What do you guys think about the item clause?

[DEL337ED]

From people I've battled, it's been split 50/50 between those who want it and those who don't.

I support it. I think it makes people put more effort into planning out their team, since they can't just rely on 6 leftovers. Also the matches tend to be more interesting, from my experience, as people use interesting items one might not have thought of if they were just using leftovers (for example, berries reducing certain super-effective attacks). So I like it - it adds more depth and variety in my opinion.

What do you guys think?

 

[Boa1891]

Love item clause. Though occasionally I'm annoyed that I can't use double lefties, I almost always play with item clause.

 

[Blackbeltsam]

I love it, and I prefer using it, but if I can't due to the opponent's wishes, I don't care.

 

[chocobattler]

I'm okey with either way. It's always up to the opponent for me

 

[Synre]

I've argued both sides of this a lot and I still kind of have mixed feelings about it.

I expected to hate it a lot more than I actually do now that I've been forced to play by it a bit and there are enough new items(Life Orb and Choice Scarf/Specs mainly) that it isn't nearly as painful to adhere to Item Clause as it used to be. I'm still not convinced it's the type of thing I would like as a standard rule, but as much as we tend to look down on the ridiculous rulesets NOA throws together, Item Clause is on there pretty much every time which has to count for something. I think I'm a little more accepting about it than a lot of the people who played competitively without it in previous generations are simply because I don't normally use more than two or three Pokemon that want to use Leftovers at once in DP anyway, so it's normally not very hard for me to switch a couple items and not lose a whole lot of effectiveness on my team. Additionally, the lack of Leftovers tends to Speed the game up a bit since things die slightly quicker which is usually beneficial to my style play, so I don't normally mind Item Clause.

 

[Hypnotist]

To be honest with you, I can go with any clauses. I just find them interesting and entertaining, though I normally just go with Sleep Clause. For example, a No Switching Clause. People think it's stupid, but if you think about it, it can sometimes be like... the Battle Frontier in Emerald. I could see No Switching Clause happening at a Facility and once again, it just makes the game more entertaining.

We can use the Clauses as a way of making more pokemon usable and stuff. Like in the Battle Frontier one could make teams specific for that facility. So here it could be like "Hey look at my No Switch Clause Team". You get what I'm saying? Making teams for specific clauses to make the game more interesting. I could see that in a no switch clause Sleep Talk can be highly important.

But yeah, because of this I normally don't mind any clause as long as we like... have the teams for the clause and all that other stuff.

EDIT: Though No Switch Clause still sucks in standard battling. Lol.

 

[L2m6w5]

Personally, I think that item clause should limit all items to 1 except leftovers which would be 2.

I can compare this to my fantasy baseball league. Usually there is only 1 disabled list spot, but everyone agreed to change it to 2 because a lot of top players get injured and you don't want to risk dropping them. It is working out fairly for everyone.

 

[Blackbeltsam]

To be honest with you, I can go with any clauses. I just find them interesting and entertaining, though I normally just go with Sleep Clause. For example, a No Switching Clause. People think it's stupid, but if you think about it, it can sometimes be like... the Battle Frontier in Emerald. I could see No Switching Clause happening at a Facility and once again, it just makes the game more entertaining.

We can use the Clauses as a way of making more pokemon usable and stuff. Like in the Battle Frontier one could make teams specific for that facility. So here it could be like "Hey look at my No Switch Clause Team". You get what I'm saying? Making teams for specific clauses to make the game more interesting. I could see that in a no switch clause Sleep Talk can be highly important.

But yeah, because of this I normally don't mind any clause as long as we like... have the teams for the clause and all that other stuff.

EDIT: Though No Switch Clause still sucks in standard battling. Lol.

From my understanding, the no switch clause was a bad joke from Gamefaqs.

 

[AlleyViper]

I really don't care either way, but I'd almost prefer a Leftovers Clause. Lefties are the only item I regularly see being used more than once, and while I really don't mind it strategically, it's just kind of yawn inducing when half the team, or more, is carrying 'em.

Personally, I think that item clause should limit all items to 1 except leftovers which would be 2.

I can compare this to my fantasy baseball league. Usually there is only 1 disabled list spot, but everyone agreed to change it to 2 because a lot of top players get injured and you don't want to risk dropping them. It is working out fairly for everyone.

BOO! One DL spot or bust!

 

[bauer]

Switch clause? That's not even worth mentioning, it's obvious that it was meant to be a joke, and if the person was serious, said person must be an idiot.

 

[squeakyreaper]

I like it. Reason being is that a team of Life Orbers/Choice Items is annoyingly powerful to fight, while a team of Leftover users are just boring. Spice it up a bit, or equip some danged silk scarfs.

 

[Frozen_Quinn]

i didn't even know there was one -_-.

but i think that adds a whole lot more strategy to the game instead of just sticking leftovers on everything. also, it'll probably coax some people into using items others wouldn't think of.

 

[Fire Electric Cat-Gonk]

From my understanding, the no switch clause was a bad joke from Gamefaqs.

the bad joke from gamefaqs would have been "evade clause" tbqh

 

[Coiled Flame]

I dont like it, as usually, when I cant think of a good item to use, especially on things with stat upping moves, the best option is nearly always leftovers.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I think an item clause as a basic rule should really only be in the form of "Leftovers clause".. To restrict a person to one salac berry is sorta unnecessary..

Also, the other thing I dont really like about it is it does sorta add a sort of formulaic structure to teams. There will always be one poke with leftovers, a life orb, a berry, a choice scarf, and one of the other choice items + something random.. Item clause I could see being a good idea only if there were about 20 items all as useable and all actually different (the difference between one stat boosting berry and another is not really all that significant).

Have a nice day.

 

[Blizzard1]

I definitely like item clause. It means people who dupe their hard-to-get items (like leftovers) aren't at as much of an advantage, and you don't have a team with 6 leftovers/life orbs/choice items, which could be rather formulaic as well.

There are lots of amusing and tasty items. EAT THEM.

 

[TSPhoenix]

IMO Item Clause is mostly pointless. All it really did was prevent multiple Leftovers, and considering the lack of good items in ADV it just resulted in a lot of Pokemon being left with no worthwhile item.

In turn all that really does is narrowed OU (Slowbro without leftovers, no thanks) and resulted in thing becoming even more stale. It didn't seems stale because it was different from the normal metagame (less SkarmBliss, ect...) but in reality it was just as bad. As a sometimes thing the clause is fine, but definately not for standard.

With all the new items in DP Item Clause is pretty useless yet again, all it really does is force you to adjust your team and discourages tanking with maybe Weezing slipping in as #2 due to its own lefties-type item.

Making every team have three Choice Items, Life Orb, Leftovers and some random other items is hardly encouraging any sort of creativity. Certain items fit certain Pokemon, stopping them from having that item will just reduce use and considering that Leftovers isn't really that great an item given the DP metagame, I find the clause to be counter-productive.

Once Competitor gets running maybe they could gather stats about which items are seeing the most use and stuff, that'd be handy to help see what use this clause really has.

 

[noobster]

I like item clause, like Synre mentioned it creates a faster metagame which is always enjoyable, but on the other hand, like Hipmonlee mentioned, it's still pretty formulaic with the same set of items still being used. I'd like it if there were a wider range of choices in terms of items but as it is currently, it's not that bad.

 

[GLink]

What I don't like about item clause is that for some pokemon, leftovers is the optimal choice for an item. With item clause, it hurts anyone who has more than one of these pokemon on their team. Also, I don't like how it "forces creativity". People should be competent enough to put thought into item selection instead of just putting leftovers on every one of their pokemon. I think at the very least an item clause should allow no more than two items instead of one. However, one thing I do like about item clause is that it speeds up battles.

 

[Toshi0220]

Meh, item clause makes you think outside the box while making your team (Sweepers having Choice item/Life Orb, Walls having defensive berries/lefties ect), but for when you have like two walls (SkarmBliss :O) it is hard to choose what goes on who.

I guess you can say, I like it when it doesn't hinder me (like if I ended up making a team that didn't use doubles of an item).

 

[Kumar]

Don't like it because of Tyranitar.

EDIT: HATE it because of Tyranitar.

 

[n3ther]

A good weather changer negates Tyranitar really. I don't mind people choosing to put 6 leftovers on all their pokemon since they will be useless on sweepers with low defenses. I have a different item on each pokemon since it's usually superior than multiple leftovers.

 

[MadRhetoric]

I much prefer item clause, but I'm not really bothered if my opponent doesn't want it.

 

[Lord Alchemy]

I find it annoying and pointless. If people are still running 6 Lefties, they're really just handicapping themselves. Life Orb, the three Choice Items, all the berries, Focus Sash, etc; all lead to some pretty nice strategies that can't be run otherwise.

But you do end up in some area where you'll want two or three pokes to pack Lefties. Generally people pack atleast two tanks, a special and physical one. It makes sense here to put Lefties on them since its a great job enhancer. Using Item Clause just forces people to have stupid things like Shell Bell, Lax Incense, and stuff that generally aren't as good.

As stated earlier, if you want to maximize your teams potential under Item Clause, you'll fall into a basic formula of making sure you have a Berry user, a Lefties Tank, a Life Orber, Multiple Choice users. This is really a needless clause that if anything forces people to use even more "standard" teams.

The game is much more diverse if people are allowed to pick their own items, even if they run with duplicates.

 

[Mekkah]

I don't like Item Clause much in theory because it makes Sand Stream more broken than it is already, and also pretty much encourages Skarmory use through Shed Shell.