Why is there a species clause?

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Another issue with the nickname thing is Wifi play. Many people play with traded Pokemon. Personally, about half of the Pokemon I have are from trades. If I didn't have an AR, it would be bothersome to get them all nicknamed. Hell, even with an AR it's a pain in the ass.

This problem is further magnified by the presence of redistributables on Smogon. They can only be renamed by people with an AR or the original
trainer, and I doubt those people would want to be flooded with renaming requests.

 

[pictish]

None of these issues about nicknames are very good points about the species clause of course, but merely corner cases of nicknaming that'd need to be addressed. Unless of course this is a group of responses from people who are desperate to end the species clause but see it as not viable due to this small group of nickname inconveniences as opposed to people who are in fact against dropping the species clause but decided to attack a corner case of a hypothetical way to prevent abuse as opposed to addressing the species clause.

I have a hunch.

To summarise so far, the main arguments about the species clause itself have been "But I'll have to guess a moveset" which is no different from any other pokemon, and "I don't know if they're running two of the same pokemon or not" which essentially means that at the start of a match when you have seen 1 pokemon on the opponent's side, you must now guess from n+1 instead of n, where N is the number of pokemon the opponent might have not including the pokemon you have seen. N+2 when you have seen 2, and so on. I guess it just means that the number of pokemon you have to guess for each slot never decreases, but is probably an overall difference of about 1% more pokemon you have to consider, maybe?

Aside from that, it's been 'but nicknames' which isn't particularly helpful about the species clause itself and it's value in the metagame. Besides that, people have posted their pet duplicate team that is supposedly broken, and certainly interesting. Perhaps if everyone has these ideas about good teams that use duplicate pokemon that's something interesting and a facet of the metagame we're denying ourselves from exploring on the basis of the status quo (unless an actual argument comes up against the species clause being dropped)

 

[xcfrisco]

I have a better question for this topic. Why should we take away species clause? The only argument I can think of is that it "varies" the metagame, but your not really varying anything if your using the same pokemon. I'm almost certain it is a standard among all official Nintendo tournaments.

 

[obi]

OHKOs and DT being allowed are standard in Nintendo tournaments.

People also seem to forget the easiest way to distinguish between two Pokemon: hit one of them.

If you hit a Salamence for 40%, and then they bring in a 100% Salamence, it's obviously not the same one! Lay down Stealth Rock and this is even less likely that they'll be at exactly the same HP%.

I disagree with forced nicknaming.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

My comment about nicknames wasn't necessarily against dropping the species clause itself, more against this whole idea of forcing a Pokemon to be nicknamed. I believe that if the Species Clause is eliminated, Pokemon shouldn't have to be nicknamed.

Personally, I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if the Species Clause was eliminated. I see a lot of bitching on this thread about having to guess whether or not the opponent is using two or more of the same Pokemon and having to guess each time a Pokemon comes out, but everyone seems to forget one key thing: Your opponent has to deal with the exact same concerns about your team. Everything that applies when you are looking at your opponent's team also applies when your opponent is looking at your team.

Granted, a team of Brightpowder Garchomps + a Sandstreamer would be pretty cheap, but I'm actually surprised that Brightpowder/Lax Incense isn't banned already as part of the standard rules.

 

[Bran]

It forces players to have diverse teams when they battle. Plus, it is probably there for the uber battles too, because the uber battles would insanely not be fair. I sure as hell don't wanna face 6 different Mewtwos, and ESPECIALLY 6 different Arceus!

 

[BrazilianDragonite]

It forces players to have diverse teams when they battle. Plus, it is probably there for the uber battles too, because the uber battles would insanely not be fair. I sure as hell don't wanna face 6 different Mewtwos, and ESPECIALLY 6 different Arceus!

Skill Swap with Kecleon on all Arseus lol
Seriously,the Species clause can only be effectively used in Ubers(Arceus ftw!!!).I fighted with someone today using 6 "broken for OU" Deoxys-S,and i won.And all of his Deoxys were good(stall,sp.atk,atk,mixed,counter coat...).And no one was overspecialized counter for him(well,Dusknoir with Trick Room was...if it didn't died in the 2nd turn)
And no one will use 6 equal pokes to do competitive battles.Sincerely,i don't know why there is a species clause.

 

[xcfrisco]

OHKOs and DT being allowed are standard in Nintendo tournaments.

I was going against the sentiment that Species Clause comes from nowhere and was randomly made up a long time ago.

Do any of the "big heads" actually support this though? I'm starting to be confused over who actually controls competitive pokemon, its obviously not Nintendo. I guess Colin has a lot of influence considering he made Shoddy, I wonder whats his opinion.

I'm staring to assume that what most people say here has very little to do with what actually gets decided. I mean, I'm sure there are WAY MORE people at Smogon (or any competitive website) that are in full support of species clause. Yet, if all the "big heads" decided that Species Clause is no longer needed, would the majority of peoples' opinions on said competitive pokemon website even matter?

Maybe I'm just crazy and full of shit. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks having Species Clause is a perfectly viable rule.

 

[SubVersion]

I'm sorry that you find it hard to distingush between two strings of english characters, but I don't think it's a good argument for keeping the species clause.

That's a ridiculously childish retort and I'm sure you know it. Its not a matter of "oh but i have to REAAAD :((((((", its that what a Pokemon is nicknamed really should not be directly related to the competitive aspect of the battle.

To summarise so far, the main arguments about the species clause itself have been "But I'll have to guess a moveset" which is no different from any other pokemon, and "I don't know if they're running two of the same pokemon or not" which essentially means that at the start of a match when you have seen 1 pokemon on the opponent's side, you must now guess from n+1 instead of n, where N is the number of pokemon the opponent might have not including the pokemon you have seen. N+2 when you have seen 2, and so on. I guess it just means that the number of pokemon you have to guess for each slot never decreases, but is probably an overall difference of about 1% more pokemon you have to consider, maybe?

Aaaaaand you're still not really getting it, or at least not acknowledging the problem. The guessing you have to do doesn't reduce at all until you've seen all six Pokemon, because that sixth Pokemon could be the same as any of the five you've already seen. I think that's what you were getting it, yet you still say stuff like "the main arguments about the species clause itself have been "But I'll have to guess a moveset" which is no different from any other pokemon" which is completely ignoring the whole issue. Despite what you seem to think, it is completely different to the predictions we have to make now. Because each time a Pokemon comes out, you have to make two guesses: "Is it the same one?" and "What moveset does it have?". Getting the first prediction wrong (assuming it is the same one when it isn't, or vice-versa) can screw you. If you get the first prediction right, you can be still be screwed if you get the second one wrong and switch in the wrong counter. That's two blind guesses on the same turn. That's nothing like what we have now and you're not furthering your case by dismissing that fact.

Obi's got a point about damaging a Pokemon to identify it, but its not that simple. When I bring my Bronzong out against a CB Salamence using Dragon Claw, that Salamence is retreating straight away. If they bring Salamence out again, and I switch to Bronzong again... This time to find its a SpecsMence with Fire Blast, then I got screwed because I didn't have a chance to differentiate between the two. Even if Bronzong sets up Stealth Rock after the first time it comes in, no matter which of the two variations come in next, they're going to be down 25%. The only way this would work is if I set up SR before the first 'Mence comes in.

I know Stealth Rock is hardly a rare move anyway, but to easily identify duplicates it pretty much needs to be set up on the very first turn (or as close to it as possible). And if the opponent's lead is the same Pokemon they have doubles of, you're screwed either way.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Until he's revenge killed by ScarfGar and then you've got a whole team that's weak to Gengar...

wandering off but, CB Weavile 1HKOs chomp with Ice Shard everytime. So yeah, weavile would like to fight 6 garchomps . . . lol

edit: Ok, sorry for the crap post that's also wrong. I must be tired when my eyes tell me "Garchomp" when the screen clearly says "gengar." >.<

 

[Deco]

Removing Species Clause would be a good idea in my opinion - it makes more sense than letting Wobbuffet participate in standard play anyway. It wouldn't really kill the metagame imo, it would just make it more interesting actually; right now, if you see X, you know that if you kill it, you won't see another X from your opponent this battle. However, being surprised by seeing another X wouldn't be broken - it would just make things more fun imo.
Keep in mind that removing Species Clause doesn't mean everyone uses 6 Pokemon of the same species; it could also give people the opportunity to make a team with X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 and another X1. What's so bad about that? And even if people do use 6 times X1, it's their own choice. Get over it, exploit their weaknesses and battle like you always do.

However, I also agree with the people saying that it might be really gay to see 2 Pokemon of the same species and not be able to distinguish the two. Therefore, I think it might be a good idea to force different nicknames if you decide to use Pokemon X twice (or more) in the same team.

On a side note, I used a Mono Bronzong team in non-ladder matches with some success. Bronzong is especially good because you won't have 6x the same weakness; I gave 4 of mine Levitate and the other 2 Heatproof.

 

[pictish]

SubVersion: Not really childish so much as to the point. I'm not gonna put too much stock into the discussion of the mechanics of a rule that'd hypothetically possibly come with the exclusion of another rule or the corner cases therein which're all solved by reading except for the side cases of abusing characters that appear identical in certain fonts, by which point I'm past caring about the issue since that'd just require it's own enforcable rule. And really, side cases of this hypothetical clause of a (lack of a) rule just aren't very interested compared to any sort of discussion pertaining to the species clause.

As for the reason I'm dismissing the two blind guesses is because if there is a chance that it's too overwhelming there's lots of solutions there. Obi posted one, I've suggested another which yes has some far out there clause, but you'll notice Obi isn't even going so far as to give you a 100% counter to it - he's simply dismissing it on grounds of not being a concern worth bothering with at all. And in a sense, you are trading the identity of your pokemon (until they get hit) with the lesser type resistance mesh and, in the case of most pokemon, type coverage.

What I find most interesting is how much this ties together with the 'what is uber?' discussion, where discussions not a million miles from this one are going on about Garchomp/Salamence/Whatever.

Oh, and just a little bone to pick at the end here - please don't tell me if I'm "furthering my cause" or not, since I don't have a cause. My arguments have been primarily against species clause because that's the only way I will draw out the proper counter arguments. If I was to ask why Mewtwo was uber and argued for him being OU, I'd be shot down. If I tried to reintroduce item clause, we'd see people explaining how it cripples any attempt at stalling at all and general not valuable to the game. In this case, I was interested as to the undoubtly numerous and powerful points that hold up the species clause. What we've seen so far are people kneejerking with pet ideas for a broken team (everyone's being different for the most part, and interesting, and probably not that better than a current solidly built OU team but this is speculative on both sides) and then arguing over the nickname stuff which is really not valuable at all. What I've not seen are good arguments that just sit and support species clause - besides perhaps salamence and garchomp which really might just say something about mence and chomp. The 'What is uber?' discussion is very interesting indeed.

 

[Baldafor]

If more than one pokemon of the same species is allowed on a team, it requires a player to have more than one counter for said pokemon on their team. This makes teams able to counter much less in the metagame and overall makes everyone's teams less effective.

Also, there is nothing stopping someone from having the same nickname on 5 pokemon, all of different species, and having one with a very SLIGHTLY but different name on a 6th copy of one of them.

1010l101l1 and 10101101l1 for example look very similar, and if you have seen the same name on several pokemon of different species already, a typical player wouldn't write down the names of each separately. Since they are different pokemon, they don't violate the naming rules.

 

[pictish]

If more than one pokemon of the same species is allowed on a team, it requires a player to have more than one counter for said pokemon on their team. This makes teams able to counter much less in the metagame and overall makes everyone's teams less effective.

This is why mono teams run rampant in the metagame, because no one is capable of exploiting uniform weaknesses. Oh wait~

This also assumes that nothing threatens the pokemon team back in return.

Also, there is nothing stopping someone from having the same nickname on 5 pokemon, all of different species, and having one with a very SLIGHTLY but different name on a 6th copy of one of them.

1010l101l1 and 10101101l1 for example look very similar, and if you have seen the same name on several pokemon of different species already, a typical player wouldn't write down the names of each separately. Since they are different pokemon, they don't violate the naming rules.

Is unimportant and boring. Hell most of the people don't want to see forced nicking anyway.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Of course, if forced nicknaming is implemented - something I highly doubt and would not support, at least not on Wifi play - it could be part of that clause that the nicknames should be significantly different, such that they could easily be distinguished at a glance. Something as simple as Tyranitar1 and Tyranitar2 was one example given.

As one example, you could say that 1337-style substitution does not count as a significant enough difference, so BLISSEY and BL1SSEY would not be allowed.

Ambiguity like that brought about by the nickname clause can be solved by modifying the clause, so it's not worth it to bring it up.

I'd just like to reiterate though that I do not support the notion of a nickname clause replacing the species clause.

 

[SubVersion]

Oh, and just a little bone to pick at the end here - please don't tell me if I'm "furthering my cause" or not, since I don't have a cause.

Your cause is to discuss the merits of Species Clause in today's metagame. You're not helping discussion progress by first refusing to acknowledge that certain problems exist (oh but I have to predict anyway, its exactly the same!), and then by dismissing the fact that all "counters" brought up so far (hitting the Pokemon, Stealth Rock, forced nicknames) are shaky at best.

What I've not seen are good arguments that just sit and support species clause - besides perhaps salamence and garchomp which really might just say something about mence and chomp.

You're kidding, right? You don't think you've seen a single good argument against the removal of species clause? Try actually reading some posts, then.

The only reason people are bringing up 'Mence and Chomp so often is because they're two very common, very potent threats. The argument wouldn't change if every Salamence was replaced with Infernape, and every Garchomp replaced with Lucario.

 

[pictish]

You're kidding, right? You don't think you've seen a single good argument against the removal of species clause? Try actually reading some posts, then.

The only reason people are bringing up 'Mence and Chomp so often is because they're two very common, very potent threats. The argument wouldn't change if every Salamence was replaced with Infernape, and every Garchomp replaced with Lucario.

And we see no dominance of mono type teams because...?

 

[cim]

What if I had 3 Cresses, one to counter Gyarados and Salamence/Garchomp with Charge/Ice/Rest/Sleep Talk, one to take out Heracross and Infernape with Speed EVs, Psychic, Calm Mind, Rest, and Sleep Talk and one to wall Special threats like Azelf and Lucario? That'd be pretty bad. You know what else would be bad? 6 attempts at a BellyZard sweep, or 6 Gengars to keep everyone on their toes? Not to mention that you get 2 shots at breaking your Garchomp counter, or possibly Explode a Heatran since you can just use your other one to sweep. You starting to get it?

 

[pictish]

What if I had 3 Cresses, one to counter Gyarados and Salamence/Garchomp with Charge/Ice/Rest/Sleep Talk, one to take out Heracross and Infernape with Speed EVs, Psychic, Calm Mind, Rest, and Sleep Talk and one to wall Special threats like Azelf and Lucario? That'd be pretty bad. You know what else would be bad? 6 attempts at a BellyZard sweep, or 6 Gengars to keep everyone on their toes? Not to mention that you get 2 shots at breaking your Garchomp counter, or possibly Explode a Heatran since you can just use your other one to sweep. You starting to get it?

It seems the suggestion is absolutely everything breaks when you double up pokemon, but if there's this nigh infinite series of amazingly broken species clause breaking teams I'm wondering if they're either A) All so far beyond the current metagame to be immeasurable in strength and nobody would use anything but them, slowly pushing towards the perfect species clause-less team or B) People are over estimating what pokemon can do doubled or tripled up.

Sadly, at this point, my lack of thorough battling experience lets me down. I don't have a powerful 'gut' feeling nor really the ability to demonstrate one way or the other.

It seems the most focused argument for the species clause thus far has been 'Imagine fighting 2-6 X' - I'd like to know what the implication is behind that? That these pokemon are so powerful as to overcome their shared weaknesses? I can't really say if that's correct or not, but it certainly has my curiousity piqued.

 

[DemonOfWrath]

The implication behind 'Imagine fighting 2-6 X' is, that there are several pokemon where a mis-prediction (Tyranitar and Salamence for good examples) or sheer luck (Garchomp, I run a fully defensive Hippowdon with Ice Fang, and the subdance set still makes me scared because I could easily end up missing enough to let it get max attack) can cost you at least one team member.

With more than one, not only does the chance of mis-predicting (no, stealth rocks or weather will not be always up, there are teams that don't use them or there may not be an opportunity to lay the rocks/start the weather, and they can avoid being hit by switching out) increase hugely due to multiples with differing sets (you'd need to enforce different nicknames, and people will obviously try to figure out ways of getting around it) or even the possibility of multiple pokes (that's been covered earlier), or, it greatly increases the chance of them getting the lucky miss or crit they need to wreck your team.

 

[SubVersion]

And we see no dominance of mono type teams because...?

What? That's not relevant to what you quoted. All I'm saying is that the general argument of "Fighting X amount of Salamences would be broken!" wouldn't be any different if instead of Salamence, people were saying "Lucario". I was just discounting the notion you seemed to have that people constantly bringing them up speaks more for their own brokenness rather than the brokenness of having multiples, which isn't true.

 

[Neus]

The implication behind 'Imagine fighting 2-6 X' is, that there are several pokemon where a mis-prediction (Tyranitar and Salamence for good examples) or sheer luck (Garchomp, I run a fully defensive Hippowdon with Ice Fang, and the subdance set still makes me scared because I could easily end up missing enough to let it get max attack) can cost you at least one team member.

This would be my worry. Even if it's one Tyranitar/Hippowdown and 5 Garchomps, SubDance Chomp in Sandstorm has to work 'eventually', unless you're very unlucky.

I'm not sure if this would be very common or used at all, but the thought of it after seeing what one miss on just one SubDance Garchomp can do is unnerving.

 

[pictish]

What? That's not relevant to what you quoted. All I'm saying is that the general argument of "Fighting X amount of Salamences would be broken!" wouldn't be any different if instead of Salamence, people were saying "Lucario". I was just discounting the notion you seemed to have that people constantly bringing them up speaks more for their own brokenness rather than the brokenness of having multiples, which isn't true.

I'm saying monotype teams aren't anywhere near the dominant metagame tactic and for an extremely good reason along the lines of having an extremely limited type resistance mesh is very very poor. This has a lot of relevance to using a whole load of pokemon.

Also, no one's really saying it's any pokemon, most people are saying how scary Garchomp is, because of sand veil. Or Salamence because specsmence is gonna rip their not-blissey apart if they guess wrong. This is very distinct from something like 6 bronzong using trick room mentioned earlier.

 

[DemonOfWrath]

Well unless you wanna do 'multiple Garchomp/Salamence clause' it's still a valid point, as without species clause teams of those could potentially run rampant and be imbalanced.

 

[Mr.E]

Using the same pokémon multiple times on the same team is pretty much the antithesis of a varied metagame, I couldn't give a damn what it does for competitive balance. The All-Mewtwo team is purely amusement in the fact that Mewtwo is such a strong and ridiculously versatile pokémon, it doesn't mean I want to see five Garchomps or multiple Blissey on every damn team before I even hit the "guessing game" issue.

Garchomp isn't broken on its own, only with its Sand Veil under lol permanent Sand Stream. This is in part because weather pokémon traits being permanent are completely retarded and in part because Sand Veil is semi-broken (there's a reason Evasion is usually banned), but since we can't simply remove Garchomp's trait from it...

If you really want to counter an all-Garchomp team (5 Garchomp, 1 T-Tar), use Abomasnows. This is a stupid idea because 2-3 Abomasnows won't beat a god damn thing else and thus really kinda proves the point that the former team is a bit broken, but it's not technically unbeatable!