place the blame on them for introducing it to us =) We may need to clarify Species after all the forms introduced in the last generation. Something like "Pokemon are considered the same if they have the same Pokedex Number" or just use whatever definition Nintendo uses in its games and tournaments.

Edit: Yes Phillip, I was thinking that as well after posting. Can we use this topic as a place for that then? Just if you oppose this method, say that as well. Or a Supermod can edit the topic to be a poll about the method used.

[Reverb]

I agree with Phil, this is something that must discussed before people vote on it. After all, the consequences of the poll results will be massive.

[locopoke]

I honestly think this decision is pretty simple. There's no question that Sleep and Species clauses should stay. Lack of Sleep clause would enable Pokemon such as Darkrai and Breloom to dominate the metagame to no end while lack of Species clause would just be absolutely chaotic. I think the fact that even Nintendo uses Species clause says a lot. As for Evasion and OHKO, I believe it's best if we leave those unbanned and then if anyone has a problem with them after a certain amount of playtime they can speak up. But, to be honest, I don't think Evasion and OHKO clauses being removed would have an impact on the metagame.

[Megan_Fox]

I too agree with Phil, I support a poll but only after sufficient discussion is held. Hearing other sides of the story may sway the opinions of some voters.

I currently feel that Sleep and Species clauses should be implemented at the start of a battle. Species Clause for obvious reasons, Sleep Clause because without it, sleep inducers could spam it and potentially incapacitate an entire team.

I personally don't like the idea of OHKO moves being allowed in our metagame, relying on a very inaccurate move in hopes of KOing the opponent but I don't mind it being tested. Same thing applies with Evasion clause.

EDIT: I like Locopoke's idea, there doesn't have to be a specific test on it, it can just be brought up later if it's an issue.

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Originally Posted by Fat locopoke

I honestly think this decision is pretty simple. There's no question that Sleep and Species clauses should stay. Lack of Sleep clause would enable Pokemon such as Darkrai and Breloom to dominate the metagame to no end while lack of Species clause would just be absolutely chaotic. I think the fact that even Nintendo uses Species clause says a lot. As for Evasion and OHKO, I believe it's best if we leave those unbanned and then if anyone has a problem with them after a certain amount of playtime they can speak up. But, to be honest, I don't think Evasion and OHKO clauses being removed would have an impact on the metagame.

I agree with this post entirely, and would also like to note that anyone unfamiliar with the new sleep mechanics should go check them out.

[Deep Thought]

Echoing Rey - Species and Sleep are the only "necessary" clauses at the outset of Gen V. We are trying to ban as few elements of the metagame (Pokémon, items, etc.) as possible, so the best place to start is at what everyone agrees upon. We can then work outward from those 2 clauses, holding votes along the way concerning any further bans. The voting process is still undetermined, but this thread is about the clauses themselves, so I'll stick to responding to the OP. Let's give people on all sides (although so far we seem to be in agreement) a chance to voice their opinions like Phil said, and then we can have a poll here to determine Gen V's initial bans. Honestly, I don't think this will be much of a hassle, since it seems practically unanimous at the moment to start with Species and Sleep but not Evasion or OHKO.

[eric the espeon]

I think the stance should be that we should start without clauses unless they are shown beyond reasonable doubt to be necessary for a desirable metagame. Evasion and OHKO clauses (along with freeze, Self KO and all of those) are in many people's opinion not at all required, so they should not be included in the initial ruleset.

Sleep Clause is a trickier issue. I think it is safe to say that Sleep and Sleep countering strategies are highly likely to be the focus of any metagame (1v1 at least) without the Sleep Clause, and that a vast majority of players would find this metagame less enjoyable at least initially. So, I would probably vote to start with the Sleep clause active.

Species Clause is even more difficult. You can't say that "Species" would break the metagame, or even that teams running several of the same Pokemon would be likely to be dominant. Removing the Species Clause directly and significantly raises the number of possible legal teams, which introduces the potential for a large boost in variety which many players would like. The arguments for including the Species Clause seem to be based on not wanting huge changes, or weak theorymon about certain strategies being overcentrilising (or chaotic?), which is no where near strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is required, it's simply speculation. I would say there is a strong case to be made for not including the Species Clause in standard metagames other than VGC, and would like to hear the other side.

[Alchemator]

I agree with Eric. Starting with no clauses would be the best idea - if Sleep and Species are as obviously broken as some have already stated in this thread, we can enforce the clauses very quickly. If we start with these, we could just have a vast amount of "What if..." questions as we had in Gen4.

While I do think that no Sleep Clause would be broken, starting without Sleep Clause is a simple way to get a definitive result on the matter.

[cim]

I think there's going to be a split on the issue like with Pokemon bans, but I think it will probably fall down the bans / no bans line just like those Pokemon. The "no bans" people will want to start fresh (or just Species clause), and the "bans" people will argue for various levels of sleep clause, etc. I feel we should probably hold off on this decision until we decide what direction we're taking with tiering. It doesn't really make any sense to do no theory Pokemon bans and theory clauses, or theory bans and no theory clauses.

[Kristoph]

I don't see any potential benefit to removing Species Clause. At best, it will make the testing process longer and more confusing (and the banlist larger). At worst, we'll find out that nobody actually likes being swept by two or more of anything, and as much as "we should all let go of the outdated 1st-3rd gen 'counter mentality,'" we'll never reach a metagame that the community considers "desirable" by actively making clear-cut counters and stable strategies useless.

"Variety" is the only good thing I can see coming out of this, but I seriously doubt that anybody will notice or even care about the increased variety brought about by a lack of Species Clause. Who cares about being able to use Blaziken twice when Salamence/Lucario/whatever have to be banned to do it? Does anyone actually care about "that" type of variety in the first place?


As for Sleep Clause, I think we could easily sustain a balanced metagame without it by just banning anything that's too broken with sleep moves. Putting it up to a poll sounds like a good idea to me.

[undisputed]

As already mentioned, Sleep and Species clauses are a must. So many teams in Generation 4 had trouble with absorbing 1 Sleep user let alone facing the possibility of everything sleeping. Without Species clause, a chaotic metagame could become even more difficult. There are tons of new Pokemon to be prepared for, and facing multiple Pokemon of one type (like 5 Kingdra in rain, etc) could become very overwhelming.

I'm perfectly fine with testing Evasion and OHKO clauses. They are already luck based strategies, and most top players aren't likely to employ them. That being said, I don't foresee either making a huge impact on the metagame regardless of whether we choose to test them or not.

[Firestorm]

I agree with what Megan_Fox mentioned, in saying we probably won't have to test Evasion and OHKO. We'll get to them if we have to, but I doubt there will be much of an issue with them being unbanned in the long run.

[Iconic*]

Posting to say I agree with implementing a poll system to determine which clauses should be initially banned or unbanned. However, I also wanted to give my opinion on the validity/necessity of the four clauses.

As much I agree that Sleep Clause and Species Clause are the only clauses that should remain implemented, I'm surprised that so many people are indifferent about Evasion Clause and OHKO Clause.

Firstly, let me say that I agree that Evasion and OHKO attacks are terrible moves which completely waste a precious slot on a Pokemon. However, as mentioned many times, we're striving for a "desirable metagame" through these clauses. Permitting such moves in the metagame adds an element of chance that is beyond the control of the user who is defending against these attacks, meaning OHKO and Evasion moves promote luck. For years competitive players have been lamenting how luck ruins the fun in Pokemon, and I don't see in what ways removing Evasion Clause and OHKO Clause would result in a more stable or enjoyable metagame. In theory, removing these clauses doesn't sound too bad, but when you miss every attack on a +1 Evasion Scizor and it sweeps your team, or when your opponent's Gliscor goes 6/6 with Guillotine, you can start to see where the problem lies. To quote Aeolus:

Evasion and OHKO clauses have been banned for years because they are "strategies" based on luck. Dice rolling. Any OHKO move might KO any pokemon 30% of the time regardless of the opponent's quality team building, expert strategic play, or brilliant prediction. Evasion is the same craps shoot in that its use simply attempts to nullify an opponent's strategic play.

With that said I really don't mind if we undergo a period where they're tested, since we never know what will happen until we try it out, however I just cannot see any competitive benefit from eliminating these clauses. Why fix what's not broken?

[eric the espeon]

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

I don't see any potential benefit to removing Species Clause.

This is the wrong starting point. There are no clauses initially. You cannot argue that it "should not be removed", because it is not a 5th generation standard clause. The question is whether to add it or not initially.

I do see benefit to implementing the Species Clause.

Would be a reasonable starting point. And that benefit would have to be provable beyond reasonable doubt to outweigh the possible advantages, vastly increasing the number of possible strategies and a simplified ruleset, for it to be implemented without any testing.

we'll never reach a metagame that the community considers "desirable" by actively making clear-cut counters and stable strategies useless.

I do not see how allowing multiples of the same species makes clear cut counters any more "useless" that they already are. The counter mentality has was largely dead in DP and BW has obliterated the last hope of being able to counter everything. Teams succeed by having good synergy and adaptability. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact many players enjoy this kind of competition (myself included). As for stable strategies, what you mean is that the strategies will be different from what players are accustomed to. Any metagame will become stable given enough time. The unfamiliarity with lack of Species Clause will mean the metagames may take slightly longer to settle, but I doubt the difference will be significant.


I'm partially playing devils advocate here, I don't know if I personally want the species clause, but a case can be made for allowing it and if something is to be added to our ruleset we should know exactly why it needs to be there. Maybe it can be proven entirely detrimental to the metagame from puretheorymon, but you have to take each addition to the ruleset seriously.

Additionally, the idea that we are "removing" clauses has been brought up in reference to OHKO and Evasion, with the idea that if there is no benefit to removing them then they should "stay". This is incorrect. They are not standard clauses for the 5th generation. They should only be added if after testing we think they bring a significant benefit, and only be added without any testing if we are absolutely certain they will bring a significant benefit from theorymon alone.

tl;dr Gen 5 has no clauses at this point. We need to decide which will benefit the metagame by testing or possibly by theorymon which is very hard to dispute.

[mien]

I have a question about sleep clause, should it still be legal to put 2 or more enemy pokemon to sleep by using Magic Coat or Magic Mirror, like it was decided in generation IV?
Considering Magic Coat has improved to the point that it is worth using in a competitive team, the addition of Magic Mirror and the new sleep mechanics. This might become a controversial issue in the future.

I think it should remain the same, as Cathy's logic still holds true for this generation. However since this could become a problem in the future i'd like to hear this confirmed by other Policy Review members.

Regardless of what will happen to Magic Coat, from now on we must state the complete definition of Sleep Clause in any official tournament rather then the simplified one. This is to prevent confusion and to rise awareness in general.

[coyotte508]

I think too that Magic Mirror / Magic Coat shouldn't break sleep clause. Because the responsibility could lie in either side, for one.

For example, if one doesn't want to get one of their pokemon asleep he has all rights to protect himself with Magic Coat or Magic Mirror. Moreover, if you're facing an Espeon with Magic Mirror and use Dark Void against it, it would rather be the fault of the Dark Void user than the fault of the espeon.

[Kristoph]

Originally Posted by Fat eric the espeon

This is the wrong starting point. There are no clauses initially. You cannot argue that it "should not be removed", because it is not a 5th generation standard clause. The question is whether to add it or not initially.
Would be a reasonable starting point. And that benefit would have to be provable beyond reasonable doubt to outweigh the possible advantages, vastly increasing the number of possible strategies and a simplified ruleset, for it to be implemented without any testing.

I was merely establishing that I see no potential benefits of not implementing Species Clause in 5th gen. I went on to propose a number of potential downfalls of its "removal," without which I obviously would be entirely skeptical of its implementation. Those downfalls are all speculative in nature, but the important point here is that there are no viable benefits (purely speculative or otherwise) to outweigh them.

There is no theory even remotely in favor of a non-Species Clause metagame being better for the community than a Species Clause metagame, besides "it will increase variety in ways that nobody is currently interested in--also, variety in general is an extremely controversial subject, so even if many players were interested in (as in, even took into consideration, which they largely don't at the moment) this 'type' of variety, there is no escaping the multitude of players who are simply uninterested in additional variety period." This is an unconvincing argument when faced with the fact that "removing" Species Clause will probably have inconvenient implications on the testing process, if not result in complete disaster. You are telling me to risk complete disaster in favor of drama and controversy over an "improvement to some people, maybe," and I'm calling that a terrible bet.

[eric the espeon]

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

I was merely establishing that I see no potential benefits of not implementing Species Clause in 5th gen. I went on to propose a number of potential downfalls of its "removal," without which I obviously would be entirely skeptical of its implementation. Those downfalls are all speculative in nature, but the important point here is that there are no viable benefits (purely speculative or otherwise) to outweigh them.

There are speculative downfalls to a metagame without the Species Clause, but likewise there are speculative downfalls to a metagame without any number of possible clauses (no dream world abilities clause springs to mind). I am a little surprised you dismiss having a simplified ruleset and significantly increasing the number of available team combinations as "no viable benefits". I understand that you think that the Species Clause is required, but that does not mean that it does not cause some harm at the same time.

There is no theory even remotely in favor of a non-Species Clause metagame being better for the community than a Species Clause metagame, besides "it will increase variety in ways that nobody is currently interested in--also, variety in general is an extremely controversial subject, so even if many players were interested in (as in, even took into consideration, which they largely don't at the moment) this 'type' of variety, there is no escaping the multitude of players who are simply uninterested in additional variety period." This is an unconvincing argument when faced with the fact that "removing" Species Clause will probably have inconvenient implications on the testing process, if not result in complete disaster. You are telling me to risk complete disaster in favor of drama and controversy over an "improvement to some people, maybe," and I'm calling that a terrible bet.

I am not telling you what to bet, just trying to get people to have their arguments straight for each and every clause which we decide to implement in the new generation. And... of course removing a huge restriction on teambuilding has a significant potential to increase variety, not necessarily variety in the Pokemon but variety in the team styles. Maybe that is not enough to outweigh the theoretical problems with testing, and maybe some people don't care how many strategies are viable, but implementing a clause with potential to significantly restrict viable strategies and no proven benefit (I don't believe there has been even small scale no species clause testing), without seriously considering the alternative would be a mistake.

[Syberia]

With the huge number of threats in 4th and now 5th gen, on both the offensive and defensive spectrums, species clause is a necessity to keep the game competitive, for largely the same reasons that no one who desires a true test of skill would consider 1v1 to be their metagame of choice. Multiples of the same species would create a situation in which it is not even feasible to account for more than one of everything, placing a greater weight on the uncontrollable factor of what your opponent is running. Every team even now has certain things that they struggle with, but can usually get past (even if barely) with sacrifices, checks, revenge kills, and the like. However, these strategies are usually only good once, and if they get worn down dealing with a potent threat once, they will not be able to do it again. As Blame Game has stated, while allowing multiples of the same species would undoubtedly contribute to increased variety in teams, there comes a point when variety for variety's sake ceases to be competitive, and simply introduces more uncontrollable variables than are manageable with 6 pokemon and 24 moveslots.

[Firestorm]

Species Clause is odd to be me because eric the espeon is right in that no species clause is logically the default, but players - both competitive and not - think of Pokemon as having species clause automatically. I don't know of anyone who uses two of the same Pokemon even in their in-game teams. Every official competitive tournament has species clause enforced. I don't think Battle Tower or the Stadium-style games allow multiples of the same Pokemon either. Does anyone know what happens in WiFi battles in B&W with regards to species?

[Syberia]

Wi-Fi battles using friend codes (as opposed to random wi-fi battles) have no game-enforced rules whatsoever. People can and do bring teams full of 6 newly-hatched babies of the same species for quick level 100 IV checks without issue.

In-game teams are irrelevant, as people choose them for aesthetic reasons or because of what HMs they learn, not because they are competitively viable at all.