1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Rotom in LC?

Discussion in 'Little Cup' started by kd24, Oct 20, 2009.

?

Should Rotom be allowed for LC (and we alter the "definition")

  1. Yes, it makes sense to

    34.0%
  2. No, we can't change it.

    66.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kd24

    kd24 yo daddy musta been a drug dealer? why, cuz you're dope
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,318
    Please give a viewpoint.

    Basically, we have a complex situation here, Rotom is a pokemon that fits all the criteria of a "LC usable Pokemon" but we don't allow it, because it doesn't formally fit evolution. However:

    - It can be bred and hatched from an egg
    - It can be obtained at level 5
    - It can receive new forms that give higher stats, bigger movepool, and a sprite change

    That fits all the criteria of a Little Cup Pokemon. The issue here is evolution however. Can we readjust our definition to fit Rotom in? We aren't changing any fundamental rule. We are simply adapting to the metagame.

    Please voice your opinion, this is kind of an urgent matter that has gotten some talk on IRC.

    edit: I will edit my opinion and everything else later.
  2. 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 has been brought up before, and soundly dismissed via discussion then voting. Rotom simply does NOT for the fit the criteria of a "LC usable Pokemon" as you claim. It does not evolve.

    LC is based on several principles that may seem strange at first glance:


    • 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. (referring to the LC Ubers list)
    For a Pokemon to be eligible for LC play, it must fulfil all criteria. Many Pokemon fit some, or even most but that does not matter. Rotom like many Pokemon hatches from an egg, however it does not evolve. This on its own is enough to dismiss the idea that Rotom is compatible with our current ruleset. Evolution is very well defined by Nintendo, and by the games which LC originates from (PBR and Pokemon Stadium).

    So, we now have the question:
    Should we change the rules of the entire metagame simply to allow in a single Pokemon?

    And if the answer is yes, I ask you this: Why should we stop here? Farfetche'd would be fun to play with, and probably not broken, lets add it! What else can we have?

    We have a very good ruleset, well defined at least. This blurs the line for no good reason in a worrying way, deviates from the base principles of Little Cup and for what? Because people want to use a new Pokemon in LC Ubers?

    This was a bad idea when it was first brought up, and is just as horrible now.
  3. 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:
    4,009
    Eric summed it up nicely, locking.

    Gen Edit: seems like rey beat me to the locking

    double edit: rey isn't a mod, secondly leaving this open to see if any good can come out of it
  4. reyscarface

    reyscarface
    is a Tiering Contributoris Smogon Frontier's Tower Tycoondefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    5,686
    Yeah last time I checked, a Pokemon had to be able to evolve in order for it to become a LC usable Pokemon. If we used this criteria, wouldn't Phione be allowed in LC as well? I mean, can get it at level 5, bred and hatched, and has Manaphy as an "alter ego" on the sprite and stats department.

    In all honesty Rotom isnt for LC.
  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:
    5,653
    Here are direct quotes from previous discussions on the matter:

    This was in response to people saying that the only reason we wanted Rotom in the metagame is because we "liked" rotom. I was set on saying it just happens to apply to one Pokemon.

    LC rules were made way before Rotom's time.


    The argument was that people said that it would be bad for the metagame, but that wasn't relevant to the rule altering.

  6. 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
    Even though comparisons to other "evolution like" changes, and arguments that Rotom is extremely likely to end up Uber very fast, and those points can be made well, they distract from the key point.

    Rotom does not evolve, so does not fit the criteria for a LC Pokemon. Unless the rules are changed, this will remain so.


    Onto arguments against changing the rules, first and foremost: Why?

    If there is not a problem with the current LC rules, what reason is there to change them? Adding a new Pokemon is not a good reason at all, we could easily decide to add a rule that lets Pokemon with the name Plusle and Minun be allowed in.

    Saying that Rotom "almost" fits the current requirements is not a good reason to move the goalposts, the current requirements are solid,. They provide a simple, easy to interpret yes/no answer to the question "can I use this Pokemon in LC?". There is no need to blur the line in order to allow a Pokemon that has failed the test into the metagame.

    Yes the rules were made some time ago, because they were based on a metagame with its roots several generations back. They have worked fine until now, and continue to do so. Change for changes sake is not good enough, nor is asking for "diversity" by adding a single incredibly strong Pokemon to the metagame.
  7. kd24

    kd24 yo daddy musta been a drug dealer? why, cuz you're dope
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,318
    Rotom goes through a special process that allows itself to obtain a new sprite(form), a new BST (higher), and a new move. How is that not evolution? It surely fits all other criteria (and we can't theorymon the last one). Who cares about old game systems or PBR? We adjust to the metagame we currently have built. In VGC, some Pokemon are disallowed and others are allowed that aren't in standard play. We still play the metagame off what we have built.

    change the rules of the entire metagame? we are adjusting the sense of the word evolution because what rotom goes through is a sense of the word.

    does farfetch'd change forms and gets an immediate boost in bst / moveset? no, so it is entirely pointless towards this.

    i thought the point was to bring in pokemon to a metagame if they fit the criteria? rotom does that just as well as any other pokemon in my opinion. the only possible argument against this is, "rotom can "de-evolve". thats nice but it doesn't mean changing forms to acquire a higher BST and new moves won't count as evolution.

    i don't see how, i think the points of me and other respected players (SDS, vader, etc.) are solid enough to tell you why.

    Basically, you are saying "I don't want to change because I like the system", but if the system can still be enforced and we aren't fundamentally changing anything, I don't see the problem.
  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:
    5,653
    My point that wasn't really addressed...ever....is: why aren't we thinking of 'changing' the rules as "updating the rules"? We constantly change them when needed. This isn't changing game mechanics. Rotom simply wasn't around when the rules were made and thus the rules need updating.
  9. Dubulous

    Dubulous I look just like Buddy Holly.
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,122
    My issue with it is that Rotom can switch back and forth between forms. Other Pokemon evolve and they can't go back. Rotom simply has the ability to morph.
  10. Elevator Music

    Elevator Music
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    7,745
    "Rotom goes through a special process that allows itself to obtain a new sprite(form), a new BST (higher), and a new move. How is that not evolution?"

    Ummm because as far as I am aware, when Rotom changes form you do not go to a screen that says 'Rotom is evolving!'. Otherwise I'd love to be able to use something like Mawile because its a 'crappy Registeel'.
  11. kd24

    kd24 yo daddy musta been a drug dealer? why, cuz you're dope
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,318
    huh. mawile -> registeel once again makes no sense compared to rotom. rotom actually has a relation to the Rotom-a forms, and he evolves, morphs, whatever into them.

    mawile has no connection to registeel other than being steel-type. this isn't a question of "bringing in pokemon because they are sucky", its a question of "do we readjust the sense of the word to fit rotom, as the word evolution has not been updated since platinum."
  12. 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
    Because, it is not "evolution" by the definition of "evolution". It can undergo a process that looks somewhat similar to evolution, but not evolution.

    As I pointed out, so do many, many, many, other Pokemon.

    If there was a strong competitive reason why Rotom was the perfect solution, it was needed to prevent some massive problem, you may have a leg to stand on. There is no reason to change the rules that work now.

    You can't change the meaning of the word "evolution", its already defined very clearly. We either change the rules, or Rotom is not eligible.

    Neither of them "evolve". Neither of them are allowed under current LC rules. Neither of them should have the rules specifically altered to allow them in.

    If Rotom actually did fit the criteria, then yes. Sadly, it does not evolve.

    The arguement against it is that, by the accepted definition of evolution, Rotom does not evolve or de evolve. It changes form.


    I respect you guys, but I do not agree with you on this and am presenting my counter arguements which, though some what repetitive thanks to the fact that I keep pointing out the fact that Rotom does not evolve, I feel are solid.

    The thing is, this does fundamentally change the system that decided if a Pokemon may be used in LC. It alters one of the two basic rules that underpin Little Cup.
    1. All Pokemon must be at Lv. 5
    2. All Pokemon must evolve and be of the first stage if the evolution family.

    The second needs to be changed to something like, as Heysup puts it:
    "All Pokemon must be in the original form, and go through any type of Stat upgrading or Evolution"

    This is undeniably a change to the fundamental rules.
    This is undeniably to allow a single Pokemon into the metagame.

    Now, there had better be a much better reason for this than "to allow another Pokemon".

    To be "updated" the rules must be "changed". They are one and the same. Rotom form changes not being around, fine. It was not around when the rules were made, but that does not mean if it was around it would have had the rules set up so it could be allowed in.

    I see changing the rules to allow Rotom in much the same way (though somewhat more understandable) as changing the rules to allow Magikarp to be Lv. 10 so that it stands a fair chance in the metagame. Both change a basic rule, both do so to allow a new Pokemon to be viable.

    Edit:
    The word Evolution has not been "updated" for over 10 years. It has a fixed and well defined meaning.
  13. v

    v the last abortionbender
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    ULTRA Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,948
    Hello. Before I make any points, I think it is important to outline that this thread isn’t just about Rotom, it’s about redefining Little Cup rules and possibly the definition of an evolution. That said, I am currently of the mindset that Rotom should be allowed in Little Cup. I also will not be addressing anything anyone else has said in this thread specifically, as at the time I am making this post I’ve not read their arguments. This is just my “two cents.” If I see fit, I will respond to relevant comments in the future. I am also withholding my vote on the matter for the present in the event my opinion is swayed by the opposition.


    The main argument against Rotom’s allowance into Little Cup is that it “doesn’t evolve.” The definition that is being used as evolution is totally arbitrary. I have heard it said “it doesn’t have the evolution screen, so it isn’t an evolution.” However, from a competitive standpoint, Rotom’s “forme change” is every bit an evolution as, say, Scyther to Scizor, if not more. Rotom’s change to Rotom-A is reversible, yes, but it cannot retain any of the moves it obtains as Rotom-A. All other “forme changes” have the exact same movepool by virtue of the fact that they retain moves when the change is reverted. Rotom’s BST also increases, something no other forme change can boast. The only evolution that has no BST change is Scyther to Scizor, and Rotom is the only case where BST increases without “evolution” as Nintendo defines it.

    Another important factor to consider is Rotom’s breedability. No other Pokemon with a change in forme can be bred. This means that, at the moment, Rotom is the only Pokemon in this category. Deoxys, Shaymin and Giratina are all non-breedable, as they are what is considered “Legendary.” This means Rotom fits another key requirement to being in Little Cup.

    As I mentioned earlier, reversibility of Rotom’s forme change is another prime argument for it to be ineligible. This, they say, makes it not an evolution, and therefore not LC-legal. However, I would like to bring attention to the fact that, in the original GSC Stadium LC, there was a weight limit, making Rhyhorn and Onix illegal. GSC LC did not have such a limit, despite the fact that it went against Nintendo’s rules. “We need to use PBR’s LC rules!” On PBR, there is no “LC Uber” list, meaning that if we are to follow Nintendo in this matter we cannot have a banlist. Is this an irrelevant comparison? Perhaps, but I encourage you to think a bit more on my point of view. We do not follow Nintendo’s way largely because our method is “better.”

    So please, before you blindly agree saying “No Nintendo-defined evolution, no Rotom,” just think about how similar Rotom’s forme change is to a Nintendo-defined evolution from a competitive view. Stat increases, better movepool and I guess “new sprite.”

    Be cool. Be protom.
  14. 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:
    5,653
    I don't think it would be right to "change nintendo's definition of Evolution", I just think it would only make sense to update Little Cup rules.

    Seeing as Little Cup is a competitive metagame, and competitively, Evolution and Rotom's form changing (the processes) are identical, the rules should be adjusted ever so slightly to accommodate the process.
  15. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight Photorealistic Seagull (PSG)
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,592
    Rotom has the singular problem in that its "evolution-lite" is entirely reversible.

    Would we allow Marill and Pikachu in if they could somehow "pre-volve?"

    After all, Marill and Pikachu (and I suppose you can throw the rest in too) and be hatched from eggs, do evolve, and if you don't go through a significant and special breeding process, they will ordinarily be the earliest stage of the pokemon.

    Furthermore, Rotom appliances can all "evolve" into each other by selecting a different appliance. Why don't we allow Rotom-A into LC as well? It "evolves" in the same way as Rotom proper does.

    Also by kd24's third criterion, Scyther does not count as an LC pokemon because Scizor has differently allocated stats, not higher ones.
  16. kd24

    kd24 yo daddy musta been a drug dealer? why, cuz you're dope
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,318
    dk, my 3rd "point" was simply backing up the fact that there is a change. i was in no way saying "the changes here totally make the difference". the fact is, rotom has a change that increases stats and changes sprites and whatever else, and its important to acknowledge that this may also be a kind of evolution.
  17. umbarsc

    umbarsc

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,001
    Why does it matter if it's technically not evolving? This isn't a real argument, just my first impression, but it goes through a process almost identical to evolving: it gets a bigger, scarier form; it learns new, more powerful moves; its stats get drastically improved in almost all ways. Tell me how those properties don't apply to almost every evolutionary line in the game. It seems like more of a technicality than anything.

    I would also not object to Phione being allowed, but I'm probably alone in that view.

    Also, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
  18. 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
    From this follows much of your argument, however the definition of evolution is defined directly by Nintendo. Nintendo's choice of definition here is just as arbitrary as its choice not to give Flareon Flare Blitz, we follow both. We can't pick a chose which parts of the game to accept, or decide to mess with other things which we dislike. We can feasibly change our rules, but it is impossible to redefine the word evolution.

    Actually, this is incorrect. Though many people seem to think this thanks to something called the Petit Cup. Little Cup originally had no such limits.

    PBR's Little Battle also has extremely similar rules to our Little Cup, the only differences being the introduction of tiers (which does not change the fundamental rules of eligibility), two banned items (really just another form of tier), and the standard clauses. Introducing tiers into a metagame has sound competitive merit, and does not allow you to do anything that would not otherwise have been possible within the metagame.

    Its a restriction of the game which Nintendo created, not addition to it. The difference between blocking something too powerful with a ban and hacking a new Pokemon to balance it out (though in this case, its hard to argue Rotom will have any balancing effect).

    Edit: some log of the discussion on #littlecup
    Code:
    (this is where I stepped into the conversation, before this I had been silent for over half an hour)
    [00:31]    <ete_HW>    next wall of test up.
    [00:31]    <ete_HW>    *text
    [00:31]    <ete_HW>    only replied to some of Hey's stuff 'cos it was in a past thread
    [00:32]    <ete_HW>    but got most everything else.
    [00:32]    <kd24>    ok eric
    [00:32]    <kd24>    i also respect your opinion
    [00:32]    <kd24>    jsut to let you know
    [00:32]    <kd24>    anyway
    [00:32]    <kd24>    The word Evolution has not been "updated" for over 10 years. It has a fixed and well defined meaning.
    [00:33]    <kd24>    i dont agree with
    [00:33]    <kd24>    never since platinum has a case like this happened
    [00:33]    <SevenDeadlySins>    the reason this hasn't been done before for the most part
    [00:33]    <kd24>    where something changes forms without the evolution screen
    [00:33]    <ete_HW>    Its still a fixed word
    [00:33]    <SevenDeadlySins>    is hardware limitations
    [00:33]    <ete_HW>    Evolution means something
    [00:34]    <ete_HW>    Its not something we can redefine
    [00:34]    <ete_HW>    if nintendo feels like it, yea, ok
    [00:34]    <SevenDeadlySins>    in the context of a metagake
    [00:34]    <SevenDeadlySins>    yes it is
    [00:34]    <ete_HW>    But we can't.
    [00:34]    <SevenDeadlySins>    metagame*
    [00:34]    <ete_HW>    No, evolution has no relation to competitive stuff
    [00:34]    <ete_HW>    Its defined outside of competitive stuff
    [00:34]    <ete_HW>    It is an In Game phenomenon
    [00:35]    <SevenDeadlySins>    then there may need to be a new definition competitively
    [00:35]    <ete_HW>    No, there is no need
    [00:35]    <ete_HW>    no need whatsoever
    [00:35]    <kd24>    ok fine but this is in relation
    [00:35]    <ete_HW>    I can't stay up tonight
    [00:35]    <ete_HW>    argueing
    [00:35]    <kd24>    to a metagame
    [00:35]    <kd24>    an ingame phenomenon?
    [00:35]    <ete_HW>    I have a weeks worth of math HW for tomorw
    [00:35]    <Vader>    i have a question
    [00:36]    <ete_HW>    Because LC has its rules
    [00:36]    <Vader>    is long-windedness infractable?
    [00:36]    <ete_HW>    based on something that is not directly competitive
    [00:36]    <kd24>    i cant either =[
    [00:36]    <kd24>    no vader
    [00:36]    <ete_HW>    and always has
    [00:36]    <ete_HW>    Why should it be Lv. 5?
    [00:36]    <ete_HW>    No reason, other than a non competitive sidequest
    [00:37]    <ete_HW>    but it makes a competitive metagame that works
    [00:37]    <ete_HW>    Shall we remove the level restriction?
    [00:37]    <ete_HW>    make it level 100?
    [00:37]    <ete_HW>    If not, why not?
    [00:37]    <SevenDeadlySins>    actually
    [00:37]    <SevenDeadlySins>    levels are competitively related
    [00:38]    <ete_HW>    Is there a competitive reason
    [00:38]    <SevenDeadlySins>    because they fix stats
    [00:38]    <Vader>    it creates a different enviornment
    [00:38]    <ete_HW>    That's not why we made the rule
    [00:38]    <Vader>    *environment
    [00:38]    <ete_HW>    and different is not enough for competitive
    [00:38]    <ete_HW>    I love LC
    [00:38]    <ete_HW>    and love the level resiriction
    [00:38]    <Kannon>    askaninjask we are both in shit positions in diplomacy
    [00:38]    <Kannon>    halps
    [00:38]    <Kannon>    :(
    [00:38]    <ete_HW>    but its not competitively based
    [00:39]    <askaninjask>    you were the one that stopped me from being able to get any supply centers
    [00:39]    <kd24>    my true answer to that eric is "who cares"
    [00:39]    <kd24>    we all accept it should be level 5
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    It leads to a great competitive environment
    [00:39]    <askaninjask>    dumb kannon and outlaw and mekkah teaming up on me
    [00:39]    <kd24>    if you want to argue for it to be level 100
    [00:39]    <kd24>    its fine
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    Then "who cares" if rotom only almost makes the requirement
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    I was playing a devils advocate
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    I Do not want Lv. 100 play
    [00:39]    <kd24>    only almost?
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    It does not
    [00:39]    <kd24>    i feel it definitely does
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    so, yes
    [00:39]    <ete_HW>    Only almost
    [00:40]    <ete_HW>    Ok, do you claim that by the definition of evolution that is given to us, Rotom evolves.
    [00:40]    <ete_HW>    Just yes/no
    [00:40]    <ete_HW>    Not "competitively"
    [00:40]    <ete_HW>    just does it actually evolve
    [00:40]    <SevenDeadlySins>    i feel the definition of evolution needs to be expanded
    [00:40]    <SevenDeadlySins>    so that's an irrelevant questoin
    [00:40]    <ete_HW>    Not at all
    [00:41]    <ete_HW>    Evolution is well defined
    [00:41]    <ete_HW>    its not flexible
    [00:41]    <Deck>    Real purpose for discussion: play Rotom in LC Ubers.
    [00:41]    <kd24>    preplat yes
    [00:41]    <ete_HW>    its set by nontendo
    [00:41]    =-=    ReyScarface is now known as Beej-
    [00:41]    <ete_HW>    *nintendo
    [00:41]    -->|    Mag (~Magmortif@synIRC-2756FC9A.pools.spcsdns.net) has joined #littlecup
    [00:41]    =-=    Mode #littlecup +v Mag by ChanServ
    [00:41]    =-=    Beej- is now known as BEEJ-
    [00:41]    <ete_HW>    By the current definition, right now
    [00:41]    <ete_HW>    SDS/KD
    [00:42]    <ete_HW>    Does it actually evolve?
    [00:42]    <kd24>    whats the current definition?
    [00:42]    <ete_HW>    roughly: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Evolution
    [00:42]    <kd24>    it needs an evo screen or something?
    [00:42]    <kd24>    i assume its something that wouldnt allow rotom
    [00:42]    <kd24>    to be in lc
    [00:43]    <kd24>    regardless, we feel the defn needs to be expanded upon
    [00:43]    |<--    Fuzznip has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: Fuzznip)
    [00:43]    <ete_HW>    You want to not change LC's basic rules, but Nintendo's existing definitions to allow in a new Pokemon?
    [00:44]    <ete_HW>    That seems crazy to me.
    [00:44]    <kd24>    crazy like a fox!
    [00:45]    <ete_HW>    yea..
    [00:45]    <Vader>    Rotom-A feels more like an evolution
    [00:45]    <Vader>    but Nintendo can't add new Pokemon within a generation
    [00:46]    <ete_HW>    "feels" =/= is
    [00:46]    <Vader>    maybe it's nintendo's way of evolving Rotom
    [00:46]    <Vader>    because they can't do it in actuality
    [00:47]    <Vader>    wait
    [00:47]    <kd24>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Cumberland_vs._Georgia_Tech_football_game
    [00:47]    <Vader>    for a second
    [00:47]    <ete_HW>    We can't second guess them, and we go by what they did
    [00:47]    <kd24>    look at gts rushing stats lol
    [00:47]    <Vader>    the arguments against Rotom are:
    [00:47]    <Vader>    Evolution is reversible, other formes would be allowed and ?"
    [00:47]    <Vader>    why did i put a "
    [00:47]    <Vader>    o_O
    [00:47]    <ete_HW>    The main one
    [00:47]    =-=    BEEJ- is now known as plus--
    [00:47]    <ete_HW>    is that Rotom does not evolve
    [00:48]    =-=    Vader is now known as BEEJ-
    [00:48]    <ete_HW>    so does not fir the basic LC rules
    [00:48]    <ete_HW>    *fit
    [00:48]    =-=    plus-- is now known as ReyScarface
    [00:48]    =-=    BEEJ- is now known as Vader
    [00:50]    <Vader>    become el_pinepe
    [00:50]    =-=    Rotom is now known as el_pinepe
    [00:50]    <Vader>    become Porygon
    [00:50]    =-=    el_pinepe is now known as Porygon
    [00:50]    -->|    Dracoyoshi8 (Mibbit@synIRC-DFDBEFE.c3-0.tlg-ubr7.atw-tlg.pa.cable.rcn.com) has joined #littlecup
    [00:51]    =-=    Mode #littlecup +v Dracoyoshi8 by ChanServ
    (Not much relevant happened for a while after this)
    
  19. umbarsc

    umbarsc

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,001
    I don't see what's so bad about saying "close enough".

    And the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. If the time comes where Plusle and Mawile and Unown are being considered for LC, you can argue against it then, but this only includes Rotom and nothing else. Nothing else is in Rotom's unique position of "almost" evolving.

    And we're not changing the game at all, only our own ruleset.
  20. Dubulous

    Dubulous I look just like Buddy Holly.
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,122
    The bad thing about saying "close enough" is that it blurs the line by which we define a Pokémon to be eligible for Little Cup or not. I will acknowledge that the slippery slope is indeed a logical fallacy, but blurring the lines helps to open up the door for arguments of other Pokémon's eligibility.
  21. 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:
    4,009
    I don't see how this is a slippery slope, Rotom is truly a unique exception. If we allow Rotom are we forced to allow anything else besides him?
  22. supermarth64

    supermarth64 Here I stand in the light of day
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,445
    Nothing in this generation (Skymin and Giratina-O are both Uber, Phione can't "evolve"). The only thing that would cause this to change is if GF releases Generation 5.
  23. 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
    We would be changing the ruleset which LC is based upon, that in itself needs very strong justification. Other than "it looks like evolution in some ways, but has some things that are clearly not evolution", what is your reasoning for wanting Rotom when it is clearly against the current rule?

    And why do you think that a revised rule would be "better", when it is less clear than the existing one, does not follow the game which LC is based upon, goes against a definition that has been made by the creators of this game, and only serves the purpose of allowing a single quite probably broken Pokemon into a metagame that with a few suspect tests will settle down perfectly well?

    And as for:
    Improvement =/= evolution, but evolution tends to = improvement. The "almost every" is also key, as is the fact you used subjective measures and ignored the fact that many Pokemon could be said to be "competitively" evolutions of eachother, while having to relation in game. The existing rule gives clear results as to how to treat each Pokemon, changing it to make it more fuzzy without very good reason is nonsensical.

    Because the rules state:
    The Pokémon must be able to evolve.
    Unless we change the rules, Rotom fails this test. Its not about how "close" it comes. It fails. Just as Pokemon with 512 Evs fail the "510 max" limit on OU, Rotom fails the "Only Pokemon that can evolve" limit on LC. You may argue that they only just fail, but they fail and that is what matters.

    I argue against an unnecessary, arbitrary, harmful and pointless change to the rules that would allow Rotom into LC. The others are examples of what is banned from LC due to the rules, and if we can break and change the rules for one Pokemon why not any other?

    >_>
    By changing the ruleset, we are changing the rules. I don't quite see how you can change a ruleset without changing rules....

    Rotom may be the only Pokemon that is let in by THIS proposed change to the rules, but that does not mean its a good idea. It is still opening up a "slippery slope" in the sense that we are changing rules for a single Pokemon without good reason.
  24. Dubulous

    Dubulous I look just like Buddy Holly.
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,122
    We are not forced to do anything. However, blurring the line by which we define a Pokémon's eligibility allows other arguments to come up in the future. For instance, an argument can be made for Giratina, though making it would be pointless as it does not evolve and therefore shouldn't be allowed.
  25. zyrefredric

    zyrefredric

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    "Rotom goes through a special process that allows itself to obtain a new sprite(form), a new BST (higher), and a new move. How is that not evolution?"

    i'm not really experienced in the LC, but i've been visiting the forum, trying to lurk more before i try the metagame out.. now with this thread's discussion, and basing from the argument provided above, if rotom "evolves" because of a new sprite, BST and/or a new move, wouldn't that apply to other alternate forms? so shaymin ("evolves" to skymin) and giratina ("evolves" to giratina-o) are eligible for LC?

    now of course that would be absurd, since they are Uber beyond proportions even at level 5.. i'm not even sure they can be obtained at that level, or as an egg.. and i highly doubt they are breedable, but for the sake of argument let's say they are.. aren't they pretty similar cases with rotom who "evolves" to rotom-a (except for the devolution part, which is actually possible by removing their corresponding items)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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