BH Balanced Hackmons Suspects and Bans Thread

While I still think a Species Clause suspect remains consistent with certain members' proclivity to impulsiveness, I'm appreciative that potentially permanent meta changes aren't allowed to be determined through biased and underhanded means. Amateur opinions should never serve as a substitution for proper regulation.

Since I already stated my opinions on this matter, I'll keep my statements brief: Monospecies doesn't have any definitive counters, but neither does Imposter. Monospecies isn't a threat to the game's balance, it's just a threat to certain playstyles. If Imposter is the ultimate Anti-Offense, Monospecies is the ultimate Anti-Defense. Monospecies, just like Imposter, is simply another viable tool available for players to use. Unfortunately, since certain people, perhaps to their own dismay--propagate this format as being a "bulky pivot" meta, anything that threatens their dreadful narrative instantly sends them into a frenzy, wherein they trip over themselves as they dash to the "polls" and forums to riot until the perceived "problem" is removed.

Many people genuinely think that Monospecies is a problem, and for those that do, I respect their opinions--however, if we drop the pretenses for a just a moment, some of you simply want Monospecies banned because you're tired of me getting reqs. These people are easily identified by their shaky arguments and trademark impulsiveness. "We want a species clause... I don't think we really need to suspect this." really? Try again.
 
Since I already stated my opinions on this matter, I'll keep my statements brief: Monospecies doesn't have any definitive counters, but neither does Imposter. Monospecies isn't a threat to the game's balance, it's just a threat to certain playstyles. If Imposter is the ultimate Anti-Offense, Monospecies is the ultimate Anti-Defense.

Monospecies, just like Imposter, is simply another viable tool available for players to use.
Species spam and imposter have no relation to each other.

You counter imposter with the move sets of your own mons. You always know what imposter is, and so, it's basically pretty much the easiest pokemon to counter in the entire game by far. You have a near unlimited amount of resources of abilities, moves, and mons, so countering your own pokemon is pretty trivial and even natural in teambuilding.

Countering imposter is easier than countering..basically anything. You always have an information advantage.

What exactly is the relation between multiple Rayquazas and Mewtwos and Imposter anyway?

Anyway I'd already figure that species clause should just be an inherent part of any metagame really. The lack of species clause always felt weird to me when every other metagame that assumes fairness (and even ubers) uses it.
Unfortunately, since certain people, perhaps to their own dismay--propagate this format as being a "bulky pivot" meta,
I imagine the format is naturally bulkier than most becaue of the max EVs, really.

I cut out the egomaniacal parts that had nothing to do with Pokemon.
 
While I still think a Species Clause suspect remains consistent with certain members' proclivity to impulsiveness, I'm appreciative that potentially permanent meta changes aren't allowed to be determined through biased and underhanded means. Amateur opinions should never serve as a substitution for proper regulation.

Since I already stated my opinions on this matter, I'll keep my statements brief: Monospecies doesn't have any definitive counters, but neither does Imposter. Monospecies isn't a threat to the game's balance, it's just a threat to certain playstyles. If Imposter is the ultimate Anti-Offense, Monospecies is the ultimate Anti-Defense. Monospecies, just like Imposter, is simply another viable tool available for players to use. Unfortunately, since certain people, perhaps to their own dismay--propagate this format as being a "bulky pivot" meta, anything that threatens their dreadful narrative instantly sends them into a frenzy, wherein they trip over themselves as they dash to the "polls" and forums to riot until the perceived "problem" is removed.

Many people genuinely think that Monospecies is a problem, and for those that do, I respect their opinions--however, if we drop the pretenses for a just a moment, some of you simply want Monospecies banned because you're tired of me getting reqs. These people are easily identified by their shaky arguments and trademark impulsiveness. "We want a species clause... I don't think we really need to suspect this." really? Try again.
are you really doing this?

you didn't even make a post that was helpful to the meta. the post was basically "yeah you guys are all dumb i'm am smart guys" instead of telling us WHY species clause wasn't needed. you think we want species clause because we don't want you to get reqs? no, we want species clause because it's uncompetitive and allows low level players to beat high level players effortlessly. want proof? go see big man on campus, that's a really good example. hell i made a team of 5 hoopa-u and a celesteela for a meme and beat a couple of good team comps.

imposter is a healthy centralization of the meta. imposter forces you to make a good team. species spam on the other hand will encourage you to make a team where it's just 5 of the same mon + ttar, and you can win a lot of games easily with both. so i guess you can compare the two in that vein.

in the future refrain from making these kinds of posts because they don't really add anything to the discussion
 
I wanna..go back a little bit on what I said and clarify more.

Did some digging, this even the first time species clause has been brought up. Back when Groudon ruled the meta I think..

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/balanced-hackmons.3489849/post-6213422
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/balanced-hackmons.3489849/page-117#post-6272832
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/balanced-hackmons.3489849/post-6215297

..Also

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/balanced-hackmons-suspects-and-bans-thread.3588586/post-7206136


You imply that the discussion of species clause is a "knee-jerk" response. As Rumors says, It's the discussion that's been had before (this metagame is like 8 years old at this point, you do also imply that metagame that's had no species clause for 8 years now, and is already at the very tail end of a 4th(?) generation, is eliciting "kneejerk" responses?). The discussion of species clause is old, even generations old (and everything else that's not AG based uses it, no to say that's an inherent reason for BH to use it, but to just to note that the idea is obviously not a novel concept for competitive pokemon purposes). And even if it's somehow a targeted response at..I guess your success. Look, maybe you were the primary reason it's being suspected, but it's beside the point. Not the first or last time some specific success of a specific team by one person brought attention to a suspect test. It doesn't really change anything.


Since your right, you did already state your opinions on the matter. Your previous post:
With Species Clause in place, all offensive threats would become "Poke-Coded", i.e., You see a Mega Mewtwo X? Switch into Tina. "Oh, Tina got switched in?", Send out Dianice. Diancie's here? Registeel. Regi's on the field? XTwo, ad infinitum (with maybe an occasionally U-Turn thrown in). When only a single one of each 'Mon is allowed to be played, it forces that mon to run its "optimal" set, since it can't afford to run "omnicoverage" sets with the confidence of having a more consistent "twin" in the back. This means that it'll likely be possible to predict an opponent's exact set just by looking at their mon on the team preview, and checks that were once a competitive "conversation" will gain absolute supremacy over the Mon they're designed to oppose. Some users spoke of their concerns regarding the meta potentially losing its diversity due to MRay, however, with Species Clause implemented, the meta would definitely lose its diversity, and the format would inevitably go from being "Balanced Hackmons" to "Ubers, with a few new toys".
...This is how at least every official metagame works. Hasn't failed. I disagree that species clause keeps Balanced Hackmons more.."unique" and that it ties into it's "identity".
This immediately tells me that this problem is purely relative, and superficial in nature. It's not about balance, it's about optics. Having two Hoopa-Us on a team is "threat-stacking", "spam" and outrageous, yet replacing that second Hoopa for a Pokemon that's better than it in nearly every way, is completely fine since now it's no longer "spamming". Being forced to utilize a wider variety of Pokemon doesn't automatically make things "balanced", nor does it raise any sort of "bar" for the format. It simply restricts team building options with no benefits to show for it. If somebody really wants to spam Pixi-sets or brute-force walls as such, they're going to do it regardless of who's face is leading the charge. Species Clause isn't going to magnify the meta or its Pokemon, rather, it'll do the exact opposite and turn everyone into functions. Now, rather than having Pixilate XTwo and SashSmash XTwo, you'll just have [pixilate mon], and [sashsmash mon], and many of these teams will likely achieve effects similar to the ones you were trying to prevent... Pro-banners will still be annoyed per tradition and pursue the next suspect, whilst killing part of what makes BH into the wonderful, surreal experience that it is.
"whilst killing part of what makes BH into the wonderful, surreal experience that it is".


I do question the belief that you can literally swap a Pixilate Mewtwo with a Diancie and achieve the same results. You use Mewtwo-X over say Diancie, because you can run stuff like CC and you have the advantage of bluffing another set. They are two completely different pokemon. Different typing, different stats, that matters. But..it's not really the point here.

Since we're going back to "uniqueness", there are plenty of successful teams that don't even use the species clause at all. Like some of the samples...

"https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/bh-waves-on-waves-on-waves-penguin.3650082/"
https://pokepast.es/2d001c26b0992643
https://pokepast.es/e9654b050bcbcc15

One of these teams has multiple megas, prankster Giratina, regenerator Aegislashes and (even though I imagine it's going to get the long-overdue axe eventually) even sturdy shedinjas.

A very unique case..but one of them has an Empoleon. Many teams run banded Beedril-Mega with damage modifier abilities. "Banded Beedril-Mega" is an outright oxymoron in almost every tier.

They play nothing like "ubers, with a few new toys". They play nothing like any tier. They're unique and distinct without species clause. Like..even just one Mewtwo-Mega-X with Poison Heal...or Photon Geyser, or Trick Band, or Pixilate. Where are you finding that anywhere else?

I'm not..really sure this is based on "balance/competitive" terms anyway..but I disagree it'd lose its identity and diversity. As long as you can run almost any ability, almost any mon, and almost any moves, it's always going to be very, very unique and distinct from every other meta.

Your angle seems to be "species clause is an inherent part of Balanced Hackmons that makes it what it is"(edit: the lack of species clause. sorry bad phrasing.)...and I don't think so. There are still some restrictions to make the metagame more competitive like ability clause, but, first and foremost, beyond the actual uncompetitiveness that species clause might lend itself to, beyond the fact that it may turn the match into guessing games to an extent that goes beyond BH's balancing philosophy as Rumours points out...

I do not think that species clause has to be an inherent part of balanced hackmons identity as you imply to be. It's still going to be immensely unique and different.
 
Last edited:
Is there a way to force different nicknames on the same mons? Because I think with that change the entire uncompetitive argument vanishes.
I don't think that would be a solution. In a MMX spam team if MMX#3 and MMX#4 can OHKO my Zygod I still don't know it until either it kills it on their first turn out or I switch out to something else, in which case I'm taking an enormous risk if the switch in isn't something that walls it. Something like MMX#Pixiliate gives better results but that doesn't still help if it carries bolt strike for soundproof megabro, or is sash smash, or whatever, and you still may have to deal with MMX#Pixiliate#1 and MMX#Pixiliate#2. Not to mention the possibility of MMX#Tough_Claws who is really carrying Dazzling. You still wouldn't have enough info. Also I think the sole premise of needing special rules to make species spam competitive only adds to the ban argument.
 
I am maybe for a species clause, but not for a name clause.
I don't care if is MMX#3 or MMX#4 who kill my pokemon because i didn't know is set when it come in the battle.
The name clause change nothing for a spam HO...
 
I don't think that would be a solution. In a MMX spam team if MMX#3 and MMX#4 can OHKO my Zygod I still don't know it until either it kills it on their first turn out or I switch out to something else, in which case I'm taking an enormous risk if the switch in isn't something that walls it. Something like MMX#Pixiliate gives better results but that doesn't still help if it carries bolt strike for soundproof megabro, or is sash smash, or whatever, and you still may have to deal with MMX#Pixiliate#1 and MMX#Pixiliate#2. Not to mention the possibility of MMX#Tough_Claws who is really carrying Dazzling. You still wouldn't have enough info. Also I think the sole premise of needing special rules to make species spam competitive only adds to the ban argument.
At this point they're just lure sets tho. I don't think lures are uncompetitive.

Maybe if you want want to risk zygarde, go to another midground.
 
A "Name Clause" wouldn't solve everything. I could have several of a mon and name them "l", "I", "I ", "l ", "|", "!" for example. They'd all have "different names", but they look incredibly similar, identical infact in some cases. Or heck, could just do like "j", "j ", "j ", "j ", "j ", and "j ". Edit: The forums are truncating the extra spaces it seems, but I don't think the sim will.
 
A "Name Clause" wouldn't solve everything. I could have several of a mon and name them "l", "I", "I ", "l ", "|", "!" for example. They'd all have "different names", but they look incredibly similar, identical infact in some cases. Or heck, could just do like "j", "j ", "j ", "j ", "j ", and "j ". Edit: The forums are truncating the extra spaces it seems, but I don't think the sim will.
I don't think said technicalities should be the core of the argument.
The first case is solvable by the player by pasting it elsewhere. The second case is solvable by just removing leading/trailing blanks on a name.
 
Another case is that offensive spam teams are often 'I send a mon and it dies in battle, a switch is just a broken sash wasted'. In this situation having several copies of the team with the nicknames messed up. The foe wont know which one of the mons he is playing after all. This method can be also mixed with Rumors method. This ways almost break the nicknames clause after all.

191003

191005


191006

Please dont delete my meme this time.
SAY NO TO MEME SILENCING
 
At this point they're just lure sets tho. I don't think lures are uncompetitive.

Maybe if you want want to risk zygarde, go to another midground.
It wouldn't be a lure, it would be an abuse of the hypothetical naming clause equipped with ability in the name.

Only names wouldn't be enough, nobody can reasonably predict every time which MMX set just entered the field for the first time in a species spam match.
 
I don't think said technicalities should be the core of the argument.
The first case is solvable by the player by pasting it elsewhere. The second case is solvable by just removing leading/trailing blanks on a name.
I don't think it's a technicality. The whole point of a name clause is to let people use species spam without masking their different sets. There are ways around this that require non-trivial amount of coding to fix. I mean, here's another example.

Team A

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (Kyogre-Primal) @ Toxic Orb
Ability: Poison Heal
EVs: 252 HP / 252 Def / 252 SpA / 252 SpD / 252 Spe
Bold Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Scald
- Quiver Dance
- Ice Beam
- Leech Seed

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUnique Name (Kyogre-Primal) @ Toxic Orb
Ability: Poison Heal
EVs: 252 HP / 252 Atk / 252 Def / 252 SpD / 252 Spe
Adamant Nature
IVs: 0 SpA
- Coil
- Crabhammer
- Entrainment
- Leech Seed

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINotthesamename (Kyogre-Primal) @ Choice Scarf
Ability: Primordial Sea
EVs: 252 HP / 252 Def / 252 SpA / 252 SpD / 252 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Water Spout
- Ice Beam
- Trick
- Volt Switch


Team B

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (Mewtwo-Mega-X) @ Mewtwonite X
Ability: Steadfast
- Avalanche

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((() (Mewtwo-Mega-X) @ Mewtwonite X
Ability: Steadfast
- Avalanche

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (Mewtwo-Mega-X) @ Mewtwonite X
Ability: Pressure
- Aqua Tail

And here's how it shows in actual battle. (Ignore the identifying items/abilities, they're not the point at all.) These are all "unique names" but they'll all display identically in battle due to the way they're truncated. That requires more coding work to fix.


Besides, even then should blank spaces and going over the display length are fixed, should players be expected to copy and paste names into other sources to clearly identify characters? Do you really want to have to count the number of characters to tell the difference between a Diancie named MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM and a Diancie named MMMMMMMMMMMMMM and a Diancie named MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM and a Diance named MMMMMMMMMMMMM? Every time they switch? Trust me, the only reason people don't do junk like this is because they don't have to since not using nicknames at all gets a stronger effect with zero effort. But anyone who wants to win at all costs and is using a name-claused species spam team will do this. Trust me.

Name clause sounds good on paper, but there's a lot of holes in it that could be exploited to render it (almost) moot and I'm sure there's some I'm not even considering.
 
I'm not a BH player and sorry for the short post, but I believe its an important detail to clarify.
Nicknames being undistinguishable to human eye is absolutely irrelevant here. The whole point of suggested clause is so that the sim will distinguish them properly, and correctly show their known moves/abilities/items.
But it doesn't. Below screenshot using the Kyogres above. Switched around, used a few moves, clicked Extreme Speed on the Dazzling Ogre, and here's what it spat out. I copied and pasted the hover-over for the Kyogre user's Kyogre from the switch menu so it was visible here for comparison.

 

GL Volkner

you play stupid games you win stupid prizes
is a Tiering Contributor
But it doesn't. Below screenshot using the Kyogres above. Switched around, used a few moves, clicked Extreme Speed on the Dazzling Ogre, and here's what it spat out. I copied and pasted the hover-over for the Kyogre user's Kyogre from the switch menu so it was visible here for comparison.

The only reason this works in BH is because BH doesn't have a nickname clause. In a metagame such as Almost Any Ability with a nickname clause, the strategy won't even validate because the nickname shows up as the same despite being different.

For example, try validating this team in AAA.
Code:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (Alakazam-Mega) @ Alakazite
Ability: Chlorophyll
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpA / 252 Spe
Lonely Nature
- Double-Edge
- Focus Blast
- Fire Punch
- Encore

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDIFFERENT NAME (Banette) @ Toxic Orb
Ability: Beast Boost
EVs: 252 HP / 252 Def / 4 SpA
Bold Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Disable
- Dark Pulse
- Destiny Bond
- Foul Play
It should give you this error, despite the nicknames being different.
 
I think we are straying from the point here. As far as I can tell this discussion originated out of the argument that if one could tell the difference between mons on a species spam team, it would be easier to deal with and thus not bannable.
In my humble opinion, that’s a pretty poor argument. Teams with 6 mewtwos are bannable not because you can’t tell the difference between the mons, but rather because it takes no skill to make a team of 6 mewtwos, no skill to use it, and yet somehow this complete lack of skill or understanding of the game leads to winning against actual good players.

In my mind we should seek to make the meta game as skill based as possible. If there is a cancerous strat letting people with no BH experience win consistently (like say CFZ spam, assist don, sleep spam, contrary spam, setup spam, or running say 6 mewtwos) my opinion is ban that thing. I think this solidly falls into that category so I’m not sure why we are talking about nicknames.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so I think I have a mild idea. It’s mild, not wild - so bear with me.

Why not just make a Species Clause like the Ability Clause - 2 per team.

This is important because when people think of Species Clause, they think of 1 per team.

To avoid this whole 8 moves issue, make it automatically turn 1 Pokémon Shiny. This will create a different image and allow you to tell them apart. For example, Shiny Mew is Blue, and regular Mew is Pink.

The simulator can tell them apart as well. Since the images are different (like Busted Mimikyu and Disguise Mimikyu (before the ability is broken).

Let’s just have it automatically check if a second Pokémon of the same species provides a Shiny Check.

This is also useful because Shedinja’s HP is either 100% or 0%, so you cannot just memorize the HP % associated with each variant. But if 1 is shiny and another is not then you can still tell them apart, and most importantly, so can the simulator.

Further, the 2 per team is a middle ground between people saying “1 is too limiting” and others saying “we shouldn’t ban species spam at all”.

Since we cannot have more than 2 variants -
1) Shiny
2) Non-Shiny

Then 2 as a max makes the most sense.

If there are Pokémon that have less distinguishable Shinies - where the color difference, much like this post, is mild and not wild - then that might be a concern, but as far as I can tell, Shinies can solve this problem head on.
 
I think we are straying from the point here. As far as I can tell this discussion originated out of the argument that if one could tell the difference between mons on a species spam team, it would be easier to deal with and thus not bannable.
In my humble opinion, that’s a pretty poor argument. Teams with 6 mewtwos are bannable not because you can’t tell the difference between the mons, but rather because it takes no skill to make a team of 6 mewtwos, no skill to use it, and yet somehow this complete lack of skill or understanding of the game leads to winning against actual good players.

In my mind we should seek to make the meta game as skill based as possible. If there is a cancerous strat letting people with no BH experience win consistently (like say CFZ spam, assist don, sleep spam, contrary spam, setup spam, or running say 6 mewtwos) my opinion is ban that thing. I think this solidly falls into that category so I’m not sure why we are talking about nicknames.
Who are these elusive "bad players" I keep reading so much about? Name one verifiably-bad player who successfully "punches up" on the ladder to places they don't belong with Mewtwo spam. Some people may quickly jump to me as an example, but remember that before I started "exploiting" Mewtwo-spam, I was beating many of you--and even getting reqs with Meloettas, scarfed Zygardes and level 1 Bellsprouts.

When I first considered running Monospecies, quite a few users actually told me it was a bad idea. That it could never work, but I wanted the challenge, so I took the risk. MewtwoMenagerie, an alt that I initially created as an experiment, ultimately went on to reach into the 1760 range on ladder (with 1715 being the highest recorded score) before I decided to let it decay. This isn't a matter of "species spam" being overpowered, this is simply the realization that the investments of both myself, and the monospecies players before me are finally beginning to pay off.

Once you remove me from the equation, your argument gets even weaker, as most--if not all of the other monospecies players that are consistently performing well on ladder were going to do so anyway (as proven by the occasional low-ladder Regi/TTar spammers that never make a dent). Maybe it's time to consider that people using different strategies than what you're used to doesn't make them bad players, and perhaps it might be possible that different players have different preferences than you?

Many players seem to be so consumed by their conceptions of how the BH meta ought to be, that they forget they're still playing Pokemon. Unless you ban nearly every move and force people to run set mons, abilities, etc., you're always going to encounter something that you don't understand, and may not be equipped to handle. Every strategy still has a counter, however, and monospecies is no exception to this. Sure, Mewtwo number 4 with Refrige/BDrum/Espeed will one shot your Prank Tina switch-in, but who's forcing you to run that set? If you're having a problem with your usual wall, add a new wall or substitute your old one to cover your weaknesses. This form of perpetual adaptation is the foundation of any serious competition, and without it, stagnation, decay, and eventually, demise, are inevitable. If anything, the fact that the same handful of Tina/wall sets have gone this long without any meta-altering offensive threats to dethrone them (Not even Diancie and Kyurem are enough to curb the overabundance of these mons) is more uncompetitive than anything. As it currently stands, Monospecies is simply shifting the meta into a newer, healthier direction, wherein defensive players are forced to actually innovate new strategies, rather than recycling the same years-old sets that require little more than a few clicks to splash onto their teams.

The reality of the situation, however, is that these problem users don't genuinely think that Monospecies is overpowered, rather, they just want to see it gone because they don't like it, and have retroactively attempted to "prettify" their pettiness with laughably pathetic "arguments" that are about as opaque as glass. Unfortunately, since this is such a grassroots/narrative-driven meta, the salty, incoherent ranting that wouldn't fly in any other community backs the moderators into a corner wherein they either cave to these problem users' demands, or face extreme levels of backlash and bitterness that would make the community practically uninhabitable for them.

For that reason alone, I could see the merits of a suspect. As it currently stands, I'm fond of the current staff, and it would be easier for me to find a new strategy or even phantom-out of the meta itself than it would be for them to lose their connection with a community that they cared enough about to moderate. For as adamant as I can be, I know how to put things into perspective, and I believe that in a worst-case scenario, certain actions may have to be taken, even if they aren't in my best interests.

Until that day comes, however, I'll continue to play this format for the same reasons that I began to initially: The beautifully boundless possibilities and potential for expressiveness, for I truly believe that even now, this is the greatest format of them all.
 
I tried my best not to sound stupid.

Without name clause: When facing a species spam team without name clause, one has to continuously predict which set they're facing, this renders any prior information gathered useless as it is essentially reset everytime the mon switches out. This also makes it really hard (sometimes impossible) to figure out which moves used belong to what set or are on the same moveset. In that aspect, the species spam player has a significant advantage when it comes to how much information they can gather about each other's team.
With no way for the non-species spam player of knowing which pokemon is in front of them and with the species spam player potentially bringing any pokemon in front of anything to deliberately confuse his opponent, the game does turn more into guesswork than anything else.
As an example, if I have a tough claws sunsteel mmx, a fridge specs mmx and a scrappy mmx. And my opponent has a fur coat giratina, an Aegislash and a PH xerneas. He technically has a potential switchin to every mon I have. But even if my opponent already scouted and knows what sets I run, he has to guess which one is in at any given point, a wrong guess resulting in a dead pokemon. The species spam player can continuously force those guesses until they go his way.
This kind of building can be done with 6 of the same mon. It can also be done with 2 or 3 of the same mon. The same guesswork remains.
In that case species spam is uncompetitive as it limits the impact skill has on the game.

With a name clause: Many pokemon of the same species are essentially lures. Lures that the opponent can scout for with imposter or midgrounds or based on the opponent's plays. In that case you can have a team based on overloading, but you actually have to overload or successfully lure the mons you want down as opposed to just play brainless until your opponent guesses wrong. This is a competitive scenario.

About the 2 species clause: As I said, I think without name clause, the uncompetitive aspect remains with 2 of the same mon on one team (say pixilate shed and sturdyshed for example, take a guess who's on). But given this clause also has the shiny difference (in effect, a nickname clause) it seems like a weird middle ground.
For me, the only way this would make sense is if we deem species spam to be a broken strategy. In particular, that counterplay to 5 mmx would be unreasonable. If we say that then I think midgrounds such as 3 mon or 2 mon species clause would make sense. But I don't personally believe that species spam is overpowered. In fact moderate species spam has usually proven more common and more effective in tournament settings.

I believe a name clause is the easiest and shortest route to solving the uncompetitive aspect without imposing unnecessary restrictions on teambuilding and limiting player's options to be creative.

TLDR:
Name clause: best solution
Species clause: solves the problem but too heavy handed
2, 3, 4 or 5 mon species clause: Doesn't make sense unless we deem it op
2 species shiny clause: Basically a subpar name clause

As a personal note, species clause would make me very sad :(
 
i gotchu

i am an entitled and self absorbed brat who believes that a metagame with a reasonably sized playerbase like balanced hackmons exists solely to serve me and my personal desires. i been playing this game since 2016 when the meta was CFZs and water bubble. i haven't took a day off since then and have been through gengarite, magpull, illusion, pdon, and sleep. but this recent suspect, mray, will be the final straw and reason i will be leaving this skilless, stale, hax or use shed to win metagame. pay no attention to the six “i’m quitting” threats i have posted before: this time it is for real. despite there being no major tours after ompl, i know that the inclusion of diverse flyings in tandem with the new ban, the meta has completely been solved within this time and i have concluded with my analytical mind there is zero room for innovation and creativity. penguin (with mega mence over mega ray) is STILL the best team and i am through with your company after this team's domination for two months. please consider my fragile and overzealous feelings when suspecting and maybe i’ll grace the ladder with my toxic presence despite doing nothing other than spamming goddish
 
Side notes.
Species stacking in this year's OMPL (including 2 mon of the same species):
Species spam player won:
- sugarhigh vs jeran
- SL42 vs Chessking
- SL42 vs Tony
Species spam player lost:
- Tzop vs Mamp
- sugarhigh vs GL Volkner
- sugarhigh vs GL Volkner

BHLT
Species spam won:
Matiss98 vs AndyBody
stresh vs HungryRex
abriel gabram vs damflame
Species spam lost:
a loser vs betathunder
Sificon vs Chessking
power vs anaconja

One thing that may also be worth keeping in mind in this debacle is shell smash. Shell Smash appears often in successful species spam teams[1][2] and I think is part of the issue. Species spam causes quite a few switches for scouting purposes and Shell Smash on the switch reveals basically nothing about your set. Given that setup as a whole has been brought up numerous times I though I might as well bring that up now.
 
Last edited:
The reality of the situation, however, is that these problem users don't genuinely think that Monospecies is overpowered, rather, they just want to see it gone because they don't like it, and have retroactively attempted to "prettify" their pettiness with laughably pathetic "arguments" that are about as opaque as glass.
Has anyone actually made the argument that species spam is overpowered? I don't think anyone thinks the strategy is too dominant. The issue has always been that preparing for species spam renders your team extremely susceptible to every other common strategy in the metagame. Of course you can adapt for species spam but by doing so you're devolving the game into a glorified RPS match where it's no longer the better player consistently winning outside of the worst amount of unfavorable luck happening, but by heavily skewed favorable team matchups. Now sure the concept of matchups always exists but there's a severe difference between having one Mewtwo with a lure set designed to beat it's typical counter which has an opportunity cost of having to give up other moves, and running five or six of them which can lure every usual switch-in and the person on the receiving end is forced to play a guessing game as to whether or not they'll lose their counter every time they switch in to scout if they aren't bringing it off of a slow pivot already.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top