Gonna throw my hat in the ring here, 6v6 is a must. Just better than BSS. Also I don't see why we can't keep item clause. If it becomes an issue it could be changed. ZA even kept they're wack items and then eventually changed them and the tier turned out fine. Especially considering the game is confirmed to be updated with more items down the line.
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Metagame Champions OU Metagame Discussion
- Thread starter dhelmise
- Start date
That stretches a bit too far into "compensating" for Champions, EVs and IVs don't fundamentally enable the 6v6 singles format in the way that things like freeze clause do. Item clause should be tested to be clear, but removing it would not be a problematic tiering decision should it be found that the existence of the item clause is a significant issue in the 6v6 format; every form of debate on the subject in the past has most generally ended with an agreement that item clause ranges from harmful to unnecessary.
I see Item Clause as something essential to what makes Champions, well, Champions. There isn’t even any guarantee that no Item Clause makes the game any better, it’s just different from what we’re used to. And if theres something that’s broken that wouldn’t be without Item Clause, we can just ban the Pokemon/strategy.
IVs, the metagame can probably do without. as for EVs, they'll have to find a way to adapt the stat points system to a level 100 metagame, perhaps by making each stat point function as 2 stat points.
Why does the metagame have to be level 100 at all? I understand (and agree with) the argument for removing item clause, but making mons level 100 instead of 50 feels a bit arbitrary. I don't see any compelling reason that one is required for a healthy meta.
At this point, certainly from my perspective, I'm simply arguing against the notion that removing item clause would be a decision defiant of either tiering policy or some ideal of it, as with what's been talked about that it would make Champions OU a "Pet Mod" or similar. It seems obvious that Item Clause should be implementef at first, but if it is necessary to remove it, then there shouldn't be any reason not to. I think anyone saying item clause should not at least be tested in the format is making a far too hasty judgement, although I do agree with them that a no item clause metagame MIGHT be the better route.
LGPE OU does just fine for itself at level 50, theres no reason to mod everything to level 100 here
It's ALREADY a pet mod though. That bridge is crossed.
if it's level 50 then EVs are not a concern at all. Stat points function pretty much exactly like EVs do at level 50 in past formats, except you get an extra stat point when investing in only 3 stats.
edit: I was assuming level 100 since the person I was replying to brought up EVs. if champions OU will be level 50 then stat points work fine.
By that logic, any freeze clause tier is a pet mod because it modifies the game beyond what is possible on cartridge. 6v6 is not itself grounds to be considered a pet mod.
If making it 6v6 is fine, then allowing duplicate items is also fine. There is no reason one is "more intrusive" as a change. Both are changes to allow us to play OU the way it has literally always been played for over 20 years.
For the sake of keeping/removing Item Clause, it should be noted that not all mods are created equal.
Some mods can theoretically be "implemented" on cartridge but only through the assistance of an impartial judge capable of seeing both players' screens (includes some bans and probably AG formats too!).
Some mods affect only obtainability/legality and still keep the format a subset of Pure Hackmons.
Other mods fundamentally change how the game works and allow for gameplay beyond Pure Hackmons.
RNG mods like Freeze Clause are tricky because for every possible game where the clause mattered, there's always an identical game where it didn't (if we're gonna be even MORE pedantic, the game shouldn't even announce when Freeze Clause activates as this technically leaks information that a freeze should have happened and therefore the opponent is more likely to have Serene Grace as their ability)
The problem here is that Champions's implementation of Item Clause blurs the line between out-of-battle obtainability and format legality
Some mods can theoretically be "implemented" on cartridge but only through the assistance of an impartial judge capable of seeing both players' screens (includes some bans and probably AG formats too!).
Some mods affect only obtainability/legality and still keep the format a subset of Pure Hackmons.
Other mods fundamentally change how the game works and allow for gameplay beyond Pure Hackmons.
RNG mods like Freeze Clause are tricky because for every possible game where the clause mattered, there's always an identical game where it didn't (if we're gonna be even MORE pedantic, the game shouldn't even announce when Freeze Clause activates as this technically leaks information that a freeze should have happened and therefore the opponent is more likely to have Serene Grace as their ability)
The problem here is that Champions's implementation of Item Clause blurs the line between out-of-battle obtainability and format legality
Last edited:
i just feel like trying to force this issue right now is bizarre
we're gonna be playing champions for a long ass time and things will change and be updated, this is not normal and we can and imo SHOULD wait to make decisions lol
champions will not be able to be run with standard tiering policy because it is now closer to vgc house rules than ever, ie. they could just drop a new regulation in 30 days (and likely will) that pushes out a shit ton of new items and pokemon
we're gonna be playing champions for a long ass time and things will change and be updated, this is not normal and we can and imo SHOULD wait to make decisions lol
champions will not be able to be run with standard tiering policy because it is now closer to vgc house rules than ever, ie. they could just drop a new regulation in 30 days (and likely will) that pushes out a shit ton of new items and pokemon
My take on item clause is that given that you can put the same item on many battle teams, you actually have an infinite amount of each item. The game just enforces item clause in the teambuilder.
Item Clause is not some sort of untouchable golden rule that makes or breaks 6v6 singles. Pokemon Showdown is supposed to simulate games as close as possible, the reason we do not use Item Clause is because until now, NO game forced Item Clause when playing the game against someone else in a custom lobby, it is purely a community decision.
In Champions, Item Clause is not a rule: it is an unavoidable, unalienable property of the game that you CANNOT, in any way, bypass. This is literally how the game functions at a fundamental level, it is not a rule added to the battle engine. Therefore, I do not see how we could get around keeping Item Clause. Forgoing Item Clause would literally make Champions OU a PetMod.
You could argue that, according to my definition, Sleep Clause would by default turn cg into a PetMod. In my opinion, Sleep Clause is closer to a community rule enforced with as little side effect as possible and can be realistically followed on cartridge. This is not the case here. The game physically prevents you from going around Item Clause.
In Champions, Item Clause is not a rule: it is an unavoidable, unalienable property of the game that you CANNOT, in any way, bypass. This is literally how the game functions at a fundamental level, it is not a rule added to the battle engine. Therefore, I do not see how we could get around keeping Item Clause. Forgoing Item Clause would literally make Champions OU a PetMod.
You could argue that, according to my definition, Sleep Clause would by default turn cg into a PetMod. In my opinion, Sleep Clause is closer to a community rule enforced with as little side effect as possible and can be realistically followed on cartridge. This is not the case here. The game physically prevents you from going around Item Clause.
Last edited:
The game also physically prevents you from playing 6v6. This is a fantasy metagame no matter how you slice it.
i dont see why the tier wouldnt have an item clause ngl. its not even like an actual item clause the game just doesnt let you have more than 1 item. if this was the case for any other pokemon game then it would just be accepted that only 1 of an item can exist in a save file and the game would be played like that, and the only reason its even at all a debate here is because the game would have to be modded to allow for 6v6 (and if the champions ou wasnt 6v6 what would even be the point). idk i dont think the lack of an item clause has ever been the selling point of OU formats, its always just been 6v6 battles like the games. also like i dont think yall realize that an item clause is not like bad even in a format with limited items. like the concern here seems to be that its inherently bad but ive lived through similar shit and its literally fine. i would prefer no item clause but genuinely an item clause is not that big of a deal
ok that was not at all as concise as i wouldve liked but whatever im lazy im not fixing it
ok that was not at all as concise as i wouldve liked but whatever im lazy im not fixing it
Oh, I agree. In fact, I hope we are getting a Champions BSS since it's the only way to play Singles. But for 6v6, I would say it is fair to allow 6v6 to be a thing on Showdown. Is it nitpicky? Arguably yes :)
best case scenario ruleset for COU
- 6v6 -> differentiates from BSS
- Item Clause
-> diversifies an isolated metagame and stays true to the actual functions of the game
- limited bans -> the game is young friends, sneasler is not a worry.
- game available items only -> play national dex lol
- Sleep clause drop -> 2 turns is much fairer
- 6v6 -> differentiates from BSS
- Item Clause
-> diversifies an isolated metagame and stays true to the actual functions of the game- limited bans -> the game is young friends, sneasler is not a worry.
- game available items only -> play national dex lol
- Sleep clause drop -> 2 turns is much fairer
agree with everything except sleep clause pointbest case scenario ruleset for COU
- 6v6 -> differentiates from BSS
- Item Clause
- limited bans -> the game is young friends, sneasler is not a worry.
- game available items only -> play national dex lol
- Sleep clause drop -> 2 turns is much fairer
sleep should be banned outright bcz that's closer mechanically to the games and even if sleep got nerfed, no sleep is still more competitive than sleep is
ranked 6v6 differentiates smogon from official metagames -> items do not. 6v6 makes it Smogon COU, 3v3 makes it Champions Battle Sim. Item Clause is not differentiating from a smogon mechanic it’s staying true to a pokemon mechanic, to delete the one thing that makes Smogon special beside the tiering would make it just champions battle sim. Though this is entirely opinion based off what you think makes smogon, smogon.
Agreed in 7 minute hindsight i hate sleep
Honestly I'd be for a sleep ban just because I don't feel like playing against Hypnosis Mega Gengar lol. But I truly wouldn't mind if we started with a clean state and no bans at all, just to see what happens. At the end of the day, this discussion isn't gonna go anywhere. No consensus will ever be found and I'll go with whatever ruleset the developers of Showdown choose just because democracy ain't gonna work here. Except for Item Clause, keep Item Clause in please.
Maybe modifying to have 129 EV points, in which 1 EV = 1 stat point.
It matches the 32/32/3 point we have in champions(Max EVs remain 252 probably, as we have 32 stat point with the slider).
Or just edit the max EVs to 512.
What's actually the difference between the usual EV system and Champions' system? Are we losing or gaining 1 point in a stat? If so, it's not worth it to take time developing a different EV system for 1 point of stat, at the very least for the first days Champions is out. Alternatively, just make it so you can run a different amount of EVs in Champions metagames. It's already supported through Custom Games or in gen1/2 on Showdown so it sounds like the best solution.
Essentially how it works is, normally at level 50, the first 4 EVs add one point to the real stat, then every 8 EVs afterwards, which ends up being 32 extra stat points maximum with 252 EVs. Note that this means that the first stat point in each stat is cheaper than the rest. With 508 EVs, this means you get a maximum 252/252/4 which is equal to 65 stat points total if you invest in 3 stats, or 252/244/4/4/4 which is equal to 66 stat points total if you invest in 5 stats. Because EVs are kinda weird at level 50, you get more out of investing in 5 stats, which is partially why VGC EV spreads are so weird. You're encouraged to put 4 EVs into random stats to get more out of the EVs you have. At level 100, it's quite simple, every 4 EVs is an extra stat point, which is why this doesn't matter in OU.
What champions did is make the maximum 66 stat points regardless of how many stats you invest in. For example, investing in 3 stats, you can get 32/32/2 SPs which is equal to 252/252/12 EVs, or 516 total. Investing in 4 stats, you get 32/32/1/1 SPs or 252/252/4/4 EVs, or 512 total. If you invest in 5 stats, nothing changes.
If Showdown wanted to implement this, all they would need to do is make the maximum EVs depend on how many stats you invest in.
Invest in 3 stats = 516 EVs maximum
4 stats = 512 EVs maximum
5 stats = 508 EVs maximum
6 stats = 504 EVs maximum
I do think eventually Showdown will need to fully implement SPs in order to support VGC, but this works in the meantime to fully recreate what's allowed by Champions and what isn't.