Regarding ADV UU's NFE Clause

Kris

broken bricks
is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Simulator Driveris a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Disclaimer: I by no means am an expert at ADV UU; I just came across this clause while editing some of the format pages on the smogdex.

I spoke with Hogg about this, and from what I gather, this clause is extremely silly, mostly pointless, and was developed due to fears that are over 10 years old. For those who don't know what the NFE Clause is, here's its summary:
Players cannot use Pokemon that can evolve, with the exception of Scyther.
I really don't have much to say other that this clause is frankly very stupid (in my outsider opinion) and on top of that has never been implemented on PS!, so the ADV UU being hosted there is not accurate. I am personally advocating for it to be removed because it hasn't been strictly enforced for an extremely long time, or to at least use this thread as a place to discuss the clause's existence and whether or not it should be removed or should actually be strictly enforced.

EDIT: By strictly enforced, I meant that it wasn't implemented on Showdown. Not that it wasn't enforced in other ways like tournament-specific rules, gentleman's agreements, etc.
 
Last edited:

Disjunction

Everything I waste gets recycled
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
This topic was breached in an earlier thread and the conclusion can be found here.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...cy-proposal-and-project.3648875/#post-8173610

Not really serious either way here since I don't play ADV UU either, but I am naturally resistant to this idea right away because changing these tiers is never necessary nowadays. The playerbases are so small that making significant changes is more cumbersome than helpful in any way. "Consistency" doesn't matter much in a metagame of 20 or so active players with less than a couple hundred games played per year.
 

Kris

broken bricks
is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Simulator Driveris a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
This topic was breached in an earlier thread and the conclusion can be found here.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...cy-proposal-and-project.3648875/#post-8173610

Not really serious either way here since I don't play ADV UU either, but I am naturally resistant to this idea right away because changing these tiers is never necessary nowadays. The playerbases are so small that making significant changes is more cumbersome than helpful in any way. "Consistency" doesn't matter much in a metagame of 20 or so active players with less than a couple hundred games played per year.
The thing is though, this clause was never enforced in terms of PS play other than the hard ban of Kadabra and Chansey, so removing it would be minimal assuming the aforementioned Pokemon would remain banned. If this were something major like removing Sleep Clause Mod, I wouldn't even bother making a thread.
 

Yung Dramps

pawsome gaming
is a Pre-Contributor
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. To hell with not disturbing old formats, obliterate this dumpster fire of a clause now, what's even gonna happen? According to OP this clause isn't even enforced anymore and hasn't been for a very long time, so killing it won't cause even the most minute changes.

May I ask what exactly lead to the creation of this clause to begin with? If a thread can be provided from back in the day where a council member or something explains the rationale, that'd be great.
 

Oldamar999

Tien Time
is a Pre-Contributor
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. To hell with not disturbing old formats, obliterate this dumpster fire of a clause now, what's even gonna happen? According to OP this clause isn't even enforced anymore and hasn't been for a very long time, so killing it won't cause even the most minute changes.

May I ask what exactly lead to the creation of this clause to begin with? If a thread can be provided from back in the day where a council member or something explains the rationale, that'd be great.
I wasn't around at the time, of course, but from what I got from people like Hogg, the NFE clause was created because, and I am not making this up: "to prevent UU from becoming OU lite". I think this was created around 2008 or smth like that? also, from what I got from Hogg, the only reason why Scyther is an exception is because people just wanted to use Scyther, that's literally it.
 
This topic was breached in an earlier thread and the conclusion can be found here.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...cy-proposal-and-project.3648875/#post-8173610

Not really serious either way here since I don't play ADV UU either, but I am naturally resistant to this idea right away because changing these tiers is never necessary nowadays. The playerbases are so small that making significant changes is more cumbersome than helpful in any way. "Consistency" doesn't matter much in a metagame of 20 or so active players with less than a couple hundred games played per year.
I don't understand what is the actual argument here? Why fix something if not many people will notice the fix? I mean you say this as if this fix actually costs us money and we have a limited budget. Just remove unnecessary clauses and make this better for the dozens of people that play it, it sees play in uupl and uu classic. So even if it doesnt matter to you personally, this affects people that play uupl, even if by just the tiniest margins, and people who play uu classic, even if the tier is not in spl or whatever
 

Oldamar999

Tien Time
is a Pre-Contributor
For the record, i do play adv uu and i would NOT even use the NFEs in question personally if they were unbanned, but i find the whole concept of "not fixing obvious shitty decisions of the past just because the tiers are old" incredibly stupid
Haunter could probably have some use tho tbh.
I personally do believe that this clause was incredibly stupid and strange, however, especially considering that the entire reason why NFE clause was created doesn't even make any sense, even in like 2008 or whatever, I don't really see how UU but with Haunter in it would be so similar to OU that they felt the need to ban ALL NFEs with the random choice of Scyther as the exception.
 

Disjunction

Everything I waste gets recycled
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The thing is though, this clause was never enforced in terms of PS play other than the hard ban of Kadabra and Chansey, so removing it would be minimal assuming the aforementioned Pokemon would remain banned. If this were something major like removing Sleep Clause Mod, I wouldn't even bother making a thread.
If people are bringing Diglett and Haunter to tournament games and nobody has a problem with it there then sure. But it's not just Kadabra and Chansey that this is holding back as far as I know
I don't understand what is the actual argument here? Why fix something if not many people will notice the fix? I mean you say this as if this fix actually costs us money and we have a limited budget. Just remove unnecessary clauses and make this better for the dozens of people that play it, it sees play in uupl and uu classic. So even if it doesnt matter to you personally, this affects people that play uupl, even if by just the tiniest margins, and people who play uu classic, even if the tier is not in spl or whatever
Again, I don't care if this happens or not. I don't know if repealing this clause will cause any significant change because I don't play ADV UU. My purpose in making that post was referencing a previous discussion on changing old formats and how Hogg said the tier was locked in. I'm not trying to impose myself on a tier I don't play.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Relevant reading about NFEs in DPP lower tiers, which is obviously much closer to the point in time when the decision to ban NFEs in ADV lower tiers occurred.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/nfes-in-uu.43157/

For the record...
RBY and GSC lower tiers did not include the NFE restriction that ADV had, afaik. For example, here's a Mt. Silver thread listing Chansey, Kadabra, and Scyther as legal back in 2011, and I believe that was the tier list dating all the way back to the beginning of GSC competitive play:
https://mount-silver.proboards.com/thread/9/gsc-tiers

Here's a thread on Smogon listing Graveler as a part of RBY lower tiers way back in 06:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/rby-uu-guide.10854/
and the PO tiers that we would have been following for most of our history:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120806111231/http://wiki.pokemon-online.eu/wiki/1st_Gen_Tier_List

NFEs also used to be banned in ADV NU for the same reason (or lack of reason) as they are in ADV UU until this post decided to add them back in:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/adv-nu.3503418/page-2#post-5624848
Yes, literally that's the post. There was never any good reason to have the clause, and so we needed no red tape cut to remove it.

Honestly, at the point in time when DPP decided to allow NFEs in lower tiers, the same decision probably should have been retconned onto ADV. At the point when ADV NU freed the NFEs, the same decision probably should have been applied to ADV UU too. But for whatever reason no one bothered to update ADV UU, and we're left with a bizarre outcome where ADV UU is the ONLY tier that does not allow Pokemon in the tier that are allowed in a tier below, due solely to a totally unique and arbitrary clause.
 

Earthworm

is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis the Smogon Tour Season 6 Championis a Past SPL and WCoP Champion
RoA Leader
I don't think there is a way to preserve both the current RSE UU and RSE NU metagames without keeping the clause due to Haunter(edit for clarity: and other NFEs)'s presence in NU and its absence from UU. Given that these tiers are both considered locked now, I think in spite of its now-illogical-seeming origins we have to "keep" it.
 
Last edited:

Yung Dramps

pawsome gaming
is a Pre-Contributor
I don't think there is a way to preserve both the current RSE UU and RSE NU metagames without keeping the clause due to Haunter's presence in NU and its absence from UU. Given that these tiers are both considered locked now, I think in spite of its now-illogical-seeming origins we have to "keep" it.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. How would Haunter being a hypothetical part of ADV UU affect NU in the slightest considering usage-based tiering isn't a thing for old gens? Would Haunter being in ADV UU really be such a massive shake-up that the tour players just can't adapt?

I know these tiers are locked, but this is a highly extenuating circumstance where we can break that provision to fix something whose original logic no longer aligns with now Smogon operates, honestly probably never aligned even back then considering how no other tier has done something like this.
 
Last edited:
stop fucking with tiers you don't even play when the playerbases are miniscule and none of them have issues with the current implementation. nobody who actually touches ADV UU cares about this and wants to rework a metagame that hasn't changed in over a decade, let things rest
 

Yung Dramps

pawsome gaming
is a Pre-Contributor
stop fucking with tiers you don't even play when the playerbases are miniscule and none of them have issues with the current implementation. nobody who actually touches ADV UU cares about this and wants to rework a metagame that hasn't changed in over a decade, let things rest
I restate my comment towards Earthworm: Would unbanning NFEs really be such a massive shake-up that the meta just can't adapt, would it really be that serious? Is it really worth preserving this hilariously stupid clause that pretty much everyone agrees is a glaring relic of a different time?

It hasn't even been fucking enforced in ages. I ain't an ADV expert, but I imagine Pokemon like Chansey and Kadabra had to actually get usage at some point in order to get separate bans. Adhering it to it now would actually be the real shake-up instead of just pretending it never existed like has seemingly been done for ages now.
 

Yung Dramps

pawsome gaming
is a Pre-Contributor
Huh.

In that case, where did the Kadabra and Chansey bans come from? Were they banned in NU and then auto-moved up to UUBL? Because that seems extremely wack.

I just don't understand the resistance to repealing this clause. Everybody agrees it's dumb as shit, is the playerbase really so terrified of even the chance of a shake-up that they won't even kill something founded on such stupid logic? Can't we make just one exception for such a bizarre situation with no other parallel in all of Smogon Tiers?
 

Earthworm

is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis the Smogon Tour Season 6 Championis a Past SPL and WCoP Champion
RoA Leader
I restate my comment towards Earthworm: Would unbanning NFEs really be such a massive shake-up that the meta just can't adapt, would it really be that serious? Is it really worth preserving this hilariously stupid clause that pretty much everyone agrees is a glaring relic of a different time?

It hasn't even been fucking enforced in ages. I ain't an ADV expert, but I imagine Pokemon like Chansey and Kadabra had to actually get usage at some point in order to get separate bans. Adhering it to it now would actually be the real shake-up instead of just pretending it never existed like has seemingly been done for ages now.
The problem is that we would be changing a locked tier that is more than a decade and a half old for no good reason. There is no real problem with how things are for people that are playing and enjoying these tiers as they've been played since 2005. People are simply pointing out unusual inconsistencies because of how odd they look now. It would significantly affect the metagame to change things now and people would obviously adapt, as they can to literally any metagame you can think of, but that is irrelevant--even if the change was not remotely significant, it would be undesirable. Let me know if there is anything else you want to hear my perspective on.

One thing that I think does need clarification is that despite not being implemented correctly, the tier is effectively enforced through tournament rules rather than team builder / simulator rules in battles of greater significance (e.g. tournament games). I am reiterating this for clarity since it has been mentioned above already.
 

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnus
UU Leader
To clarify: it hasn't been implemented in the PS Adv UU format, and so isn't enforced on the ladder, but all Adv UU games in the UU circuit have the restriction enforced and as far as I know always have.
 

Colonel M

ZA WARUDO
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Huh.

In that case, where did the Kadabra and Chansey bans come from? Were they banned in NU and then auto-moved up to UUBL? Because that seems extremely wack.

I just don't understand the resistance to repealing this clause. Everybody agrees it's dumb as shit, is the playerbase really so terrified of even the chance of a shake-up that they won't even kill something founded on such stupid logic? Can't we make just one exception for such a bizarre situation with no other parallel in all of Smogon Tiers?
It's one thing if the collective playerbase of ADV UU players want to change this. It's another when outsiders of a tier (who have never played it) want to force change on a metagame that has theoretically been "frozen" for so long.

Regardless of ridiculous reasoning, if this is what the ADV UU playerbase wants, let them have it. I think allowing Baton Pass in old gens are fucking stupid (and Dugtrio Magneton personally), but you don't see me parading and trying to trample over people who actively play the metagame and try to force a change because "I personally think it's dumb".
 
As a player that sometimes does play ADV UU ( mostly in the RoA Room, though) and even won 2 times RoA Olympics in that Tier (using a Diglett several times) all I have to say is...

1: If NFEs can be used on PS when playing Adv UU, then the clause its clearly NOT enforced. So, we don,t have any problem RIGHT NOW.

2: This clause is the single stupidest thing across ALL Gens. It makes no sense to ban something in UU and allow it in NU, unless there is a major change between the Metagames ( see: Sand Veil/Sand Rush in low DPP/BW Tiers in which there is no Sand Stream). On top of that, the Mons that are affected aren,t even broken, uncompetitive or unhealthy in the ADV UU Meta. In fact, only Doglett and Haunter are somewhat relevant at all (unless we count Kadabra and Chansey who are BL to begin with). While, yes, trapping could be considered uncompetitive... no one is going to ban Dugtrio or Arena Trap from Adv OU, right?

3: "Don,t touch Old Gens" is a terrible argument when RBY BL/UU and GSC NU have been doing changes in the recent years.

4: If touching low old tiers is forbidden, so should be touching OU ones. Probably would be the right path to follow, since every single ban/unban in BW OU after the Generation ended in 2013 has been detrimental to that Metagame in my not humble at all opinion.

So, my position on this is either do nothing (since the dumb rule is not even enforced on PS) or remove this rule entirely. It affects just 2 Mons that don,t break the Metagame at all.
 

xJoelituh

is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
Discord Leader
3: "Don,t touch Old Gens" is a terrible argument when RBY BL/UU and GSC NU have been doing changes in the recent years.
This list is not final and I’m OK with continuing the discussion for what tiers should/should not be listed here, but for now, consider that the lock will apply to the following tiers:
  • GSC UU
  • ADV UU
  • ADV NU
  • DPP UU
  • DPP NU
  • BW UU
  • BW RU
  • BW NU
  • ORAS UU
  • ORAS RU
  • ORAS NU
  • ORAS PU
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...cy-proposal-and-project.3648875/#post-8173610

As a somewhat frequent player of this tier, I would like the tier to remain as it is, although removing the clause, keeping Kadabra and Chansey as UUBLs, and allowing those in NU NFE that are already allowed in PS, for simplicity sake would not be the craziest idea. (I don't think any of the other ones would be broken/break the tier to the point of making it unplayable/unbearable to be honest).

If it is for preservation purposes, keeping the clause forced somehow, would be alright, even though, forcing it in PS without creating the clause specifically would mean a lot of Pokemon would move to UUBL, which breaks the "tiers are locked" policy, unless it is created as in it bans all NFE + Haunter + Metang + Shelgon (looking at this as how PS implements clauses).
 
I feel the need to post for the simple reason that I was the one who originally requested the implementation of the Gen3UU format on PS, and people seem confused as to why the NFE ban isn't implemented. The simple reason is: I forgot to mention it when I asked Marty. It's something you get used to and then don't really think about. When I realized it a good while later, I figured there was no reason to go back and ask for this to be changed. After all, the impact isn't big, and it was already fulfilling its main function in being a big help in teambuilding and preventing scenarios like this, where BL mons were brought. Granted, making sure this was implemented properly would also stop people from using NFEs when they are not allowed, but remembering not to use NFEs is a little easier than remembering the entirety of the rather arbitrary BL, and the NFEs are not nearly as powerful as the BL mons. That doesn't mean they are completely insignificant, as Haunter and Diglett definitely have potential, and a couple others might as well, but there's a difference between a Haunter and a Houndoom (or Raikou, which was only recently moved to BL I think?). So in the end, the format as it was implemented was helpful, the NFE ban was easy enough to enforce in tournaments, and I did not think it would impact the occasional spotlight ladder badly enough to ask for a fix.

As for my opinion on the matter at hand, I think the tier should be left as is. The only reason this stands out as special is due to a decision made in 2015, which freed the NFEs in ADV NU. At this point, it's too late to do anything about that, and I think ADV NU is honestly better off that way, but I think it set a rather terrible precedent. Starting from Gen 4, tiers have been usage-based. Gen 3 tiers, in contrast, were made rather arbitrarily. Even BL mons were decided rather arbitrarily from the bits I've heard from oldtimers, with some like Venusaur supposedly being BL because they had a niche in OU, rather than being too effective for UU. I'm sure Earthworm or someone else from that time knows far more about that than me and could bring some enlightenment to the tiering process back then. That said, we did have a couple of ADV UU tournaments allowing some BL mons, and some of them didn't even seem that great to begin with. Yet no matter what impact they would have on the actual metagame, I do not really wish to see any of them freed, the same way I don't want a change made to NFEs. There is no real point in retiering the metagame, and if it is done, it should be done consequently, instead of just making an update to be in line with yet another arbitrary decision made many years after the tier stopped being "relevant".

This also brings me to the tier lock that xJoelituh quoted above. The original discussion surrounding this lock started due to the Sand Veil shenanigans negatively affecting DPP NU, as well as UUPL disallowing Baton Pass for ADV and DPP. The former had to do with the transitivity of bans, and from what I can tell, as the "lock" became active prior to the OU decision, Sandslash (and Sand Veil) are now free in DPP NU as a result. This change was made to preserve a metagame the way it was. It also broke ban transitivity. NFEs being allowed in ADV NU, but not ADV UU, is another case of NU breaking ban transitivity. However, that time, it was made to change the metagame rather than preserve it. This decision is also older than the DPP NU one, and does not seem to reflect the "current" mindset. It seems that the general consensus when the tier lock came into being was "Do not touch oldgen lower tiers and preserve them, even if it breaks some of our general principles like ban transitivity." So ADV UU being updated to be in line with ADV NU, so ADV NU does not break ban transitivity anymore, seems weird to me from that standpoint - especially since it was ADV NU that made the change to begin with.

If anything ends up being done, I think the tier lock itself should be questioned, as there would clearly be sentiments to "correct" old lower tier metagames, but as it stands, I personally don't want to see a change being made.
 
I've never played ADV UU, or any of the other old gen lower tiers, but I think that doesn't matter here as the situation is purely about common sense and not metagame specific. From all I've gathered from this thread, the reasoning for the NFE rule is to "to prevent UU from becoming OU lite", and that just doesn't make sense. It's simply an arbitrary rule to prevent the meta taking a shape that you don't like, and the basis of that is not competitive reasoning at all. So, it would fall to reason that this rule shouldn't exist in the first place, and if it does, it should be removed.

I know Hogg's post claims that old gen lower tiers are to be locked completely, barring "significant changes to a locked tier that necessitate change (for example, due to the discovery of new mechanics)", but if one of the rules of one of those metagames is based on no logical grounds, no competitive reasoning, and simply on a very subjective belief of what someone wanted ADV UU to not be, that rule should never have existed, and thus should be exception enough to make a change to this old gen lower tier.

The talk about transitivity of bans is silly IMO, if a tier below you chose to not follow a stupid rule that you imposed on self for no reason, then that's just good thinking to me. Rather, when ADV NU chose to ignore this rule, it should also have been argued for ADV UU and changed at the same time. This isn't at all like SM UU unbanning Pheromosa after OU banned it - OU has a good enough reasoning from a competitive POV to ban Pheromosa, so their following transitivity makes sense. But this case is very different, and the higher tier's arguments for the rule aren't based in anything that's worth counting.

That's just my take on this, I don't know the viability of Haunter or Diglett or Shelgon, but those are individual mons and a wide rule encompassing all NFEs should not be made for them.

edit: I just chimed in cos I saw the discussion, personally I wouldn't run after people to make the change if the players that actually play this meta are all convinced that this change isn't needed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top