I hate item clause, it makes certain pokes worthless in some ways. Like let's say infernape and garchomp on the same team, why can't you use two life orbs? Or better, two times leftovers, walls need it, that's why I hate item clause.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
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.
What do you guys think about the item clause?
- Thread starter DEL337ED
- Start date
- Status
"Need" doesn't exist here. You're forced to make a strategic decision since you can't have everything.
Well, with item clause that is, so I never use item clause. And you're right. But it works better with lefties, wich is always good.
Not needing the item but using it is a handicap, so I don't see the point in forcing people not to handicap themselves. If they're stupid enough to drop Lefties on something that doesn't need it or benefit from it, thats they're problem. We shouldn't create clauses that help poor trainers.
Also, people use the Hax items namely because they're better substitutes for Lefties in certain cases. Some things like to take hits but don't have methods of recovery, but not being the main tank means you have can't really run Lefties on them since you don't want to hurt your main tank. So you slap a Bright Powder on and hope for evasion hax.
Item Clause doesn't enhance strategy either, especially if you're trying to replace some of your multiple Lefties. You obviously built those pokes using Lefties to benefit from them, so you either need to use a less effective item, or replace them. Picking from less effective items isn't enhancing anything, and replacing a Poke on your team isn't a very smooth process if you built your team correctly.
All it does is enforce a slight centralization. It isn't as bad as removing Evasion Clause or dropping Ubers into OU, but it still happens. You still end up being forced to build your team around an "Item Skeleton", minimizing how much creativity you can really have. "Oh, I'd really like such and such to have this Choice Item; but my team already has that. I haven't used a Berry yet though, guess I'm stuck using one of the better Berry pokes.".
I really don't see the point in Item Clause.
I couldn't have put it better myself. While I am here, I'd like to state that I am 100% in favour of Item Clause, and anyone who has read my teams will be aware that I always construct them with Item Clause in mind as a general rule of thumb. I will only change my mind if, as Surgo rightfully brought to our attention, people against it can produce conclusive evidence as to its overcentralization of the metagame in practice. It is an official rule created by the makers themselves, and should therefore be taken as the default in every generation until testing proves against it, as has been done for the previous two.
I'm already set on joining. Item Clause isn't nearly a big enough issue to prevent me from not enjoying a Pokemon tournament. And if I sound like I want Item Claused burned to the ground for over centralizing things, thats not the case. It isn't that bad, but it still exists.
It basically does the same thing that the tiering system would, you can't use such and such because it won't make use of any of the items you have left or there is a better option. But Item Clause really doesn't have a positive effect like making certain pokemon usable in certain environments like the tiering system does.
I agree that ultimately we must wait to see the effects of item clause, but I think it's safe to say that there will be an increase in stuff like Skarmory holding shed shell because the user already has leftovers on their wall. I think that is an example of item clause hindering creativity instead of helping it.
I will generally start to play without Item Clause, but if I have to it won't bother me. However, I want to point out that I think the two pokemon that are affected by it the most are Magenzone / Dusknoir. Magnezone main use is a SkarmBliss killer. With most Skarmorys running Shed Shell under IC, Magnezone loses it's purpose. Dusknoir is also left without a good hold item, since the only item that can actually work in it's favor is Leftovers, and since most people tend to run Blissey w / Leftovers, then Dusknoir is left with most likely a useless item or no item at all. So yes, I will state that Item Clause does make some certain less worth than what they would be without it
Magnezone isn't rendered useless by Skarmory holding Shed Shell. Unlike Magneton, Magnezone actually has the stats to be more than a Skarmory-killing gimmick, it's a decent pokemon finally. Besides, with the addition of Draco Meteor and simply more good Steel-types, Magnezone can trap more things (and is Steel itself, for that matter).
Yeah, Dusknoir really wants Leftovers. Blissey can do without them easily enough, but it's a tough decision if you're also running something like Cresselia or Bronzong. Too bad, deal with it. Sitrus Berry is decent at 25%, Lum Berry is never a bad fallback option, or you could try using a Colbur Berry (or resist berry relevant to the pokemon in question). Try a Wide/Zoom Lens for Dusknoir to help with the inaccuracy on Will-o-wisp.
lol skarmory
A couple of thoughts on item clause, with which I'm pretty sure everyone will agree.
1) Item clause restricts creativity. Some people argue that it promotes creativity. Just for the record, limiting options never promotes creativity, it does just the opposite. It forces people to play the game the way someone else wants it to be played. Although this isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, there shouldn't be any arbitrary rules which restrict the options of other players; some more justification is needed than just that. I know very little about D/P, but this is something I oppose on principle. What if I have a team based on Trap Room (I think that's the name... the skill that makes slow Pokémon go first), and Iron Ball. I might need Iron Ball on 2 or more of my Pokémon, but thanks to Item Clause, this strategy becomes impractical (not this one, which is probably already impractical, it's just an example), and the strategy is never allowed to see fruition. Although competitive gaming scenes should strive to create a balanced game, they should never arbitrarily restrict creativity. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but when you argue that item clause promotes creativity, well... yeah.
2) Centralized metagames can be good for the development of a deeper metagame. I could go extremely in depth into this, but for now, I'll just quote the old maxim "Necessity is the mother of invention." People seem to think that Pokémon's really black and white, and they make these snap decisions like "Whoa that's way to good, ban that shit and ban it now." If everyone had that attitude, Blissey and Skarmory may have been banned in ADV, and we'd never have witnessed the awesome impact of Boah, and all the metagame developments based thereupon.
3) How "annoying" you find something is not at all a substantial argument. I don't care how annoying it is, or how many people find it to be annoying, this argument is a total crock of shit. Sandstream is annoying. Choice Band is annoying. Fucking deal.
Uhhhh..... more to come, maybe. I have to go out right now, so yeah.
1) Item clause restricts creativity. Some people argue that it promotes creativity. Just for the record, limiting options never promotes creativity, it does just the opposite. It forces people to play the game the way someone else wants it to be played. Although this isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, there shouldn't be any arbitrary rules which restrict the options of other players; some more justification is needed than just that. I know very little about D/P, but this is something I oppose on principle. What if I have a team based on Trap Room (I think that's the name... the skill that makes slow Pokémon go first), and Iron Ball. I might need Iron Ball on 2 or more of my Pokémon, but thanks to Item Clause, this strategy becomes impractical (not this one, which is probably already impractical, it's just an example), and the strategy is never allowed to see fruition. Although competitive gaming scenes should strive to create a balanced game, they should never arbitrarily restrict creativity. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but when you argue that item clause promotes creativity, well... yeah.
2) Centralized metagames can be good for the development of a deeper metagame. I could go extremely in depth into this, but for now, I'll just quote the old maxim "Necessity is the mother of invention." People seem to think that Pokémon's really black and white, and they make these snap decisions like "Whoa that's way to good, ban that shit and ban it now." If everyone had that attitude, Blissey and Skarmory may have been banned in ADV, and we'd never have witnessed the awesome impact of Boah, and all the metagame developments based thereupon.
3) How "annoying" you find something is not at all a substantial argument. I don't care how annoying it is, or how many people find it to be annoying, this argument is a total crock of shit. Sandstream is annoying. Choice Band is annoying. Fucking deal.
Uhhhh..... more to come, maybe. I have to go out right now, so yeah.
That's not what I was trying to say. At least without item clause, the person has a choice of what item they want to use on their skarmory(or pokemon in a similar situation). Item clause limits this choice. Sure, with skarmory that choice was basically cut from 2 to 1, but that may not be the case with other pokemon.
I never said that not having Leftovers on skarmory made you more or less creative. You missed the point as well.
Basics words nicely in #1 the point I was attempting to make.
I'm trying to figure out how a lack of Sleep Clause would promote creativity more than stifle it.
Except Basics tends to be completely wrong in practice too(although in theory he should be right. Aditionally, I'm pretty sure it was completely obvious I was being sarcastic!)
Theoretically having the maximum possible options when giving each Pokemon an item will give the most team variety, since there is the amount of item combinations isn't limited. In practice however, in not having Item Clause there is consistently less item variety than without it. I think a large part of this is because while we've gotten a variety of good options primarily for offensive Pokemon (Life Orb, Choice Specs/Scarf/Band) from the last two generations, there's still pretty much just Leftovers for Defensive Pokemon. Since most teams have more than one 'Leftovers Pokemon,' you end up with more item variety on the team than you would without Item Clause, since players are formed to use something other than the primary option.
I'm pretty indifferent as to whether or not we play by Item Clause but I would wager at least half of the arguments in this topic are arguing about a point that should really be being used by the other side of the argument due to the fact they probably haven't actually played against a real person with Item Clause active before.
Synre, you convinced me. I agree with your post. I was mainly theorizing myself, having only played a couple of battles with item clause. I can see now how team variety would actually increase due to people having to use different items(not necessarily better however) on pokemon that are known to be 'Leftovers pokemon'.
Your sarcasm wasn't obvious to me! lol
Your sarcasm wasn't obvious to me! lol
For one, people would have to actually THINK about how they would counter it.
- Status