1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Removing the "egg rule"

Discussion in 'Little Cup' started by eric the espeon, Nov 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    Something I had planned to bring up far too long ago, on LCF, that has recently been brought to light (and given competitive meaning) by Selfdistruct Munchlax is the "egg rule" which is:
    The reason that the rule is included is unclear, the Nintendo games that Little Cup is based off do not have it:
    and the PBR version also lacks this rule. I am not sure when it was introduced, but when LC was revived, the rule was copied from an old guide by thorns.

    Before boomlax this had no competitive effect whatsoever, every Pokemon banned by it was already banned by one of the other rules, either
    The Pokémon must be able to evolve.
    or
    The Pokémon must be the earliest evolution stage obtainable.
    Meant that the few Pokemon who can't hatch from an egg (legends, Unown and Ditto) were already precluded for being allowed in. Basically, the rule did nothing. I almost posted something suggesting it was removed back on LCF, but was distracted by something, and it was doing practically no harm.

    However now that it has a competitive effect, I propose we bring the LC metagame into line with the rules used by the games from which it originates, and remove the "hatchlings only" rule.

    Edit:
    Pre-emptively as this was brought up on #littlecup, the reason this is different from Rotom is that this both simplifies the rules and brings them closer to what LC was originally based off, even though it changes the base rules that we currently have. The rule change required for Rotom does precisely the opposite in both cases.
  2. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,615
    I really still feel the need to bring this up though, because if I recall correctly you are the only one who feels that we shouldn't add Rotom because it complicates the currently simple rules that we have.

    Everyone else was just saying that we shouldn't because "we can't change the rules". I'm tempted to say "slippery slope", like all the evolution rule modification nay-sayers said, but I won't because that will make my reasoning almost as invalid as theirs was :)

    If this rule is removed, then it would be completely and utterly hypocritical to dismiss "Rotom's Evolution Process", which isn't removing a rule, but adding a simple exception. Especially since the reason it was disallowed is because "we can't change the rules", not because it would "un-simplify" our current rules like you suggest. Even then, this would do the same thing, it would make our rules less specific, therefore less simple.

    Also, BoomLax isn't even worth using is it? Even if it's legal with Pursuit now that the pomeg glitch is in effect, it still doesn't have room for another attack. Explosion isn't really a good filler because it's too slow to function with low HP imo. Competitively this is less relevant than Rotom's case, imo.

    I am for this change, but I don't believe it makes any sort of sense to follow through with this and ignore the slight modification of the evolution rule.
  3. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    This rule change brings two clear advantages that the other lacked:
    1. Unnecessary complexity (in the form of an almost totally useless rule) is removed from the rules.
    2. We are brought closer the metagame from which LC is based, by taking away a rule that should never have been added and was not a true part of Little Cup.

    For Rotom, it looks like this:
    1. Unnecessary complexity (in the form of an exception, or blurring of the line) is added to the rules.
    2. We are brought further from the metagame on which LC is based, by rewriting a rule that exists in all incarnations of Little Cup.

    And as a reminder, this topic is about the egg rule change. Posts that make comparisons to as a side point are acceptable, but this topic is not for discussing whether any other rules should be modified.
  4. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    As posted in the SQSA thread, I'm all for it.

    Keep this on track, posts that are off topic may be deleted and/or infracted.
  5. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,615
    While that is arguably true (I mean, I disagree with the fact that you say it's really blurring the line, but that isn't what we're discussing in this thread), it doesn't change the fact that we are going against our (not your reasoning specifically eric) reasoning for not changing the other rule, which was essentially:

    a) We shouldn't change the rules that we are given.
    b) Rotom doesn't give us a good enough reason to change a rule.

    This is the same thing, but even more so. Selfdestruct Munchlax has zero viability in this metagame. I forgot that the pomeg glitch is RSE, so BoomLax can't even learn Pursuit! Munchlax is honestly horrible without Pursuit, and it would be foolish to argue otherwise.

    a) We shouldn't change the rules that we are given.
    b) BoomLax doesn't give us any reason at all to change the rules.

    What's the point of changing a rule that doesn't effect a metagame? We are lowering the amount specific characteristics needed to be used in Little Cup....for what? Not to say slippery slope, but why even risk going down that path when you have no reason to do so?

    Add that to the fact that we would be going against our own previous reasoning...there are many reasons this should not be done.

    Also, saying "we are closer to the original metagame" is arguably incorrect. I would argue that this current metagame is just as correct, if not more so, since the the metagame that we are playing is the one based off the guide from thorns.
  6. umbarsc

    umbarsc

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,001
    This applies to both this and the Rotom thing, but why should we care about Nintendo's Little Cup ruleset? Nintendo has all sorts of ridiculous Battle Tower rules that we don't follow, and this should be no different. We make the metagame and we play the metagame, and if we're within the limits of the game we should think for our selves.
  7. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight A Knight for the Aegis
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,562
    Sure, Boomlax is now legal. Sign me up.

    This rule is simple and has nearly no implications. The rule might as well not have existed in the first place.

    If they make some DPP era game like Colloseum with the XD Tutors this will spare us even more headaches.

    You can't even prove a pokemon hatched from an egg anyway (at least on Shoddy). If I catch a Lv. 2 Ekans in Sinnoh [from FR input], how are you going to know it was or wasn't a hatchling by the time I EV it and get it to Level 5? I suppose you could check the status screen and see it was caught wild, but I fail to see how that would change the fact its a level 5 Ekans with a legal moveset.

    It's not like this would legalize say, a theoretical Lv. 5 Wild Pidgeotto.
  8. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,615
    How is any of that relevant?

    There are way more reasons to not change the rules than to change them, simply because there are no reasons to change them! BoomLax, as I said, is not a valid competitive reason. It's not even remotely viable.
  9. askaninjask

    askaninjask [FLAIL ARMS]
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,575
    Yeah, there is no reason to implement a clause on Shoddy that is not implemented by Nintendo (so long as it is not broken, which it seems to me that this clearly isn't). Why did we have this rule in the first place? :/
  10. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    The reason why changing a rule, seemingly for just a semi viable move, makes sense is because, that rule should never have been there. It should have been removed earlier, and that rule serves virtually no real function.

    Removing a rule which is making the ruleset more complex for little or no benefit is something we should strive to do. There is no question that most of the Lv. 100 Ubers could be made fair with a level restriction, the reason why they are not is because that would make the rules unnecessarily complex. This is an exaggerated form of what is happening in LC to prove the point that simplicity is preferred.

    If there is a rule that as you claim, does not affect the metagame at all, and has no other reason to exist.. it should be removed. There would be no "harm" from it if nothing changed, and there would be a benefit in terms of simplicity. In this case there is the added benefit of bringing us closer to the original rules. Even though this preference should not "override" competitive interests if they are in conflict, they are not in this case.

    As you have acknowledged, my reasoning was never "we can't change rules", but "we should not change rules without good reason". In this case there is no reason (other than inertia) not to change the rule, and reasonably good reasons to change it (simplicity is foremost, bringing us more in line with the original games is a nice bonus).
  11. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Also an amusing note.

    Pomeg Glitch allows you to evolve Pokemon and then hatch them at level 5, meaning that "must hatch from an egg" doesn't ban the use of something like Level 5 Tyranitar straight out. That's the real kicker- the ability to hatch evolved Pokemon from eggs now makes this rule absolutely and completely useless.
  12. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,615
    I see your points eric, and I'm inclined to agree since I'm all for changing the rules slightly for the better, but I just don't see how this isn't the definition of hypocrisy.

    You say "we should not change the rules without a good reason", but what is the "good reason" for changing this rule?

    Simplicity isn't a "good" reason to change this rule, because this rule doesn't complicate anything. This rule, in fact, ensures that people don't start bringing up more ridiculous exceptions than Rotom. It helps guide people in the correct direction, ensuring there are no loopholes around a semi-blurry rule "first stage of evolution obtainable", that while it does not do much of anything now, it would definitely help specify which Pokemon would be allowed in the future. While this reason isn't especially "good", it's more of a reason than any reasoning for changing the rule. Simplicity isn't effected by this rule, either way.

    Also, if BoomLax was semi-viable, then I wouldn't mind. However, the fact that we are just changing the rule for the sake of changing the rule, especially when most of us agree on the fact that "we shouldn't change rules without good reason". BoomLax simply isn't a good enough reason.
  13. cim

    cim happiness is such hard work
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,412
    I've always read the rule as "Must be able to hatch from an egg".

    Why is "changing a rule for the sake of it" a reason not to change a dumb rule?

    What's "hypocritical" about the rule?

    We shouldn't "stick with what we have without very good reason", that assumes what we have is inherently better than anything.
  14. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    A rule that literally does NOTHING for the metagame at this point (It doesn't prevent the use of Evolved Pokemon any more since the Pomeg Glitch popped up) is a rule that is worthless. Since rules that are worthless shouldn't be rules, there's no reason for it to exist any more.
  15. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight A Knight for the Aegis
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,562
    The Rotom Rule policy and policies regarding this rule are completely different, as the rules change in question is entirely different. We do not need to have "continuity" between our rules making process.

    This egg rule currently has no actual function but to restrict the movepools of event pokemon released at Level 5 or lower. If these pokemon are eligible for entry in stuff like PBR, they should not be restricted here.

    I support the removal of the egg rule. I can think of few scenarios where a Nintendo event-released pokemon would have a combination of moves so powerful that it would force us to reinstate this rule rather than ban those event moves.
  16. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,615
    Remember the Evolution rule argument? That's when we all decided that "we shouldn't change a rule, even for a competitive reason". If we change this rule....well, I'll let you fill in the blanks.


    Why risk going down the rule changing path for no reason? That's my main opposition to this. Not only did we state that before, even when there was a competitive reason to alter the rules, that we shouldn't alter them, but the fact that there is no competitive reason to change this rule raises the question: "why change it?". If it doesn't do anything, so be it. It does no harm, and only harm could come from changing a rule when we have no valid reason to do so.

    Anyway, this is my last attempt at pointing out the hypocrisy of changing this rule. If it hasn't hit people now it won't later -_-.

    At least if this rule is removed, the Rotom thread should definitely be re-opened.
  17. Wild Eep

    Wild Eep pet pet pet
    is a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,606
    Minor quibble - I don't believe Selfdestruct + Pursuit is legal at all (even at L100). Pursuit is a 4th-gen egg move, and the Walker Munchlax doesn't come with it. (The 4th-gen-only-ness of Pursuit Lax removes the option of tutoring a 3rd gen Snorlax as well)

    Seconding this. This is what I was told when dealing with the XD Johto Starters with elemental Hyper Beams for the Little-Cup-Specific illegal moveset lists.
  18. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    I already mentioned that everywhere when it was first mentioned. (like two months ago at that!)

    SelfDestruct is illegal with ALL level up and breeding moves, which is a p. big deal, so just keep that in mind.
  19. sbc

    sbc

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,061
    Not really when Return, Earthquake and Fire Punch (?) are TMs/tutor moves.
  20. umbarsc

    umbarsc

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,001
    And if Munchlax knows Selfdestruct, that means it wasn't able to hatch from an egg...?

    That's pretty much the reason I'm against this. This is almost an exact parallel to the Rotom thing in my eyes. I'm not saying I disagreed with it, but let's just show a little consistency.

    "Must be able to hatch from an egg" seems like a pretty important rule to LC, so I see no reason to change it just to allow this Pokemon.
  21. DMG-01

    DMG-01

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    14

    • The Pokémon must have hatched from an egg.
    • The Pokémon must be able to evolve.
    • The Pokémon must be the earliest evolution stage obtainable.
    • The Pokémon must be at Level 5.
    • The Pokémon must not be on the Ubers list.

    As far as I can see it, the egg rule is only important if Rotom is allowed. If Rotom is allowed, the evolution rule would be changed to allow forme changes. If that were the case, then we would need the egg rule to exclude Deoxys, Shaymin, and Giratina, as they follow the rest of the rules just as well as Rotom does. (I think the Level 5 rule would only allow Giratina currently, but more events are on the way I'm sure.) But currently, with Rotom not allowed, and the evolution rule unchanged, the egg rule only serves to limit event pokemon, pokewalker pokemon, etc.

    And as an aside, I don't think it matters how competitively viable BoomLax may be when the egg rule isn't doing anything positive for LC currently, nor has it ever (to my knowledge). There's no problem with removing a rule just to remove it when it is gratuitous. By the way, where did this rule even come from?
  22. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    I am not sure you understand the reasoning for removing this rule, it is simply not "to allow boomlax" or any other events. The reason is that this rule is not competitively important, does nothing helpful for LC, adds useless complexity, and is even out of line with the original rules!

    Anyone who thought that "to allow Rotom" was the reason for the other proposed rule change was missing the point entirely. In both cases the competitive effect is not the reason for changing the rules, it is a consequence of a rulechange. Its not like tiering choices or item bans, those are about what is broken or centralising. These two points are closer to philosophical issues, they determine the basis which the tiers and the rest of the metagame is built upon.

    If "having some sort of competitive effect" was an argument for base rule changes, with no care taken to avoid complexity, there would be a case for banning Dragon Dance + Life Orb on Salamence, or allowing Lv. 82 Darkrai in OU. Hell, there would be a argument for allowing the Mimic glitch (allows Pokemon with Minic to get any move) to be used, but only by Pokemon with a BST less than 300. The underlying rules should be a framework from which a good playable metagame can be built as simply as possible with the aid of not too many clauses and bans. They should not include near-useless rules that do nothing to aid this, or have complex and ill defined workarounds to allow specific Pokemon that bring no benefit.
  23. mudkip72

    mudkip72

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    142
    I see little problem with changing the rule from "The Pokémon must have hatched from an egg." to something like "The Pokemon's species must be able to hatch from an egg." In fact I believe that is close to the Stadium 2 description of LC.

    The goal of our LC is mimicing the actual LC in Stadium and PBR, so I see no reason to have such a small rule, that won't negatively impact the metagame, be done differently.

    Unlike the Rotom thing, we are changing a rule to allow what is supposed to be allowed in LC based on PBR/Stadium2. With Rotom, there is already a rule in PBR/Stadium2 stating the poke must be able to evolve.
  24. Matthew

    Matthew I love weather; Sun for days
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,990
    Your definition of the egg rule further complicates things. Pokemon like Snorlax are able to be hatched from eggs, and due to the Pomeg glitch fully evolved pokemon can hatch out of them too. Simply removing this rule is a better idea in my opinion
  25. mudkip72

    mudkip72

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    142
    Thats why the "Must be in lowest evolved stage" and "Must be able to evolve" rules are also in place. I was trying to say to just swap out the current egg rule with a more clarified version, all the other rules stay in place.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)