Retooling Species Clause

[Paltheos]

Note: This topic is not about whether or not we need a species clause. I know it's a large assumption, but in this topic I'm assuming we want a species clause.

Species Clause was implemented in order to prevent multiples of extremely powerful pokemon from appearing on the same team. Back in RBY, the simplest way to do that was to just ban multiples of the same species from appearing on the same team. That worked fine then, but banning by species number is no longer acceptable. Some nearly identical pokemon of different species can use identical sets for nearly identical effectiveness but are allowed on the same team. Other pokemon with different base stat spreads, typing, abilities, or movepools are not allowed on the same team because they share the same species number.

Both of these problems are handled by using, "No two pokemon that can function in the same way with nearly equal or equal competitively practical effectiveness may be permitted on the same team," as a guideline for the bans. When it comes to making the bans, we can use "same sprites" as the primary means of banning (since usually only pokemon of the same sprites satisfy these conditions) and then explain any additional bans or allowances afterward. There's relatively few, so this method looks perfectly acceptable.

I may be getting ahead of things and expanding the scope of this post too much, but I'll post my evaluations of particular "exceptions and allowances" now. They were already done anyway, so even if we scrap this idea, there's no harm done. The standard I will be applying and I advise you to apply for "nearly equal effectiveness" is extremely stringent. Too loose may result in unnecessary bans. If you decide to use a more loose standard, just explain your rationale.

The following pokemon are from different species and can run the same set equally or nearly equally well.

Clefable line

"Lv.2 Endeavor", from the analysis:

Lv.1/Lv.2 Clef @ Focus Sash
Ability: Magic Guard
- Endeavor
- Protect
- Encore
- Thunder Wave / Sing / Toxic

The unique circumstances surrounding these pokemon and this set render them functionally identical. I see no reason to allow any of them on the same team.

The remaining sets of pokemon are similar pokemon that have traditionally been banned from appearing at once. By default, they should all be allowed at once unless we can find a set the forms run nearly equally well.

Deoxys

I don't see any argument that can be made to ban any of these from appearing on the same team except for Deoxys-N and Deoxys-A. The difference in offenses is big, but big enough to treat them separately? The best set to test is probably the +speed LO 4 Atk / 252 SpA set. Here are some damage calculations:

Deoxys-N
Superpower vs. neutral 0/252 Blissey : 97.39%-114.59%
vs. neutral 252/0 Dialga: 67.82%-80.20%
Ice Beam vs. neutral 252/60 Groudon: 75.74%-89.11%
vs. neutral 248/12 Giratina-a: 50.50%-59.64%
vs. neutral 252/0 Lugia: 49.52%-58.65%
Thunder vs. neutral 252/0 Lugia: 62.50%-73.56%
vs. neutral 4/0 Kyogre: 82.46%-97.66%
vs. neutral 0/0 Palkia: 50.47%-59.50%
vs neutral 176/176 Scizor: 57.23%-67.38%
vs. positive 252/252 Forretress: 52.54%-61.86%
Shadow Ball vs. neutral 4/0 Mewtwo: 77.97%-92.07%
vs. positive 28/252 Wobbuffet: 47.73%-56.44%
HP Fire (rain)* vs. neutral 176/176 Scizor: 67.69%-80.00%
vs. positive 252/252 Forretress: 62.15%-73.45%

Deoxys-A
Superpower vs. neutral 0/252 Blissey: 114.59%-134.87%
vs. neutral 252/0 Dialga: 79.21%-93.56%
Ice Beam vs. neutral 252/60 Groudon: 87.13%-102.97%
vs. neutral 248/12 Giratina-a: 58.05%-68.39%
vs. neutral 252/0 Lugia: 57.21%-67.31%
Thunder vs. neutral 252/0 Lugia: 71.36%-84.62%
vs. neutral 4/0 Kyogre: 95.32%-112.28%
vs. neutral 0/0 Palkia: 57.94%-68.22%
vs. neutral 176/176 Scizor: 65.85%-77.54%
vs. positive 252/252 Forretress: 60.45%-71.19%
Shadow Ball vs. neutral 4/0 Mewtwo: 89.27%-105.65%
vs. positive 28/252 Wobbuffet: 54.92%-64.77%
HP Fire (rain)* vs. neutral 176/176 Scizor: 77.54%-92.31%
vs. positive 252/252 Forretress: 71.19%-84.75%

*-In both cases, a positive nature for deoxys may be better here since you already lose against most other opposing deoxys. They're not used in these calculations.

Almost all the #HKOs are the same in the majority of cases. Whether this is close enough or not depends on how strict your interpretation for "nearly equal" is. To me, this is adequately close.

Shaymin

Different base stat spreads, different abilities, and different typing - here, they have a significant impact on the differences in play between them. I can't think of a single viable set that these two run nearly equal well. Subseed seems closest, but not close enough.

Giratina

Different base stat spreads, different abilities, one is locked into an item which the other cannot use. I'm hardpressed to think of a set these two could conceivably run nearly equally well. CM/Dragon Pulse/Restalk is the first thing that comes to mind, but the difference in bulk and items makes that seem unlikely. If you have any ideas, by all means.

Wormadam

Different base stat spreads, different typing. At first glance, they look very different, but I have no experience with Wormadam.

Rotom

This has already been discussed in another topic.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46787

The final decision was arrived at in the same manner as if it would have been done here. What Calciphoce said here

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1533910&postcount=19

I've also thought about, but no one else said anything then, so apparently most people didn't find it significant.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

That worked fine then, but banning by species number is no longer acceptable.

Why not?

I think putting "pokemon that do the same thing" under species clause is a mistake, it really isn't comparable to using a scarfMence, LOMence, DDMence, CBMence etc on the same team. That is way too vague to justify using as a serious ban list. "Ok you can't use Scarf Blaziken and CBInfernape on the same team, they are way too similar" just seems like a really unneeded complication of the rules, especially when people's view of "similar" varies from user to user. How similar are we talking? Base stats? movesets? abilities? typing? There are so many things that make each pokemon unique that claiming that two sets are "functionally the same" can never be 100% true.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but there is no way that we could implement something this vague into our ban lists. Species Clause is fine as it is imo. I might be missing the point, but the OP is pretty vague...are you implying that DDDragonite and DDSalamence are "the same" or does this specifically refer to pokemon that have multiple formes? Would a Rattata @ lv 1 with Endeavor be "the same" as Clefairy @lv1 with Endeavor?

edit- I think the real question is "Is it possible to get multiple Deoxys/Shaymin/Giratina forms on the same team in-game? I heard somewhere that you literally can't get those pokemon on the same team, so the question posed by this thread is moot..but I'm not an expert of in-game so someone will have to clear this up

edit2- ok, if the argument here is "We currently can not use Deoxys-S and Deoxys-D on the same team even though its possible to do so in-game" then I agree. However, if the argument is "species clause sucks" then I obviously disagree.

 

[Paltheos]

Some of this has been discussed in IRC, but I'm still posting it here. Some people seem confused, so this might help clarify.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but there is no way that we could implement something this vague into our ban lists. Species Clause is fine as it is imo. I might be missing the point, but the OP is pretty vague...are you implying that DDDragonite and DDSalamence are "the same" or does this specifically refer to pokemon that have multiple formes? Would a Rattata @ lv 1 with Endeavor be "the same" as Clefairy @lv1 with Endeavor?

The rubric I'm using is an extremely strict one. To take your first example, DDDragonite and DDSalamence would not be considered "the same" or "nearly the same". Both are in far apart speed tiers and Dragonite is generally more bulky, particularly on the special side. Even something as minor as Dragonite's Inner Focus should be taken into account. Every detail should be scrutinized as to its relevance. Deoxys-N and Deoxys-A on the other hand are much closer. Same speed tier, both paper thin defenses, and their LO sets are virtually identical in performance on paper. Even then, I can't say with full confidence they shouldn't be on the same team. How significant really is that difference in defense? Is there anything Deoxys-N could forseeably take that Deoxys-A usually can't? How relevant is that difference in power in actual play? Again, this is the standard I'm using, and I'm using it precisely to avoid the type of pitfall you described. If you or anyone else has a better suggestion, please share.

Why not?

I think putting "pokemon that do the same thing" under species clause is a mistake, it really isn't comparable to using a scarfMence, LOMence, DDMence, CBMence etc on the same team. That is way too vague to justify using as a serious ban list. "Ok you can't use Scarf Blaziken and CBInfernape on the same team, they are way too similar" just seems like a really unneeded complication of the rules, especially when people's view of "similar" varies from user to user. How similar are we talking? Base stats? movesets? abilities? typing? There are so many things that make each pokemon unique that claiming that two sets are "functionally the same" can never be 100% true.

I'm not proposing that we put "pokemon that do the same thing" under species clause. "Retooling species clause" was a poor title, I'm sorry. I'm proposing a new clause that replaces it, entirely because "banning by species number" is not the best way to go about things, as I explain in the OP. This proposal fixes the problems of unnecessary bans brought about by species clause while simultaneously putting in place a means to ban all pokemon that can pull off the same set "equally or nearly equally well".

The structure is rocksolid, but the problem is terminology. The guideline for bans ("No two pokemon that can function in the same way with nearly equal or equal competitively practical effectiveness may be permitted on the same team") is clear, but wording the summary of the bans well has been problematic. I talked about using sprites as the primary means of banning, and I believe a summary related to that would be best. However, I can't think of a way to phrase it that encompasses all the details and doesn't sound wordy. "No two pokemon with the same sprite from the same game version may be allowed on the same team, with the following exceptions . . ." is what I came up with. That's adequate, but I don't (and didn't) like the sound of it. There must be a better way than that to put it.

In response to this topic, some people on IRC have been debating whether or not we need a species clause. As a friendly reminder, this is not relevant to this topic. For whatever reason, we're assuming that we want some sort of clause that details "these types" of restrictions on team-building. It may seem natural that determining whether or not we really want such a thing would precede determining the specific details, but I ask you this: How long have you debated over this? Are you honestly that much closer to arriving at a resolution than you were many months ago? If not and you have to live with the rule for the moment (love it or hate it), wouldn't it be best to make it as strong as possible (provided that its establishment is expedient, which it should be here)? If you have any problems, make another topic. Unless I've made an oversight and the subject of "do we need a 'species clause?'" and "what details should the clause have?" are intrinsically and irrevocably related, I don't want to see any posts on the matter here, please. Thank you.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Note: This topic is not about whether or not we need a species clause. I know it's a large assumption, but in this topic I'm assuming we want a species clause.

Species Clause was implemented in order to prevent multiples of extremely powerful pokemon from appearing on the same team. Back in RBY, the simplest way to do that was to just ban multiples of the same species from appearing on the same team. That worked fine then, but banning by species number is no longer acceptable. Some nearly identical pokemon of different species can use identical sets for nearly identical effectiveness but are allowed on the same team. Other pokemon with different base stat spreads, typing, abilities, or movepools are not allowed on the same team because they share the same species number.

There is a second reasoning behind species clause which is that two pokemon with the same sprite and name on a team but with different sets will be indistinguishable by your opponent until one is damaged. This is only slightly relevant but I thought I should point it out.

Both of these problems are handled by using, "No two pokemon that can function in the same way with nearly equal or equal competitively practical effectiveness may be permitted on the same team," as a guideline for the bans. When it comes to making the bans, we can use "same sprites" as the primary means of banning (since usually only pokemon of the same sprites satisfy these conditions) and then explain any additional bans or allowances afterward. There's relatively few, so this method looks perfectly acceptable.

Banning multiple sprites doesnt work because pokemon of the same species can have different sprites.

Banning reusing of functionally identical pokemon is actually very difficult.

For example Blastoise and Feraligatr can run identical sets with identical stats. Whereas two pokemon of the same species could run very different sets.

I dont think a philosophically pure rule that will solve the issues species clause resolves is practical. Or at least not practical in a manner better than species clause.

A pokemon that is very similar to another pokemon also has an advantage over other pokemon in that it can be effectively doubled up on, whereas something else may not. For instance similarity to dragonite is an inherent advantage salamence has over something like heatran, which is disadvantaged by its uniqueness. Inability to be paired with other deoxyses is an inherent disadvantage has over something like Mewtwo, which could be paired with another Deoxys.

If you prevent useage of pokemon that are too similar to another you are effectively reducing a players ability to double up on similar pokemon. Of course species clause already has this side-effect to the extent that they cant use two pokemon of the same species, but obviously not as far reaching as banning cleffa with a certain set if you already have clefable on your team. It could be that that cleffa set is only viable when used in conjunction with clefable, since the clefable set was not viable would it be reasonable to unban cleffa in that situation?

It seems that whatever rule you come up with, it isnt going to be as clean and tidy as species clause. Clean-and-tidy-ness isnt the be all and end all but whatever rule you come up with it people need to be able to understand it. I think the most likely option is to assume species clause, and then list the situations where species clause may not fit with your philosophical ideal.
IE "you may not use more than one of the same species on your team. With the exceptions that you may use more than one different forme of the same pokemon but no more than one of each forme, excluding Deoxys A and Deoxys N which may not be used together, and appliance Rotoms, which may not be used with one another. You may use more than one different type of wormadam but no more than one of each type."

I would assume that once arceus becomes obtainable it would be restricted to one use per team regardless of differences of typing, simply because it seems like it would be pretty broken otherwise. Furthermore this requires us to every time a new pokemon forme is released debate its similarity to its other formes and determine whether it should be allowed or not.

Another advantage of species clause is it is universal, it will be the same rule for all pokemon games and metagames. It also is enforced in PBR friend battles, and presumeably will be in any future console pokemon games (given that it has been in all previous ones).

Yeah, like I say, tidiness is not essential, but it is at least a reason for things to remain the way they are. Similarly, we could unban lvl 5 Kyogre, lvl 80 Darkrai and the like, but we dont because there is a point where the ruleset becomes complicated enough that it isnt worth the effort. All rules need to pass certain degrees of simplicity. Nothing you have suggested is simple enough.

Likewise the appeal to ingame, history or developer intention are also not strong justifications, but they are justifications.

On the other hand, I cant really see any reason to allow multiple pokemon of the same species but different forme on the same team. Is it really so important to have Deoxys A and Deoxys D on a team together? Couldnt you just switch one for Mewtwo or Mew? I mean I can understand that they arent really that similar, but it just doesnt seem worth it.. At all.. It is like banning stealth rock times 100.

Have a nice day.

 

[X-Act]

If Species Clause is lifted, we wouldn't need to make a rule that makes Pokemon that are the same do different things. Rather, people would obviously make them like that because otherwise their team would suck.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Not necessarily, X-Act. I might be tempted to carry 2 of something like DDMence or SD Lucario (or the ever-useful CB Scizor) mainly because they're so damn useful and also difficult to counter more than once.

 

[Paltheos]

Banning reusing of functionally identical pokemon is actually very difficult.

For example Blastoise and Feraligatr can run identical sets with identical stats. Whereas two pokemon of the same species could run very different sets.

I thought of the same thing at first (I thought of building up differently leveled fully evolved pokemon and an NFE counterpart to have the same stats, but it's the same thing). That's why I changed the guideline to: "No two pokemon that can function in the same way with nearly equal or equal competitively practical effectiveness may be permitted on the same team," to filter out irrelevant violations. This adds another subjective element to the process, but the conditions for a ban are strict enough that no pokemon that doesn't deserve to be banned will be. I don't think it will be as troublesome (in any way) as you anticipate.

If you prevent useage of pokemon that are too similar to another you are effectively reducing a players ability to double up on similar pokemon. Of course species clause already has this side-effect to the extent that they cant use two pokemon of the same species, but obviously not as far reaching as banning cleffa with a certain set if you already have clefable on your team.

I don't understand. I've already talked about how close pokemon have to be to be banned from appearing together. Have I not made it clear that the pokemon really need to be nearly identical to be banned together, or is it something else? The relevance of this hinges on that (i.e. if allot of pokemon were effected and the game would shift sharply as a result, we would want to reconsider whether we want to go through with this), and it's just not an issue.

banning cleffa with a certain set if you already have clefable on your team.

This may have been a typo, but I'll clear it up anyway (maybe it's what X-Act is talking about too). Under species clause, if you have a DD Salamence on your team, you can't have another Salamence on your team. Likewise under my proposal, if you have LO Clefable on your team, you can't have any Cleffa.

It could be that that cleffa set is only viable when used in conjunction with clefable, since the clefable set was not viable would it be reasonable to unban cleffa in that situation?

This is a run-on, and I can't make out what you are trying to say here in the slightest after the comma. Could you repeat the whole thing please?

Likewise the appeal to ingame, history or developer intention are also not strong justifications, but they are justifications.

My understanding is that any coinciding here is nothing more than that.

On the other hand, I cant really see any reason to allow multiple pokemon of the same species but different forme on the same team. Is it really so important to have Deoxys A and Deoxys D on a team together? Couldnt you just switch one for Mewtwo or Mew? I mean I can understand that they arent really that similar, but it just doesnt seem worth it.. At all.. It is like banning stealth rock times 100.

The ultimate goal here is to fix the logical inconsistencies behind species clause that have resulted in the arbitrary and unnecessary banning of several pokemon. That they're unbanned in the result is just a coincidence.

Banning multiple sprites doesnt work because pokemon of the same species can have different sprites.

Right, poor oversight. Describing the bans in terms of species and formes with exceptions is the best way to go then.

I would assume that once arceus becomes obtainable it would be restricted to one use per team regardless of differences of typing, simply because it seems like it would be pretty broken otherwise.

This point is not strictly related to this topic, but it is effected by it. I need to think about this some more.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I guess the problem here is your assumption that species clause is solely to prevent people reusing similar pokemon, I dont think that that necessarily is the point.

I mean, if similarity was the basis for our criteria then people using the endeavour Clefable should probably be allowed to use a Clefable with the Calm Minder set on the same team. They genuinely couldnt be more different. There certainly arent any possible combinations of two Feraligatr and Blastoise sets that would be more different by any criteria other than species.

I'm going to go more into depth about what the purpose of species clause is, which may not entirely relate to your suggestion but more to the topic at hand.

Firstly it forces diversity. The fact is all pokemon are not created equal. Because there is a hierarchy of pokemon strengths, the pokemon that are the strongest will be reused the most. Which overall reduces the number of pokemon that get used. Of course it allows for the reuseal of pokemon so that is a bonus. The fact that species clause limits pokemon that suck is unnecessary here, but on the other hand nobody really cares (except libertarians)..

It prevents issues with differentiating your opponents pokemon. Like having two pokemon that look exactly the same with different sets on a team. You could force people to use different sprites of the same pokemon to avoid this, though it probably would still be annoying trying to remember if the pokemon you saw was a shiney (ok fair enough, annoying isnt good enough).

It also, as you pointed out, limits teams based around repetition of pokemon that are very similar. Such teams can be very hard to beat, at best they turn the game into a crapshoot. The brokenness of this strategy is debateable however, and could be tested but it would be difficult. For instance, if a team of 6 lucarios or 6 gengars is very hard to beat, should we change species clause or should we ban lucario and gengar? The limitation provided by species clause is in a way arbitrary, as your post points out. However it is clean and tidy, which at least needs to be a consideration..

It was intended by the developers to be this way. I know that predicting developer intent is difficult, but it is pretty damn obvious at this point. All competitive anything related to the game enforces species clause. It seems to me that link battles/ingame dont because doing so would just be a pain in the ass for people trying to breed or train pokemonor test things or whatever. Developer intent seems kinda important while things are still being developed. It would suck to make a ruling now and have to change things down the road because of something gamefreak do. I mean, we cant avoid this at times, but we should at least try.. This is different to tiers, because the default tier list is broken. We had to change it.. Species Clause on the other hand is working fine!

If you look at this issue from a developers point of view, species clause becomes a tool they can use to create new unique pokemon. I mean, you kinda have to wonder why they released pokemon with different forms as opposed to just releasing new pokemon.. Species clause is the most reasonable explanation for this..

I mean, when we as smogon decide we want to have some kind of clause to deal with the issues I mentioned, and there is a clause in the games that does so, in a simple manner, though not without arbitrary distinctions (but I will add that every alternative suggestion made so far has arbitrary distinctions), and that isnt broken, then I dont see the need to come up with some other solution.

I think I have forgotten something, but its late, so I am gonna go to bed, but I may edit this later.

Have a nice day.