Species Clause

Syberia

[custom user title]
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
But alas, it is not up to me. Nintendo has its Species Clause set up the way it is and we must abide by it--if we are truly trying to simulate link battles, anyway.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The only time the game restricts the species of pokemon you can use is in the Battle Tower. If you're playing against another person, you can use 6 Arceus as far as the game cares.
 
Now that I look at it again: ... Yeah, bad wording. I was trying to say that we have to go by Nintendo's Species Clause whenever Species Clause is enforced.

Still, there's no reason we can't develop a clause to allow multiple forms of the same Pokemon to be used on the same team, if there is enough interest for it. I see no reason to allow such a clause for Shoddy ladder battles, though.
 

Syberia

[custom user title]
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Why would we have to go by Nintendo's species clause any more than we have to go by Nintendo's tier list (we don't).
 
I'm not saying that we should go by Nintendo's Species Clause. If it were up to me, we wouldn't! The point is that if we use "Species Clause" as Nintendo has made it, then we cannot allow two Pokemon of the same species on the same team, regardless of form.

However, this does mean that different forms of a Pokemon are treated as the same under Species Clause. Considering that we treat the different forms as different Pokemon for competitive purposes, Species Clause seems to clash with our beliefs in this respect.

I believe we should at the very least create another clause that would allow the unique forms to be used on the same team--except for the alternate Rotom forms; I don't think they're different enough for two of them to be used on one team. Why should we always disallow them? As far as I'm concerned, different stats / different typing = different Pokemon.

Should we use such a clause in ladder battles, though? I'm not actually sure. I don't see enough of a reason why we should, but I don't see a reason why we shouldn't, either. I don't think we would NEED this clause, but Species Clause seems lacking with respect to different forms. I need to think on it more. I'm definitely open to others' opinions on that.
 

Syberia

[custom user title]
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I thought the whole point of this topic was to determine just what constitutes a "species," not to just go along with Nintendo's definition.
 
I'll let Hip take this one. He said it a lot better than I ever could:
This is ridiculous. They are the same species its a species clause. You cant use them on a team together.

It's not even a gameplay question, it is a fundamental rule.
A "species" is easily defined in the world of Pokemon; there are 486 of them and Nintendo has given them all unique Pokedex Entry Nos. and names. Are we really challenging that definition? I'm not.

Here's the real question: A Pokemon's alternate forms are all the same species, but are they really the same Pokemon? Should they be classified as different Pokemon for all intents and purposes, including battles?

As I have stated before, I, for one, think we should have a different clause for allowing different forms with unique combinations of typing and base stats on the same team. They may be the same species, but I don't believe that they should be the same Pokemon.
 

obi

formerly david stone
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think this helps to emphasize that perhaps Species Clause shouldn't be part of the standard competitive set of rules. That would be even simpler.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
Ultimately, this is not a question of ballance or even of gameplay, the arguments seem to only be about consitency. I dont think we are being inconsistant though. Deoxys is OU, but all forms other than speed are considered too powerful and are banned. If they werent banned you wouldnt be able to use two different forms on a team together. The tier lists list them seperately because it is convenient for the purpose of tiers to do so.

I mean what this discussion comes down to is the possibility of someone using Shaymin and Shaymin-Sky on a team together. This is such an obscure scenario that having some kind of specific exception for it is not worth the effort.

As there is no inconsistency, then there is no emphasis relating to Species Clause. Major overhauls of the fundamental rules we play are not entirely simple in my opinion..

Have a nice day.
 
Syberia said:
Most of the Rotom forms I've been seeing are of the defensive variety and do not even have their special moves. From that standpoint, considering their typing and stats are identical, allowing multiples is exactly like allowing two of the same pokemon, because for all practical purposes, they are the same pokemon.
I find this interesting. Two Lawnmower Rotoms would in that case be pretty much the same as a Lawnmower and a Fridge Rotom. I doubt there's a case to be made for making it obligatory to run one of their special moves.

Syberia said:
Are we really going to allow a particular UU team to start using both a blue and a pink Gastrodon?
In this case, there's really no difference between them, except sprite. It's on par with different forms of Unown or Spinda.

CotH said:
But alas, it is not up to me. Nintendo has its Species Clause set up the way it is and we must abide by it--if we are truly trying to simulate link battles, anyway.
The way I see it, Nintendo has their own Species Clause, just like they have their own Uber Clause. We shouldn't be restricted by how Nintendo sets the rules.

Hip said:
This is ridiculous. They are the same species its a species clause. You cant use them on a team together.

It's not even a gameplay question, it is a fundamental rule.
Well, imo fundamental rules should have an actual purpose. I believe one of the purposes of Species Clause is what I outlined earlier:

Mekkah said:
One of the main qualms with removing Species Clause was that the difference between 6 Lucarios with the same nickname could not be told, and that you'd have to tell by residual damage, memory, sets, luck, etc.
Plus its inherent antipromotion of variety in opposing Pokemon. But being of a different species does not make you a different opponent. Plusle and Minun have different species, but they play exactly the same. Lati twins have very very subtle differences. Skymin and Shaymin are vastly different. Giratina and his origin form have much more of a difference than those examples. Deoxys-D differs more of its other forms than some Pokemon species within an entire (stereo)type.

Caelum said:
I agree simplicity is important, but it should be secondary to consistency. I'm going to be the first to admit that the idea of disallowing certain forms used together is more complicated then I'd like, but I still believe there is a place for consistency in the system.
I'd rather have both if possible, so we should think this through.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
What is the purpose of allowing people to use 6 pokemon rather than 8? It's a fundamental rule that we follow more or less blindly.

We need to start from somewhere. If we want a species clause, and the game has a definition of a species clause, then we follow the game because we can. I havent seen a reason for changing our interpretation presented here. Why would we bother? So people can use two Shaymins? Who cares - it's a waste of effort, complicating things without any reason.

Have a nice day.
 
We use six rather than eight because that is how link battles work. It is in no way comparable to the Species Clause that is not present in link battles.

If we want a species clause, and the game has a definition of a species clause, then we follow the game because we can.
Why would we follow the game on this? The game doesn't tell us we cannot use Garchomp, or Lati twins, or actually anything in link battles. The Species Clause definition in the game makes about as much sense to follow as other rules in the Battle Tower such as Item Clause or bringing only three or four Pokemon.

We have our own ruleset and we can do with it what we want, what we think is beneficial, etc.

So people can use two Shaymins? Who cares - it's a waste of effort, complicating things without any reason.
Or two Giratina. Or two Deoxys forms. The latter of which I can actually see as relevant.

Rarity of how often you'd want to do this is of little relevance, imo.
 

Cathy

Banned deucer.
I haven't read the thread (sorry), but I just want to say this: I was planning on changing Species Clause in Shoddy Battle not to allow multiple Rotom/Shaymin/Deoxys/Giratina on one team in the near future (it never mattered before, which is the only reason it wasn't done, with the Rotoms it does matter). I just didn't get around to doing that yet.

I agree that the only definition of "species clause" is decided by the community (or at least the server admin). There's no reason each server can't set its own rules on this... it's just a server-side change, not something in the client.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
We follow the game by default. Why wouldnt we want to follow the game on this?

So uber teams can use 2 deoxyses? But only defense and attack and maybe speed, but not normal Deoxys? It's an excessively convoluted and arbitrary solution to a problem that doesnt really exist.

As soon as you allow different Deoxyses, then you have to explain why you dont allow different typed Arceuses, or different Rotom forms. This is when things become inconsistant.

Why would we follow the game on this? The game doesn't tell us we cannot use Garchomp, or Lati twins, or actually anything in link battles. The Species Clause definition in the game makes about as much sense to follow as other rules in the Battle Tower such as Item Clause or bringing only three or four Pokemon.
Just to clarify this. The reason is that Garchomp and Lati twins are broken. Species Clause isnt.

We do follow battle tower item clause, it is an option on shoddy, we just choose not to use it on the ladder. The reason we dont use the item clause is because we dont want an item clause. But we do want a species clause.

Limiting your number of pokemon should be an option on Shoddy. I have a feeling it isnt, but if so that is because the program is incomplete.

Have a nice day.
 

X-Act

np: Biffy Clyro - Shock Shock
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I'd have to agree with Hipmonlee on this and state categorically my stance on this:

You're not allowed to use multiple forms of any Pokemon in the same team.

That means that using both Deoxys-A and Deoxys-D in a team would not be allowed.

Also, the fact that Deoxys-S is allowed in OU and the other forms aren't does not in any way contradict the bolded statement above at all.
 

Syberia

[custom user title]
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I'd have to agree with Hipmonlee on this and state categorically my stance on this:

You're not allowed to use multiple forms of any Pokemon in the same team.

That means that using both Deoxys-A and Deoxys-D in a team would not be allowed.

Also, the fact that Deoxys-S is allowed in OU and the other forms aren't does not in any way contradict the bolded statement above at all.
I think that's what you meant to say. And I would, for the most part, agree.
 
So uber teams can use 2 deoxyses? But only defense and attack and maybe speed, but not normal Deoxys? It's an excessively convoluted and arbitrary solution to a problem that doesnt really exist.
If the problem did not exist, would this thread?

Just to clarify this. The reason is that Garchomp and Lati twins are broken. Species Clause isnt.

We do follow battle tower item clause, it is an option on shoddy, we just choose not to use it on the ladder. The reason we dont use the item clause is because we dont want an item clause. But we do want a species clause.
The fact that we have a different uber tier than Nintendo shows that we use the rules the way we want it. They use _a_ Species Clause, but not the only way of doing Species Clause.
 
Yeah I'm thinking one form per team should probably be the rule, if we are even going to bother keeping Species clause it is rather arbitrary if you look at it competitively.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
The reason we dont use Nintendos Uber tier is that it sucks.

The reason this thread exists was because Shoddy was programmed wrong (in a way that isnt meaning to degrade the work of the shoddy programmers).

Have a nice day.
 

skarm

I HAVE HOTEL ROOMS
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
The reason we dont use Nintendos Uber tier is that it sucks.
Very true. However, the "competitive" Nintendo rules do enforce Species clause.

I am not sure why there is argument to this. While I think it would be foolish to use more than one Rotom form on a team, people do it. They shouldn't be allowed to regardless of how inane it might be.

We have always had species clause. We will always continue to have species clause, but before Deoxys, which was banned in ADV so it didn't matter, this was never an issue as it is in D/P.

Personally I believe anyone using full Rotom form teams, which I've seen on the ladder, should be warned, and if need be banned for a short period of time. I don't, however, see them getting too far doing that.
 

X-Act

np: Biffy Clyro - Shock Shock
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
So what is stopping us from enforcing Species Clause on all ladders? Colin said that this can be enforced server side-wise by the server admin.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
So what is stopping us from enforcing Species Clause on all ladders? Colin said that this can be enforced server side-wise by the server admin.
I would need to implement it on the server. All clauses are checked on the server, so there is no impact to the clients. I'll see if I can fit this in with the many other things on the to-do list.
 

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

Top