Balanced Hackmons Proposed Ability Clause

[verbatim]

This is in response to the conversation sparked by KeepItPlayful's post here. For those of you that didn't click, he presses the argument that certain abilities can, when used repeatedly on a team, create unhealthy conditions for a balanced metagame by encouraging cookie cutter sets instead of a variety of pokemon. To that end, as documented here, this poll will have 4 distinct options. Do note that while the outcome of this poll will play a heavy part in influencing my decision, that what happens here is not set in stone, and may be ignored or thought less of in the event of low turnout/lack of a clear winner.

Below are the 4 options, if you believe that the lack of limits on abilities is making the metagame unhealthy, pick one of options 1-3, if you believe that the lack of limits on abilities is not significant enough to warrant action or irrelevant altogether, pick option 4.

1. 1 Ability Clause: Each team must have 6 unique abilities. The most extreme of the options, this will have the biggest impact on the current metagame.
2. 2 Ability Clause: Each team may not have more than 2 of any ability. The middle of the road option, this will have an impact on the current metagame.
3. 3 Ability Clause: Each team may not have more than 3 of any ability. The milder option, this will have a slight impact on the current metagame.
4. No Change: Do not implement Ability Clause, allow people to use any combination of six or less abilities. The least extreme option, this will not change the metagame in any way shape or form.

 

[Pikachuun]

2 Ability Clause
This prevents abuse of stuff like Contrary, Poison Heal, and Refridge, while allowing cores (both offensive and defensive) using these to function. 1 Ability clause is too extreme, while 3 ability clause is too mild, imo.

EDIT: And ofc I just noticed the poll, but at least I gave a reason ~_~

 

[Lcass4919]

imo, one ability clause seems to be the better option...i mean...why bother with the ban if the main problem is 2 phers, 2 contraries, and dual imposters... i mean, sure i understand that it will limit creativity, but come on, lets face the facts, who ACTUALLY uses 3 phers? not many people. the PROBLEM with this ability spam, IS the very cores were trying to keep. i cannot tell you guys how many times ive lost because someone used 2 contraries, and blasted through my team because my one counter couldn't handle them, then lost the speed tie with my imposter. and i'm no slouch either (currently on top 10 of the bh ladder, would be higher if flint didnt infest top 5 >.>) its just, 2 of a similar ability is no easier to handle then 3, or 4, or 30, mainly because some people can only have ONE counter, and when your team is forced to run another, sheer power of contrary combined with the sheer versatility of ph its kinda a problem. to me mindlessly spamming ph and chansey in an endless circle is not skill or matchup so id rather the one ability clause.

 

[Rumors]

Since I can only vote once, I picked dual ability clause since I'm leaning more towards that since, in all other metas, cores revolving around a certain ability are both possible and viable. However, single ability clause is my close second pick for reasons Lcass outlined above, so you could probably add +1 to whatever number is there because, if we could vote twice, I would have voted for it too.

At the moment though, dual ability clause has a significant lead. If it doesn't have the desired impact, we can always switch to single or restrict certain abilities to single at the risk of potentially annoying Verbatim.

 

[verbatim]

Posting to say that this is not dead. I'm going to look at implementation when I get the chance (read, Friday night) but it could take a bit longer depending on ease of implementation.

 

[TalkTakesTime]

Posting to say that this is not dead. I'm going to look at implementation when I get the chance (read, Friday night) but it could take a bit longer depending on ease of implementation.

This is very easy to implement using validateTeam (the same way the Item and Species Clauses are implemented), so don't worry about that. Just let me know when you want it added and I'll chuck it on.