Pokemon is for fun. Smogon is for competitive battling. The administration has made that quite clear.
I see nothing wrong with starting a separate ladder for Item Clause, but for standard Smogon play, I don't think it's going to happen.
-
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
I see nothing wrong with starting a separate ladder for Item Clause, but for standard Smogon play, I don't think it's going to happen.
...I'm really disliking a lot of mindsets of "this setup is slightly less obvious to work with, better give up now". what happened to adapting to things, just because something is not immediately easy to figure out and set up doesn't make a team suddenly worthless, that's kind of a sad thought process
...and most people play seriously because it's fun. that's what they're here for, making strategic decisions is fun, playing on different tier levels is fun, being effective in those tiers is f u n, nobody would be playing if it wasn't fun to play competitively, otherwise we'd all be running 6 arceus teams until the end of time
People still managed to stall during the hyper-offensive swift swim + drizzle + shell smash days of Gen V, I'm sure people can do it without some items.
Okay, I'm going to sign off by saying I need to go to bed instead of insulting people's arguments. *yawn*
I hope you guys don't think that we actually want the Item Clause, but rather it's important to discuss whether or not the over centralisation of items is damaging or helping the game.
Don't be silly, people don't do fun things in their spare time. Spare time is for srs bsns.
Oh, not to mention that we are now in the era of the Mega Pokemon!
1 item = Mega Stone!
This is just getting easier and easier...
1 item = Mega Stone!
This is just getting easier and easier...
Here are the pro-clause arguments and my responses:
1) It encourages diversity by preventing everyone using the same items.
2) It would be more interesting.
3) We should emulate GameFreak's/Nintendo's official rules.
4) We should promote the use of these interesting new items.
5) I hate seeing offense teams with three Life Orb users, or stall teams with Leftovers on everything.
My responses
1) It discourages diversity by hampering certain playstyles, and by restricting the teambuilder's options.
2) We should not ban stuff because it would be interesting, we only ban broken things. The use of more than one of the same item isn't broken.
3) What is the point in us existing if we can't make our own rules? Stuff like nuggetbridge already exists for people who follow official rulesets.
4) We should promote good teambuilding, whether or not that uses stuff introduced in Gen VI.
5) If you hate stuff, there are two possible reasons. Either it is ideological, in which case, tough, not everyone shares your ideology but the player base must share the same rulebook (this reminds me about people who moan about legendaries despite the label being meaningless in the competitive environment); or it is because you can't use said stuff well, or struggle against it when you face it, in which case you don't like it because you feel you would be better at the game if it weren't there, and, again, tough, we can't please everybody.
1) It encourages diversity by preventing everyone using the same items.
2) It would be more interesting.
3) We should emulate GameFreak's/Nintendo's official rules.
4) We should promote the use of these interesting new items.
5) I hate seeing offense teams with three Life Orb users, or stall teams with Leftovers on everything.
My responses
1) It discourages diversity by hampering certain playstyles, and by restricting the teambuilder's options.
2) We should not ban stuff because it would be interesting, we only ban broken things. The use of more than one of the same item isn't broken.
3) What is the point in us existing if we can't make our own rules? Stuff like nuggetbridge already exists for people who follow official rulesets.
4) We should promote good teambuilding, whether or not that uses stuff introduced in Gen VI.
5) If you hate stuff, there are two possible reasons. Either it is ideological, in which case, tough, not everyone shares your ideology but the player base must share the same rulebook (this reminds me about people who moan about legendaries despite the label being meaningless in the competitive environment); or it is because you can't use said stuff well, or struggle against it when you face it, in which case you don't like it because you feel you would be better at the game if it weren't there, and, again, tough, we can't please everybody.
I've been on the fence for the majority of this thread, but I've been swayed to anti-Item Clause because the arguments against it are stronger.
The biggest con I see is that already good Pokemon that make good use with somewhat unpopular items (BS Gengar/Tentacruel, Sash Alakazam, Toxic Orb Gliscor, Balloon Heatran) will be even more popular and used more, and Pokemon who have to use leftovers, choice scarf, and Life Orb will be used less.
And let's be honest, all this will be doing is hurting specific playstyles in favor of balanced teams. Stall teams would then much prefer Gliscor and Tentacruel because they don't need to compete for use of leftovers.
And let's be honest, all this will be doing is hurting specific playstyles in favor of balanced teams. Stall teams would then much prefer Gliscor and Tentacruel because they don't need to compete for use of leftovers.
1) I think an Items clause would overall have a more positive effect on diversity. I'm not saying there's no downside to it. But I firmly believe that on balance it would lead to greater diversity. You say it would "hamper certain playstyles". Are you part of the other people in this thread who feels that Stall would no longer be viable? I STRONGLY disagree with you on all accounts.
2) I actually agree with you on this point. The use of multiple items is NOT broken, and therefore it won't be banned. I was responding to the topic question - which is whether or not I think the game would be better if it had an Items Clause. And yes, I do think it would be a better game - and that's what I'm expressing. I think a separate tier for an Items Clause is more realistic than expecting to see it implemented in the standard metagame.
3) This is just being silly. Smogon exists to create rules that improve the game. On a greater scale, laws exist for the overall benefit of society. If you feel so strongly about pure freedom - try moving to Syria, perhaps the only country on Earth that is truly lawless - and see how much you enjoy it.
4 ) Okay...
5) Who said anything about hate? I simply think it would be a more interesting metagame with items clause. I certainly don't "struggle" against it. You're really putting words into people's mouth. The people in this thread who are pro Items Clause are simply saying that they think it would improve the metagame. You should accept that for what it is rather than getting into this silly assumptions about people "hating" when other people use multiple items or feeling like they are not skilled enough as a player to deal with 2 opposing Pokemon using the same item.
Last edited:
1) You can't make people creative. People have to invent stuff for themselves.
2) Of course you could have a "no item clause" metagame, just like we had a "no Stealth Rock" metagame for a month or so. If you're arguing for that, could we leave the arguments over whether it is a good idea until after the metagame has been created and played?
3) I never said Smogon should deliberately not use GBU rules. I said that we should not follow GBU rules blindly, we have our own criteria for developing our rulesets (and that is: have the rules as simple as possible while eliminating broken stuff and, as a secondary concern, retaining non-broken stuff).
5) (since you sort of ignored 4) I didn't say you didn't "hate" spamming of items. But several people on this forum have said as much.
Last edited:
Your argument really sounds like, "I do not want to have to think about what Items to use". Not being able to slap life orb on every single pokemon or choice items on every single pokemon really puts more emphasis on strategic team building.
*edit*
Going to expand a bit more as the post was fairly pointless to the discussion. Even if you play all out offensive just because you cannot scarf a whole team does not mean the whole team is no longer viable, you have three choice items, so that is three attackers sorted and you have orb as well that is four guys on your team that was easy enough. So you got two guys left and you can still easily use the most viable items on them, I could put assault vest on a bulky, have a leftovers put onto another bulky and still have a sturdy type use weakness policy.
So where am I being limited by items clause? You just got to think which mon in your team best fits the purpose rather than looking at the standard smogon page for each pokemon variety in play styles in assured.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is saying it would be impossible to play stall with item clause, the point is your bending ass over backwards to try and make a viable stall team, when you can just run an offensive team and not be hindered by Item Clause in any real way. Stall teams get utterly destroyed by item clause, since they actually need to change members in order to have a legal team. Take for instance, a standard Stall team consisting of the following: Hippowdon / Roserade / Jellicent / Stoutland / Latias / Skarmory.
Yes, you can run that team with an item clause, but you hurt the viability of the team. You can run Black Sludge on Roserade, but you really want Leftovers on all of Hippowdon / Latias / Jellicent, since Sandstorm chips away at their health constantly. You can run Rocky Helmet Skarmory, as well as CB Stoutland, and I guess you can make the team legal by running something like Chesto Rest Jellicent, and LO Latias, but the point is, your team has suffered significantly, since Leftovers is so key to stall members. Sure, the team might work, but its much less effective as an actual stall team, especially when compared with how strong it would be if item clause didn't exist, which in turn, makes it weaker vs offensive teams (since Offensive teams are not really as affected as they are via Item Clause) which in turn, means its less viable to play (since your stall team is weaker than it should be), which means people shift to offensive teams and eventually stall dies out. The basic principal is that item clause impacts pretty much only on stall teams, and risks making them unviable to play. This is key since if your killing the stall playstyle, then your actually making the metagame less diverse, since your removing an actual teamstyle, for the gain of what? More offensive teams?
Yes, you can run that team with an item clause, but you hurt the viability of the team. You can run Black Sludge on Roserade, but you really want Leftovers on all of Hippowdon / Latias / Jellicent, since Sandstorm chips away at their health constantly. You can run Rocky Helmet Skarmory, as well as CB Stoutland, and I guess you can make the team legal by running something like Chesto Rest Jellicent, and LO Latias, but the point is, your team has suffered significantly, since Leftovers is so key to stall members. Sure, the team might work, but its much less effective as an actual stall team, especially when compared with how strong it would be if item clause didn't exist, which in turn, makes it weaker vs offensive teams (since Offensive teams are not really as affected as they are via Item Clause) which in turn, means its less viable to play (since your stall team is weaker than it should be), which means people shift to offensive teams and eventually stall dies out. The basic principal is that item clause impacts pretty much only on stall teams, and risks making them unviable to play. This is key since if your killing the stall playstyle, then your actually making the metagame less diverse, since your removing an actual teamstyle, for the gain of what? More offensive teams?
Another concern with the idea of item clause is that it might force people to run teams where some team members are deliberately inferior to others. If anyone remembers the OM Budgetmons, this was a concern here.
The basic idea of Budgetmons was that of normal OU but with the restriction that your team of six was capped to a total of (I think) 2500 BST or something across six team members. You could either try and run several Pokemon that punched above their weight in terms of BST, which was the idea, but most people found it was more effective to run, say three of four top-tier OU threats and run Sunkern and friends to compensate for the BST and provide death fodder. This accentuated match-up problems: while match-up is much reduced with a team of six, when you are effectively fighting with three the problem is much worse (oh look, this is exactly why we don't follow GBU rules, take that WaterlooZoo!) This seems a ridiculous way to play, at least to me, since Budgetmons was meant to be a metagame celebrating specialised, low-BST Pokemon. Oddly enough, it was also born out of similar thought to item clause: oh, I'm bored of seeing the same Pokemon (read: items) over and over again, let's try and inject some diversity. It didn't really work.
The same problem (at least theoretically) exists with item clause, because just like BST is a resource to be managed in Budgetmons, so items would be a resource in such a metagame. Ginganinga has already alluded to it but you will often have two or three unavoidably inferior Pokemon. In such a metagame the team match-up issue is made just that little bit worse.
The basic idea of Budgetmons was that of normal OU but with the restriction that your team of six was capped to a total of (I think) 2500 BST or something across six team members. You could either try and run several Pokemon that punched above their weight in terms of BST, which was the idea, but most people found it was more effective to run, say three of four top-tier OU threats and run Sunkern and friends to compensate for the BST and provide death fodder. This accentuated match-up problems: while match-up is much reduced with a team of six, when you are effectively fighting with three the problem is much worse (oh look, this is exactly why we don't follow GBU rules, take that WaterlooZoo!) This seems a ridiculous way to play, at least to me, since Budgetmons was meant to be a metagame celebrating specialised, low-BST Pokemon. Oddly enough, it was also born out of similar thought to item clause: oh, I'm bored of seeing the same Pokemon (read: items) over and over again, let's try and inject some diversity. It didn't really work.
The same problem (at least theoretically) exists with item clause, because just like BST is a resource to be managed in Budgetmons, so items would be a resource in such a metagame. Ginganinga has already alluded to it but you will often have two or three unavoidably inferior Pokemon. In such a metagame the team match-up issue is made just that little bit worse.
Here's a perspective I don't think anyone has directly considered.
One of the defining traits of a balanced metagame is decentralisation - the idea that play is not defined by the use of one tactic and its counters to the exclusion of all else. When a Pokémon unduly centralises the metagame around it, that Pokémon is banned. I argue that the "item metagame" is dominated by Life Orb, Choice items, Leftovers... to the exclusion of more niche items, and thus that the introduction of Item Clause would result in decreased centralisation and hence a more balanced metagame.
One of the defining traits of a balanced metagame is decentralisation - the idea that play is not defined by the use of one tactic and its counters to the exclusion of all else. When a Pokémon unduly centralises the metagame around it, that Pokémon is banned. I argue that the "item metagame" is dominated by Life Orb, Choice items, Leftovers... to the exclusion of more niche items, and thus that the introduction of Item Clause would result in decreased centralisation and hence a more balanced metagame.
I thought that at first, but then I thought that the metagame could just be centered around 6 items in general, like Leftovers, Life Orb, 3 Choice, and Assault Vest (just picking random things off the top of my head).
Best argument I've heard so far against Item Clause. I'm pro myself but want to make the effort to point out arguments that I think are true on both sides.
But wouldn't the imbalance in variety between offensive and defensive items actually just centralize both the item and team comp metas to tend towards offensive?
If we take that perspective, then surely Stealth Rock is the most pressing concern, it's far more centralising than any individiual item (except arguably in Little Cup).
It isn't our fault that GameFreak created a small bunch of items that outclass everything else. I'm all for diversity but I oppose forcing people to run substandard stuff.
Do not make the wrong assumption that introducing item clause decentralises the meta-game. The focus merely shift away to another item meta-game. I have yet to see anyone make good arguments about why item clause causes decentralisation.
Considering how fresh XY is, it's hard not to be indifferent about this suggestion (similar to the crapstorm that brewed around the evasion thread.) While there are definite pros to trying an items clause- the game has just shifted too far from B2W2 to really make hard and fast snap judgments about whether it should become standard or not. There is a reason that the items clause wasn't standard in previous games, but it definitely requires some amount of evaluation on it's own terms.
I don't think having only 3-4 permanent item slots necessarily puts stall teams out to dry either- if the 3 recovery items do sufficient work in undermining the opposition's tempo. That said, having only 1 LO per team also severely limits hyper offensive teams who already under duress from the general upgrade of well rounded mons.
One thing I fundamentally disagree with though is the notion that rules like these should exist "because they create variety." Rules are fundamental restrictions and will at every turn, improve some options, while taking others away. This sort of rule doesn't "create variety", nor does it "destroy variety"- it simply warps the format and how each archetype has to play in that format.
Until we know more about the games. this is definitely a rule worth experimenting with- but unlikely to see standardized headway.
I don't think having only 3-4 permanent item slots necessarily puts stall teams out to dry either- if the 3 recovery items do sufficient work in undermining the opposition's tempo. That said, having only 1 LO per team also severely limits hyper offensive teams who already under duress from the general upgrade of well rounded mons.
One thing I fundamentally disagree with though is the notion that rules like these should exist "because they create variety." Rules are fundamental restrictions and will at every turn, improve some options, while taking others away. This sort of rule doesn't "create variety", nor does it "destroy variety"- it simply warps the format and how each archetype has to play in that format.
Until we know more about the games. this is definitely a rule worth experimenting with- but unlikely to see standardized headway.
Pikachuun
the entire waruda machine
My standpoint: Against. And here's my 2-page (I think) essay as to why:
Firstly, everyone who's pro-clause is saying: "OH IT WILL ENCOURAGE MORE DIVERSITY IT MUST BE GOOD :DDDDDD" Nay-nay. Not all diversity is good. Let's take some examples about how "good" diversity is from real life, and Pokemon as well. There are many illicit (illegal) drugs. By your logic, you're saying that the diversity of these drugs and how they are abused is good. Pretty strong logic there. Now let's apply this diversity argument to Pokemon, and see why you're wrong. Let's say you use NU pokes in the new OU, such as Pikachu. By your logic, it's the only one to hold Light Ball, therefore you have other slots free for more items on other Pokemon, making the Item Clause viable, allowing you to put a Choice Scarf revenge killer. WRONG. That Pikachu dies to almost every hit in the game, meaning you just wasted a team slot that could've had another Choice Scarf'd revenge killer on it, for instance. How about Hippopotas with Eviolite? Leftovers Hippowdon outclasses in every way, shape, and form, besides freeing up Leftovers. These Pokemon which you're trying to make usable through item clause are not used as often for a reason! Besides, this diversity will eventually fade away as threats are named, just like it does in OU today.
Counter-Argument: But it will encourage more people to be creative! SO WHAT? And just like that, we're back to the diversity point, not all creativity is good. See the Silly things you've seen on the X Ladder threads to show just how "good" creativity is. Besides, it's not exactly like people still won't use Smogon sets, adjusting for Item Clause :\
Counter-Argument 2: But it will encourage more people to be strategic! Really? You call slapping a different item on an already existing set strategic? How about just making a random set that wouldn't be viable at all just to use the item you are putting on the set now? Yeah, that's definitely strategic :\
So here's my 2-paragraph essay on how item clause should not be implemented. I probably missed a lot of points, because I don't want to absolutely fill up the screen or anything (probably already did :\).
Firstly, everyone who's pro-clause is saying: "OH IT WILL ENCOURAGE MORE DIVERSITY IT MUST BE GOOD :DDDDDD" Nay-nay. Not all diversity is good. Let's take some examples about how "good" diversity is from real life, and Pokemon as well. There are many illicit (illegal) drugs. By your logic, you're saying that the diversity of these drugs and how they are abused is good. Pretty strong logic there. Now let's apply this diversity argument to Pokemon, and see why you're wrong. Let's say you use NU pokes in the new OU, such as Pikachu. By your logic, it's the only one to hold Light Ball, therefore you have other slots free for more items on other Pokemon, making the Item Clause viable, allowing you to put a Choice Scarf revenge killer. WRONG. That Pikachu dies to almost every hit in the game, meaning you just wasted a team slot that could've had another Choice Scarf'd revenge killer on it, for instance. How about Hippopotas with Eviolite? Leftovers Hippowdon outclasses in every way, shape, and form, besides freeing up Leftovers. These Pokemon which you're trying to make usable through item clause are not used as often for a reason! Besides, this diversity will eventually fade away as threats are named, just like it does in OU today.
Counter-Argument: But it will encourage more people to be creative! SO WHAT? And just like that, we're back to the diversity point, not all creativity is good. See the Silly things you've seen on the X Ladder threads to show just how "good" creativity is. Besides, it's not exactly like people still won't use Smogon sets, adjusting for Item Clause :\
Counter-Argument 2: But it will encourage more people to be strategic! Really? You call slapping a different item on an already existing set strategic? How about just making a random set that wouldn't be viable at all just to use the item you are putting on the set now? Yeah, that's definitely strategic :\
Leading off into my second point with this quote right here. Variety ≠ Decentralization. You will still have Banded Scizor, Scarf Keldeo, etc. being used, but everyone else will have a different item. If anything, because of the unviability of some of the sets with those different items, the metagame will be even more centralized. So why? You need to figure out which Pokemon can use the item most effectively. Choice Band is best used on Scizor, an already used-a-heck-of-a-lot Poke. MOAR CENTRALIZATION! Choice Scarf? Latios is pretty good with one, also being able to Trick it, so it's one of your best choices. MOAR CENTRALIZATION! Rocky Helmet, so you can free up lefties? Your Ferrothorn could sure use more residual damage on contact moves. MOAR CENTRALIZATION! These are just a few examples, but there are many more that shows that it actually centralizes the meta even more. Besides, even if it somehow does decentralize the meta, it will return to equilibrium at some point where some Pokemon are used more than others, which is, as you probably already guessed, CENTRALIZATION.
So here's my 2-paragraph essay on how item clause should not be implemented. I probably missed a lot of points, because I don't want to absolutely fill up the screen or anything (probably already did :\).
Pease explain to me why no longer allowing defensive play to be usable is a valid reason to induce item clause.
I don't think anyone here has stated that disallowing defensive play is a valid reason to induce Item Clause, and I think it has also been shown that it isn't hard to run defensive teams even with Item Clause.
How does it stop defensive play, many pokemon have their own move to recover HP, and then there are items like Rocky helmet, Red card, some berries, etc that can help defensive play. Just because you just want leftovers on everything and think that it is the ONLY way to play stall does not make it true.
Make a stall team with one leftovers and tell me how you do.
Red Card and Berries are only usable on suicidal setters or offensive mons due to the fact that they're one-time-use. Stall can't make use of these in the slightest.
Recover moves are nice and all, but a lot of mons already struggle when they have Leftover + Recover, so taking Leftover away will make it much harder to survive.
- Status