Yeah, I mean, if you have long singles battles, you will get more switches and it's not wrong to say that entry hazards are bad. I think I maybe came across as a bit harsh, so I'd like to apologise for that before it goes any further - I just see a lot of misconceptions around VGC and if no-one brings it up in such a confrontational way, they probably won't change. But yeah, it's akin to the people saying 4 pokémon is too limiting and that winning teams focus on exploiting that - it's not strictly wrong, but it's bad advice - winning teams CAN exploit weaknesses in the same way a singles team can but you should never build a team around it because you make yourself disproportionately weak to other strategies. Anyway, I've said my piece and I still don't think we should have an item clause enforced just for the sake of it as it adds very little IMO.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Other Item Clause
- Thread starter amplafied
- Start date
- Status
We actually don't disagree on much.
1) My point was that you don't have nearly as many opportunities to switch out when half of your team is on the field already, therefore the damage output from entry hazards is lower. So overall, yo're switching less. I didn't mean no switching at all, that would be silly.
2) Of what I'd seen, VGC was mostly Trick Room or Sand/Rain with Tailwind as an option, where the variety came in with the extra 2 pokemon for counterpick choices and EV spreads being really different. I don't consider those last parts as defining the meta, as I define "meta" more like a Yugioh player where your overall deck might be a meta strategy, but that doesn't include your personal techs and sideboard cards. But yes, my overall exposure to VGC is limited and my statements here might have been a little extreme, but that's just part of how I defined things.
3) Item Clause doesn't prevent stall entirely, but obviously stall would be a lot stronger if all 4 pokemon were capable of running leftovers. Or prevent the raw power that would come from a team of Choice Specs or Band users, although I imagine these are a lot weaker in doubles than in singles.
My statements may have been missing a few finer points, but I didn't want to get too long-winded about it and I have a habit of skipping small details sometimes.
TL;DR: VGC and 6v6 singles are very different (as is apparent from how we defined "meta"), therefore the rules can't be looked at the same way; I doubt an item clause would be healthy in 6v6 due to its different structure.
Hmmm. I think I could get behind an item clause. I would have to rethink my whole team. Instead of slapping leftovers to all my Pokemon, I would have to think it over. Do I want to give my Choice Scarf to Salamence or Keldeo? Use a Lum Berry on my Dragonite instead of Leftovers, so my Ferrothorn can use it. Choice Band on my Scizor or my Kyurem-B?
Are multiple copies of the same Pokemon broken? By it's nature, we don't have the 6-Arceus team doable here because being able to stamp identical, optimized setups leads to a choke on the meta, not an expansion of it. Clearly, we believe it is metagame-stifling, thus we don't allow teams with the same Pokemon x6 and have tiers that separate some of them out.
So why is the ability to use the same item on six Pokemon not inherently meta-stifling? We use the ideal items without fear of being able to duplicate them on any of the other 5 members of our teams. And then there's this:
I would posit that if an Item Clause expanded the number of Pokemon used in a given (or in higher) tiers, that would by it's nature also be expanding the metagame, much like not allowing all-identical teams. Not only would one, say be KOing a sweeper, you'd be removing a specific item along with it. Players would pull guile-worthy moves with faking an item set on one Pokemon while holding their more potent ones in reserve, trying to draw out the #1 threats while keeping their own lively.
It's very apparent that a lot of people in this thread haven't played in a competitive setting with Item Clause and are just spouting tired Theorymon. I personally don't care either way, but I'm just going to address some of the horrible anti-IC arguments here:
Once again, you people need to stop spouting off garbage Theorymon and actually try an official format that uses these rules sometime. Maybe you'd actually be able to get coherent arguments then.
- Stall is Dead!: No, it is not, you just have to put on your thinking cap and quit whoring Leftovers. Admittedly, most of the metagames I've played with Item Clause (GBU, VGC) aren't friendly toward Stall teams, so I don't have a ton of anecdotal evidence, but I definitely think a form of stall could survive in 6v6 without everyone with Lefties. Taking a look at the stall teams in the Gen V RMT Archive, most of the teams have only 3-4 Pokemon with Leftovers, more of whom could survive with their instant-recovery move. Also, a lot of these teams use a Poison Pokemon, so they essentially have multiple copies of Leftovers even with Item Clause. Not to mention that Sitrus Berry would be more viable if we shift over to level 50; it's one-time, but hey, better than nothing.
- It actually limits Team-Building!: How? In GBU and VGC, Item Clause sure hasn't limited my amount of options for the team. All it does is force you to make decisions: Who really needs the Life Orb or Choice item, and who can get by with type-boosting items and Gems? It doesn't disrupt team balance in any way.
- It's just not fun: I'm sorry that having to think a little beyond slapping Leftovers or Life Orb on everything isn't "fun". You'll get over it, I promise.
Once again, you people need to stop spouting off garbage Theorymon and actually try an official format that uses these rules sometime. Maybe you'd actually be able to get coherent arguments then.
There are a lot of interesting points in this thread. Here are some things I'm noticing. All of this is from a lurkers POV and a novice to competitive battling. First off, I am a big proponent of change. I think its healthy, and most people I have found resist change - most to the point of a fervent passion that usually ends up as flame war. I relish it. I get tired of doing the same thing over and over again. I want new moves, new combos, new entry hazards...it makes people think. It fosters so much fun and interesting discussion on this site.
There are some people in this thread that seem to think because "this is how its always been, and so it shall be from here forward" that the democratic voting process of the essence of this site can't overturn that. If there is one thing that I absolutely love about this site is that anyone, no matter how many posts you have, gets a say in how its run. If the community wants it, I'm under the impression that it will happen. Or, am I mistaken? Because I can go read theory on other sites.
People arguing against an Item Clause, why do you support other clauses? Why do you support Sleep Clause? By supporting a sleep clause, you are stifling the creativity of someone bringing all spore users to the match. Could it be that having all of your Pokemon put to sleep isn't fun? Where is the critical thinking in your team if you bring all sleep users?
There are so many items. So. Many. IMO, having an item clause will do more good than harm. Yes, it may destroy your hyper offensive team the way it is now. But two things about that: 1) you're telling me there isn't another way to get your results and 2) don't you think your opponent is thinking the same thing?
I honestly see both sides of the argument, but I think I'm jaded because I tend to side with Change rather than Remain the Course. A game that does not evolve will die. This is Pokemon - evolution usually isn't a bad thing, its just different. Go, be like Eevee and adapt.
There are some people in this thread that seem to think because "this is how its always been, and so it shall be from here forward" that the democratic voting process of the essence of this site can't overturn that. If there is one thing that I absolutely love about this site is that anyone, no matter how many posts you have, gets a say in how its run. If the community wants it, I'm under the impression that it will happen. Or, am I mistaken? Because I can go read theory on other sites.
People arguing against an Item Clause, why do you support other clauses? Why do you support Sleep Clause? By supporting a sleep clause, you are stifling the creativity of someone bringing all spore users to the match. Could it be that having all of your Pokemon put to sleep isn't fun? Where is the critical thinking in your team if you bring all sleep users?
There are so many items. So. Many. IMO, having an item clause will do more good than harm. Yes, it may destroy your hyper offensive team the way it is now. But two things about that: 1) you're telling me there isn't another way to get your results and 2) don't you think your opponent is thinking the same thing?
I honestly see both sides of the argument, but I think I'm jaded because I tend to side with Change rather than Remain the Course. A game that does not evolve will die. This is Pokemon - evolution usually isn't a bad thing, its just different. Go, be like Eevee and adapt.
Gee, idk, maybe because if you put more than one of the same top tier threat on your team youre forcing the opponent to bend over and pack double the checks he would usually run for them while items dont cause this?
Diversity is not achieved by arbitrary restrictions. It is achieved by balance. By allowing the players to use whatever they want, and imposing restrictions only on stuff that are unbalancing the metagame, is how we create the diversity. We dont make decisions to help crap rise up tiers. We make decisions to balance out the metagame. Playing with as much copies of an item you want have never had any negative impact on the game. Restrictions and bans should be AVOIDED as much as possible, only being enforced when we need to. I also would like everyone to read this extremely important quote because i have yet to see anyone actually giving a real reason for this item clause implemention:
Quite obvious. Stifling variation forces creativity, because we can no longer utilize the "optimal" sets on all our Pokemon.
Although killing people is not the same thing as voting on a simulation website, there is logic there. A lot of the points brought up by various people do highlight why a change may be good for the metagame, so there really isn't much more to say that hasn't been said in 8 pages of debate.
That being said, is this site not interested in forward thinking? Is it truly all about "if it ain't broke, we're not gonna look to improve it, ever"?
That being said, is this site not interested in forward thinking? Is it truly all about "if it ain't broke, we're not gonna look to improve it, ever"?
...
Its not an improvement because its not broken (as you just flat out admited) and works exactly like the real games do, therefore theres nothing to fix or improve here. We just simulate the mechanics and make our own rules. The mechanics are: any pokemon can have hold any item they want. Thats exactly what we are and have always been doing. Theres absolutely no logic for a change. An item clause would never increase diversity, it would force people to run stuff they dont want and weaken already existing playstyles. Diversity is achieved by banning broken and uncompetitive aspects of a metagame. Running multiple copies of the same items is not, have never been and probably will never be broken.
...pretty sure in the video games you cant hold duplicate items.
Nothing to fix, probably. Improve? Well, how could you possibly say that without trying it? Fervent defending, indeed.
Yes you can, and im pretty sure that this stream of misinformations is exactly the reasons why these threads are being created. The only time you cant hold duplicates is when youre playing NINTENDO'S METAGAMES. However we are not nintendo, and we have our own rules. Item clause exists for nintendo metas to avoid focus sash spam due to their 3vs3 and 4vs4 metas. However we are a 6vs6 meta, a meta where hazards are everywhere. Therefore theres absolutely no reason to ever implement this.
I'm not trying to spread misinformation, I'm trying to get the facts straight. No need to get so upset at me. And what do hazards have anything to do w/ items? Perhaps we should stay on topic?
And why doesn't it? If I can, say Knock Off a single Choiced mon's item, you can bring in a second top tier Choiced one instead without Item Clause used. Are items not also "top tier"? Is Shell Bell equal to Leftovers, a Fist Plate as good as Life Orb?
And I'm saying that Item Clause acts to balance the metagame by forcing a team to make meaningful choices. It doesn't ban any item, it simply means you can't spam that item as many times as you like on a team.
Hazards are relevant to this discussion because they are significantly more popular in 6v6 due to more switches and increased game length and thus Focus Sashes are much, much stronger in Nintendo's 4v4 doubles and 3v3 singles metagames than they are in our 6v6 metagame. Thus, in Nintendo metagames it may be that having an item clause is justified to balance an item that would otherwise be broken if it were spammed, but the same cannot be said for official smogon metagames.
My interpretation of this discussion boils down to two main points:
1. Smogon's philosophy is to use clauses to balance things that are otherwise broken or uncompetitive. Item spam is neither broken nor uncompetitive and thus a clause is completely unjustified.
2. The primary argument of the pro-ban side is that the item clause would somehow create a more diverse metagame, yet they have been consistently unable to present a single example of a Pokemon who would somehow go from unviable to viable with the addition of an item clause, chiefly because there aren't any, and the diversity argument is merely a strawman erected by those hungry for unnecessary change for the sake of reducing the prevalence of teams that like you use multiples of the same item, thereby reduing metagame diversity even if item diversity is increased. Make no mistake, it's not just stall teams that will be hit hard by this change. Scarf Politoed is suddenly a much less attractive proposition because it means you can't also use Scarf Keldeo, who your team might need to deal with fast threats. Thus, by implementing an item clause we reduce variation in Politoed sets, thereby reducing metagame diversity, the exact opposite of what this proposes to do. Take another example, fast, frail offensive teams that like to use multiple focus sashes. This is a niche style of play yes, but an item clause completely removes it from the game, and for what? Is there a single piece of concrete, relevant evidence that the game would noticably benefit from the introduction of item clause?
Last edited:
how would one find evidence of something they have no way of researching.
At this point this thread is nothing but opinions and is going to keep going back and fourth with no end.
It's a pointless discussion now
At this point this thread is nothing but opinions and is going to keep going back and fourth with no end.
It's a pointless discussion now
Perhaps you could suggest a mon that gains a significant amount of viability in an item-claused meta? Assuming, of course, such a Pokemon even exists.
I just want to clarify also that I think a separate item-claused ladder is not a terrible idea but it might as well be rolled into the seperate, level 50 ladder if, as I strongly encourage, we go with that option. It's just an absolutely stupid and unjustified change to Smogon's metagames as things stand.
No, it reduces the freedom of teambuilding for absolutely no good reason. I accept that moody is banned, because it was uncompetitive. I accept that excadrill is banned, because it had literally 2 solid counters and forced you to pack them in your team for the sole purpose of beating it. I do NOT accept an item clause because having multiple copies of the same item are not and have never been a problem, its faithful to ingame mechanics and therefore should not be restricted by a dumb rule. Thats the thing that you and everyone else supporting this clause cant seem to understand. We should NOT impose restrictions to our metagame because a certain group of people think its going to balance it (how effectively killing stall and reducing teambuilding choices is going to ''balance'' anything is beyond me) or will improve diversity (lol). If people want to play with item clause so bad, just head over to the VGC Ladder and the Nintendo Formats forum or buy the game. Stop trying to change our metagame to something it is not supposed to be.
Well we have to do SOMETHING until the incredible contributors get a sim up and running. However, in the meantime it looks like everyone is going to be playing Lv 50 and item clause on the cartridges. . .
Or, you know... Play Pokemon Online which actually has all the WiFi formats
Are the people who are pro-item clause honestly expecting for a thread to suddenly change things around here? If so, I think you all are wasting your time. Go to a PO server with item clause, do well, and use your experiences to back up your points. With arguably more important stuff on the table to test (i.e. what's uber and not in OU), its not viable to willy nilly agree to using item clause and then risking saying "Oops. Turns out that was a bad idea. Let's move back a step." The same applies to other suggestions we see here like an SR ban or evasion unban. Give evidence that a new format might actually be better and people might follow.
There's other items out there that can help stall teams guys. Like the never-used big root. This change would just force you... to try...something new. It'd force us to use those items that are 10% worse than lefties. It'd give them a reason to exist. We just decide which of the stallers needs which of the healing/survival items. Who needs the Sitrus Berry more? Who can use the Black Sludge? Who should hold the Big Root? And which of you shall be cursed with the Shell Bell? It sounds more compelling than "Leftovers on everyone" and in-game its a lot easier to not have t grind 6 leftovers.o
This thread was for the discussion of the item clause. We don't know until we give it a go. We don't exactly have any information that item clause would kill the game either, yet people are happy to say that it would.
- Status