-
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.
Other Item Clause
- Thread starter amplafied
- Start date
- Status
Basically, this is why this would be horrible for an enjoyable metagame:
Want to run two sweepers but hate choice items? Sorry, you're out of luck. You can only put Life Orb on one.
Want to run a halfway defensive team? Sorry, you're out of luck, enjoy figuring out which one single pokemon to put Lefties on.
Want to run a halfway decent LC defense team? Sorry, you're out of luck; just the one Eviolite for you.
Want to run two sweepers but hate choice items? Sorry, you're out of luck. You can only put Life Orb on one.
Want to run a halfway defensive team? Sorry, you're out of luck, enjoy figuring out which one single pokemon to put Lefties on.
Want to run a halfway decent LC defense team? Sorry, you're out of luck; just the one Eviolite for you.
An item clause would get people to have a more variety in movesets and strategy, for Shell bell is actually not that bad of an item, but no one uses it because it is not 100% reliable all the time even though it actually is very useful for bulky offense. The Many berries would also be used more often, and allow for Prediction to be even more important by guessing what item is on the opponent. Does he have a berry so you cannot beat him in one hit, or does he have a shell bell, or maybe something you have not seen. True, it does make it harder to make a team and possibly much more annoying, but considering ever gen adds even more choices anyway, why not try it
You can run expert belt, plates, gems, etc for offensive pokemon you line of thinking is close-minded
Shell bell, some berries, and a couple others are also good for wall's, tanks, and bulky offense
Don't kid yourself, almost no one actually does that, it is the VERY minor minority.
You can run expert belt, plates, gems, etc for offensive pokemon you line of thinking is close-minded
Shell bell, some berries, and a couple others are also good for wall's, tanks, and bulky offense
Don't kid yourself, almost no one actually does that, it is the VERY minor minority.
Last edited:
While I usually unintentionally build teams that would be allowed in an item clause metagame ( I recently peaked #1 with Dragon Gem Chomp/Chesto berry Rotom-W/Shed Shell Tyranitar/Scarf Keldeo/CB Scizor/LO Latias ), I think item clause doesn't add any variety to the game and unneccesarily complicates teambuilding and makes certain things unviable for no good reason.
Also, I would NEVER use shell bell even with Item Clause, what the fuck are you guys talking about
Also, I would NEVER use shell bell even with Item Clause, what the fuck are you guys talking about
I can definitely see the argument for both sides.
I think it would be cool to increase the usage if the new defensive and offensive items this gen, but I can also see how it could make some pokemon less viable in the metagame because they really need a common item that there's usually another user already on any given team.
So I'm a bit on the fence for this.
I think it would be cool to increase the usage if the new defensive and offensive items this gen, but I can also see how it could make some pokemon less viable in the metagame because they really need a common item that there's usually another user already on any given team.
So I'm a bit on the fence for this.
I admit I don't know much about LC, but as for your other comments, your opponent is limited in the same way as you. You'll have to find new strategies with new items instead of just slapping life orb or leftovers on everything. Maybe the sweepers could be bulky and hold the weakness policy instead? You're acting as if there is a very small number of effective items when there are some really powerful tools we have to play with the generation that none of us have even experienced.
And yes, Shell Bell is terrible, I have no idea what I was thinking.
The OP says that since new items came, freeing up more possiblities, we should limit those to 1 per team. Basically open new possibilities just to close them. It's BW2 OU all over again.
I personally like the idea of an Items clause A LOT.
Several reasons...
1 - It's clearly how the game is meant to be played. In the cartridge game I couldn't be bothered trying to collect duplicate items when only 1 exists in my copy of the game.
2 - GameFreak invokes the Items Clause themselves for WiFi battles.
But MOST importantly, I am of the opinion that an Items clause would help with creativity and diversity of the metagame.
Instead of just stuffing leftovers on every Pokemon of a stall team, or stuffing Life Orb or Choice Items on Offensive teams, you have to figure out which of your Pokemon is going to be your user of a specific item. It should help bring different items into prominence and bring about new strategies.
Several reasons...
1 - It's clearly how the game is meant to be played. In the cartridge game I couldn't be bothered trying to collect duplicate items when only 1 exists in my copy of the game.
2 - GameFreak invokes the Items Clause themselves for WiFi battles.
But MOST importantly, I am of the opinion that an Items clause would help with creativity and diversity of the metagame.
Instead of just stuffing leftovers on every Pokemon of a stall team, or stuffing Life Orb or Choice Items on Offensive teams, you have to figure out which of your Pokemon is going to be your user of a specific item. It should help bring different items into prominence and bring about new strategies.
I think this really comes down to personal preference. I don't think it would wildly promote better teambuilding, and I don't think teams are completely stale without it. Do you REALLY think people are going to spam Weakness Policy and Assault Vest? I'll tell you right now sister, the answer is no lol. 3 decent new items doesn't change anything in terms of the item clause. I can see the argument for it, but ehhh, I don't care.
You're not going to find OMG ALL NEW STRATEGIES by implementing Item Clause because the truth is that a lot of items are trash. It's not our fault, its Nintendo's. All Item Clause would promote is using trash or average items because you have to. I mean I guess there's something to be said for that but I really would rather not be forced to use them. Gems already get alright use, berries too, etc.
Personally, I don't want an item clause. If I wanna carry Life Orb or Leftovers on more than one Pokemon, leave meh be!!!!
You're not going to find OMG ALL NEW STRATEGIES by implementing Item Clause because the truth is that a lot of items are trash. It's not our fault, its Nintendo's. All Item Clause would promote is using trash or average items because you have to. I mean I guess there's something to be said for that but I really would rather not be forced to use them. Gems already get alright use, berries too, etc.
Personally, I don't want an item clause. If I wanna carry Life Orb or Leftovers on more than one Pokemon, leave meh be!!!!
I don't understand where people's annoyances are coming from. Why would someone care if most items are the same? Most natures are the same, most IVs are the same. Everyone is level 100. OU is a set of about 50 pokemon that you see over and over again. Why the hate for redundant items? So what if someone wants to use 3 life orbs?
The fact that you can only have one lefties, life orb etc means that other items which don't get as much usage can be given an opportunity to shine. It also gives your opponent clues about the items the remaining Pokemon have, making battle strategy deeper instead of it coming down to a situation like the lucky blind last Pokemon I remember fondly from Generation IV. There's no more being blindsided by a choice scarfed Pokemon if you've made the effort to take one choice scarf out.
I have no problem with someone use 3 Life Orbs.
That's not the point.
The point is that I think overall the game would be improved if there was a rule applying to both players that each team could only have 1 Life Orb user, etc.
There are plenty of other useful Items. It adds an extra layer of strategy to have to think of how different items will be distributed.
Item Clause unnecessarily stifles teambuilding in a 6v6 singles metagame. In official Nintendo formats, including GBU and VGC, not all six Pokemon are used in a battle, which means it is going to be much more fast-paced and offensive than standard Smogon Metagames. As such, using Leftovers as a filler item on everything isn't really necessary. But in a 6v6 environment, you're dealing with a lot of switching, entry hazards, passive damage, etc. People have already pointed out that a metagame with Item Clause is going to be more offensive, and this is pretty much the reason for that. Adding Item Clause wouldn't improve any of our metagames at all and would probably only hurt them. Plus, it would be adding unnecessary restrictions during teambuilding. There's no need to "force people to be creative." If you're seeking metagames with creative players, go to the Other Metagames subforum.
Every item that would be viable with item clause is viable now, every playstyle that would be viable with item clause is viable now, you can make teams that incorporate item clause that are just as succesful as ones that don't, but item clause would ruin the viability of slower scarfers like scizor that are often run along other scarfers, it would hamper stall and some more offensive playstyles while bulky offense hardly notices it.
Sure there's plenty of effective items, even in gen 4 there were plenty to make item clause teams viable in the meta.. But if it's viable already, and you're hampering other playstyles with implementing it, why bother? I think it ruins versatility in the metagame.
Sure there's plenty of effective items, even in gen 4 there were plenty to make item clause teams viable in the meta.. But if it's viable already, and you're hampering other playstyles with implementing it, why bother? I think it ruins versatility in the metagame.
some people are against the focus on so few pokemon for no real reason other than someone basically telling them they are the only ones worth using (which is false), and are against it. The other stuff is just part of all competitive pokemon.
lol, a mod who actually admits the Smogon stuff stifles Creativity.
There are a myriad of items that are useable, but no one uses simply because they auto-go for Lefties or Life orb, is not a horrible thing and in general i do not mind it, but it would be nice to see something other than the same 5 items EVERY match.
We never encouraged you to be uncreative, there's just no point in forcing someone to be creative.
There's plenty of room for creativity in Smogon Metagames, and I've seen plenty of it. But the people complaining about it in this thread clearly have had other experiences. You also have to consider that people use the stuff they use because it works and because it's good. If you're tired of the same tried and true stuff topping usage statistics, I don't know what to tell you outside of go check another metagame out. CB Scizor is going to be popular with or without Item Clause. So is Life Orb Mamoswine. So are a lot of other things. The only thing Item Clause would be doing is limiting the amount of viable sets Pokemon can run. You might be able to find a rare gem by being forced to run lesser used items, but you're also burying a lot of others that we've already seen and limiting entire playstyles.
I wouldn't call it forcing people to be creative as much as I would call it forcing people to use a tiny little itty bit of creativity once in a while.
An Items clause is something that wouldn't allow people to simply look up 6 standard Smogon movesets and slop them together.
I think it would add to the variety of the metagame. It would help us see a little bit less of the same thing every time.
No one is saying that we can eliminate the problem of everyone doing the same things.
The difference between our views is that I see Items clause that can at least help things out somewhat, and I think the overall positives of an Items clause would outweigh the negatives (which are very small in my opinion).
This is basic combinatorics. There are MORE possibilities if you can use copies of items. There are less different possible teams if every item must be different. Suppose I've narrowed my team down to 6 pokemon. If there are 100 different items then I have 100^6 different item possibilities. If you force me to use different items then there are only 100*99*98*97*96*95 item possibilities. That's way less.
"I’ve never been to a tournament where there was a prize for the winner and another prize for the player who did many difficult moves. I’ve also never seen a prize for a player who played “in an innovative way.” (Though chess tournaments do sometimes have prizes for “brilliancies,” moves that are strokes of genius.) Many scrubs have strong ties to “innovation.” They say, “That guy didn’t do anything new, so he is no good.” Or “person X invented that technique and person Y just stole it.” Well, person Y might be one hundred times better than person X, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the scrub. When person Y wins the tournament and person X is a forgotten footnote, what will the scrub say? That person Y has “no skill” of course." -David Sirlin, Playing to Win
First of all - you're calling me obsessed? On what basis do you use the word obsessed?
I've said this already. Let me make myself clear. I don't have a problem with people not being creative.
Nor would I have a problem with people who wanted to put all of their opponents Pokemon to sleep, if Sleep Clause wasn't a rule.
I have no problem whatsoever with people playing within the rules.
I am simply of the opinion that sometimes general rules can be implemented that improve the overall quality of the playing experience for everyone. And overall, I think an Items clause that applied to everyone would improve the overall quality of the playing experience.
Well, we would probably have to test it before we know it wouldn't improve the meta.
Nobody has complained in this thread. We've all just been talking about what we want to see in the new metagame. You say it will limit the number of viable sets a Pokemon will run, doesn't it actually just meant that your team has to provide the right synergy and item distribution? Your opponent is limited in the same way as you and from the early wifi battles I've watched (shaky evidence I know) a metagame with item clause is really fast paced and fun!
Yes, but would people actually use a greater number of item combinations without item clause? It seems to me like a few items dominate and therefore reduce the overall variation, sure more variation is possible, but having the item clause would ensure the variation exists. I mean, if some items are so superior, why use the inferior ones? Item clause.
Forgive me if im wrong on this one but aren't clauses in general added for 2 reasons and 2 reasons alone:
1. unbalanced.
Tier list is a clear example. We ban things to uber because its unbalanced for use in regular games.
2. Uncompetitive.
Evasion clause is an example, among others. It makes the game less competitive and unfun because of it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't see item issues with both of these 2 reasons to introduce a clause. Items aren't unbalanced, especially with new items introduced that may sway people of multiple same items. Also, it isn't uncompetitive. Item's are more strategic choices, and does not make a game less competitive. I haven't seen anyone post that it's extremely annoying, or right-out impossible to deal with 2 leftovers, choice items or balloons in 1 game. Fact is that there are viable strategies with with multiple items and viable strategies without and they are pretty balanced with each other.
I do see the arguments for item-clauses to help give more items in the game, but banning out something that's not toxic for the meta-game purely to introduce new items into the meta-game is bad design per definition. It's a problem with the items themselves and not with the use of multiple items.
1. unbalanced.
Tier list is a clear example. We ban things to uber because its unbalanced for use in regular games.
2. Uncompetitive.
Evasion clause is an example, among others. It makes the game less competitive and unfun because of it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't see item issues with both of these 2 reasons to introduce a clause. Items aren't unbalanced, especially with new items introduced that may sway people of multiple same items. Also, it isn't uncompetitive. Item's are more strategic choices, and does not make a game less competitive. I haven't seen anyone post that it's extremely annoying, or right-out impossible to deal with 2 leftovers, choice items or balloons in 1 game. Fact is that there are viable strategies with with multiple items and viable strategies without and they are pretty balanced with each other.
I do see the arguments for item-clauses to help give more items in the game, but banning out something that's not toxic for the meta-game purely to introduce new items into the meta-game is bad design per definition. It's a problem with the items themselves and not with the use of multiple items.
- Status