Other Item Clause

[SinfulPanda69]

Item Clause is stifling variation by not allowing you to use two pokemon who use the same item on the same team.

So I repeat, how are you planning to create more variation by stifling variation?

Make 3 of the same item clause?

 

[I2edShift]

I think limiting teams to one Choice Band and one Choice Scarf is probably a good idea. Outside of that I don't that we need to limit every item though.

 

[Zarkus]

Why? We talk about how diversity/variation is good, but what exactly makes them a true showing of competitiveness. In Yu-Gi-Oh!, the one-deck formats have proven time and time again to normally be the most skillful formats. So why in Pokemon do we believe having more options available to the player makes the game more competitive? This is a question that needs to actually have an answer, because otherwise the suggestion is limiting item use for no reason whatsoever.

This is a really good comparison- the same people who encourage "diversity" in Yu-Gi-Oh are generally the worst players. The moment you seriously blame something other than yourself for losing is the moment you become a scrub, no matter how "good" you are or other people see you.

Let creativity come from trying to fight the norm, not trying to do away with it. The standard isn't the problem, -you- are.

I dislike it when people cry "diversity!" as a justification for this sort of thing in any game, when it isn't inherently good, and rarely actually is.

 

[666lumberjack]

I think limiting teams to one Choice Band and one Choice Scarf is probably a good idea. Outside of that I don't that we need to limit every item though.

Why? Is using two Choice Banders overpowered? (hint: nope!) Facing two scarfers is annoying but it's certainly not a broken combination - Choice items have downsides and if the opponent is using a lot of them that gives you the chance to capitalise on that.

 

[nikovan]

This thread needs to die already, sheesh.

How can people believe that a restrictive clause will bring good to the metagame? As I said before NO ONE is forcing anyone to run repeated items. If you really think having different items will bring more diversity then, by all means, use different items.

Just don't try to force the rest of us to play how you want to play. Many people play in Smogon to play in the least-restrictive-in-order-to-achieve-balance meta. If it isn't broken, you don't need to fix it.

 

[amplafied]

I'll reply in bold, okay?

i'll have the time this weekend to finally begin reading through threads but i wanted to just pose questions to the OP, sorry in advance if this discussion took a turn already toward these questions (i see people complaining about a smogon/gamefreak debate though, which i'll clean up when i get home tonight)



Why? What is inherently more skillful about knowing you don't have to worry about one more threat after it's been revealed than having to judge the likelihood a threat is carrying a specific item, regardless of what you've seen so far. I could easily argue there is just as much skill in making educated guesses of the opponent's team based off of information you already know ahead of time or thinking about what they could potentially have and how to play around it (I've seen two scarfers already, so I can try to predict this mon isn't scarfed; I've seen Choice Band on a mon I didn't expect already, how can I play around multiple Choice Band Pokemon; etc) instead of having that information just handed out to me once I see a Pokemon. If the argument is "maximizing the potential of your items", why doesn't this apply currently to Pokemon? We still have to decide between which item maximizes the effectiveness of our mon, but we're making the decision between more useful items such as Leftovers, Life Orb, Assault Vest, etc for every Pokemon.

The same reason that team preview provides better play. It means that the player can work to not only take out key Pokemon threats, but also key item threats.


How? Even though you're limiting Leftovers and other defensive items, you're limiting Life Orb as well, one of the key items to a "faster" paced style, as well as Choice Scarf. Why is faster paced better in the first place? If skill is determined by the strength of your play, and the lack of your misplays, then wouldn't logic dictate that the longer a game goes on, the better chance skill plays a larger role by increasing the number of turns one person has to misplay?

My own personal opinion, I enjoy faster paced games. The whole, "Item Clause = more skillful play" refers to working out what items your opponent's team has and being able to counter them. Ever played Cluedo? I expect working out items would be something like that.

Why? We talk about how diversity/variation is good, but what exactly makes them a true showing of competitiveness. In Yu-Gi-Oh!, the one-deck formats have proven time and time again to normally be the most skillful formats. So why in Pokemon do we believe having more options available to the player makes the game more competitive? This is a question that needs to actually have an answer, because otherwise the suggestion is limiting item use for no reason whatsoever.

My own personal opinion. I find the over centralised nature of Yu-Gi-Oh boring, there's nothing better than seeing an original deck doing so well against what has been tried and tested as being "the best." For a Pokemon example, see Chainchomp.

 

[kd24]

but why does team preview provide "better play". haven't we collectively shit on gen 5 as the "worst" gen for competitive Pokemon? your reasoning is that players can work to not only take out key threats, but what makes that more skillful than going in blind and playing conservatively and correctly to assess threats they might have?

personal opinion makes no difference whatsoever, again i understand what it refers to, im asking why is that more competitive in nature to having your option of items (which are strong and make the pokemon themselves more "competitive").

again personal opinion doesn't justify a change. are we making this change because it makes the game more skillful? or are we making this on the whim of a guy suggesting it for his own personal benefit of "having more fun". everyone has different preferences, but this says nothing to why this is a change that should be or would be made. there's no justification in your responses other than a drawn out "i think it would be more fun". if you can't answer why it makes the game more competitive, then you haven't answered the question that needs further response.

this all being said, im locking this thread. after reading through it, most posts provided almost no legitimate content or justification. i can say with certainty that we aren't actually going to enforce item clause so if the discussion isn't thought provoking nor have an ability to change policy, who is it actually helping?