Sitrus Berry is a flat 25% heal regardless of your HP, it's been this way since Gen 4 [And therefor Sitrus is superior on any pokemon unlikely to survive 4 turns.]
-
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
Sitrus Berry is a flat 25% heal regardless of your HP, it's been this way since Gen 4 [And therefor Sitrus is superior on any pokemon unlikely to survive 4 turns.]
I might be a fence sitting, but it is this lazy argument which actually draws me more into item clause. "I can't build a team unless every pokemon has leftovers". I mean come-on! Laziness. You just have to create a viable stall that does not rely on that. There are still methods.
Yes, you could use these items on a stall team, but nine times out of ten they would be inferior to leftovers. My SDef Heatran could use a passho berry rather than leftovers, but it would be significantly less effective if it did. These items are niche for a reason and preventing their use is not going to make people use SDef Heatran (for example, don't get wound up over which particular mon I mention) without leftovers, it is going to make people stop using SDef Heatran altogether. There is no concievable way in which this promotes diversity, it just encourages the use of already-popular Pokemon more if they are able to use nonstandard items.
I also find it laughable that the pro-item-clause side wants to bash Stealth Rock while simultaneously trying to resitrict access to what is undoubtedly the single best way of mitigating entry hazard damage. A lot of defensive flying types are really kind of reliant on their leftovers to reduce the impact of consantly switching into Stealth Rock - by forcing them to give leftovers up, you are making the entry hazards you so hate much more powerful.
There just aren't really any valid arguments in favour of this. It doesn't promote diversity, not really, and it doesn't make it easy for Wi-Fi players to adapt to Smogon since we still have an entirely different banlist, event Pokemon and moves and a tiering system they will have to get used to. I mean we get people moaning that legendaries are OP because they got swept by their friends Entei but that doesn't mean we ban legendary Pokemon to make it easier for them to 'adapt' to our metagame.
This is a total tangent, but in response to the idea that tiers limit diversity I have two points. Firstly, no good player discounts lower-tiered Pokemon because they are lower-tiered. They might discount them because they suck, but not because of the tier they are in. Secondly, even even we were to do something retarded like abolishing tiers, things would go from "I'm not using Sharpedo because it's UU so it must be bad" to "I'm not using Sharpedo because it's only used on 1% of teams so it must be bad". You don't change anything.
EDIT:
This is a really presumtuous argument that completely misses the point of the post it is responding to in a way that seems to me very deliberate. GatoDelFuego is not saying he could not make a viable stall team without leftovers, he is arguing that nobody can. Since the pro-item-clause side is arguing that stall is still viable with item clause active, he is asking them to prove it. And none of them will, because denying stall access to the items it wishes to use in a metagame where defensive strategies are already in quite a precarious position is going to make stall flat-out inviable in high-level play, and that sucks. This isn't a case of "I can't play this strategy without using leftovers as a crutch", it's a case of "this strategy is not realistically viable without access to leftovers for passive recovery and to mitigate hazard damage".
Last edited:
I'll say this much. Items limitations will narrow pokemon selections. Your probably better off asking for this to be one of those Special Battle Formats on Smogon, as most user here won't like the change as the mechanic itself isn't broken. Oh and don't take my lefties off my Stall please. :D
In a nutshell: we have enough offensive items for item clause to work on paper but not defensive ones.
But there's thing thing
If we have a Black Sludge for the 17 other types
There STILL wouldn't be a reason to run item clause. There never has been, and there never will be. Why people even bothered with this thread after a page is baffling. There's no reason to even argue against it with (good) reasons like it screws stall and lefties because no points made from pro item clause can even be considered legitimate to begin with. There is no competitive reason to add the clause, all the reasons are basically just "hey it'd be cool to have to think about your items more" rephrased in some way to sound like it benefits competitive Pokemon, which is an absolute joke.
But there's thing thing
If we have a Black Sludge for the 17 other types
There STILL wouldn't be a reason to run item clause. There never has been, and there never will be. Why people even bothered with this thread after a page is baffling. There's no reason to even argue against it with (good) reasons like it screws stall and lefties because no points made from pro item clause can even be considered legitimate to begin with. There is no competitive reason to add the clause, all the reasons are basically just "hey it'd be cool to have to think about your items more" rephrased in some way to sound like it benefits competitive Pokemon, which is an absolute joke.
I've got an idea. How about people that have no clue how stall teams work and are built stop acting like they know how "little" they will be hurt by restriction of their most important item?
In case you hadn't realized, there is no "choice armor". There's no item that increases your defenses by 1.3 and gives you 10% health back if you don't use an attacking move. A good majority of items in this game boost offensive teams. There's plenty of options for items to use NOW! There's leftovers, life orb, three choice items, mega stones, assault vest, balloon, custap berry, resist berries for setup sweepers, even power herb xerneas, gems, focus sash...while defense has what, leftovers, black sludge, rocky helmet, eviolite (and that's a stretch). There is plent of item diversity at the moment, so stop trying to encourage more item diversity while discouraging team diversity.
In case you hadn't realized, there is no "choice armor". There's no item that increases your defenses by 1.3 and gives you 10% health back if you don't use an attacking move. A good majority of items in this game boost offensive teams. There's plenty of options for items to use NOW! There's leftovers, life orb, three choice items, mega stones, assault vest, balloon, custap berry, resist berries for setup sweepers, even power herb xerneas, gems, focus sash...while defense has what, leftovers, black sludge, rocky helmet, eviolite (and that's a stretch). There is plent of item diversity at the moment, so stop trying to encourage more item diversity while discouraging team diversity.
Well you could always run your SDef Heatran with Assault Vest, making SDef even higher, which personally I would prefer on him rather than healing which could be used on another (even though it restricts moves), but I understand when you say it is easier if everyone runs it, but it does not mean that is the only option, shell exists too, I do think it does mean you have to think more when planning your team AND items, rather than just team members. I can agree that more diversity is not always better.
Is that not why we normally add a spinner to the team?
The meta-game is different, but I still think the item clause helps bring in line Smogon/Nintendo/Wi-Fi battling even if the pokemon available are different, but that being good or bad is all doing to personal opinion.
Anyone who says a pokemon is useless because not everyone uses it just has no ability to think for themselves.
Also I am not trying to argue against you, but your argument is still, "it would make me have to think harder to make the team I want". I could happily make a stall team without leftoevers on everything, the same as I could make a weather team with the new 5 turn limit, it just would not be as OP as it was before, it does not mean it cannot be done.
Last edited:
As interesting as I think item clause makes things, it just doesn't work in singles. I'm really happy that they added Assault Vest, another viable defensive option. However, if you want a bulky/stall team, you still basically NEED leftovers. In fact, I think item clause might exist in the main games to deter stall, which is a problem for in-house tournaments.
Item clause is far better in doubles, where there's naturally more item variety. But in singles, it forces a more offensive metagame by limiting the power of walls.
Item clause is far better in doubles, where there's naturally more item variety. But in singles, it forces a more offensive metagame by limiting the power of walls.
Thanks a lot for the baseless insult. Coming from a person who wants everyone else to be restrained just so their own gimmick sets can have a chance.
See how it feels when you're attacking a strawman?
Okay, here's a task for all of you who think Item Clause is going to make the metagame better. Prepare a list of five pokemon that you couldn't use before but you can use now and make sure to have detailed explanation on all of this. Please do that and then you can say it will work.
Raddaya, your arguments are much better when you stick to actual Pokemon.
The hell are you guys talking about? We didn't get a ton of new items this gen?
http://www.serebii.net/xy/newitems.shtml
The only actually usable-in-battle ones on that list are:
1. Pokemon specific Mega-Stones
2. Assault Vest
3. Weakness Policy
4. Safety Goggles
5. Assorted niche berries
That's...nothing at all really. A ton of these can be properly utilized ONLY by certain Pokemon. If this argument was coming up in Gen V with all of those attacking Gems, Evolite, Air Balloon, Rocky Helmet, etc. I might understand this, but the actual amount of items that aren't mega stones are...sparse.
http://www.serebii.net/xy/newitems.shtml
The only actually usable-in-battle ones on that list are:
1. Pokemon specific Mega-Stones
2. Assault Vest
3. Weakness Policy
4. Safety Goggles
5. Assorted niche berries
That's...nothing at all really. A ton of these can be properly utilized ONLY by certain Pokemon. If this argument was coming up in Gen V with all of those attacking Gems, Evolite, Air Balloon, Rocky Helmet, etc. I might understand this, but the actual amount of items that aren't mega stones are...sparse.
Wifi battles force you to use item clause so why not smogon? It's just like team preview.
However much you try to force people to not use 6 pokemon off smogon, they will just find 6 pokemon who don't share the same item and do it. You cannot force someone to be creative if that person does not want to be creative. Item Clause will not make the metagame more creative. And I actually haven't cared about you before, but I would hope your arguments are much better when you stick to addressing the arguments instead of mindlessly insulting the person who makes them.
For the record, I'm mostly a doubles player and I would oppose item clause there too. Sure, in doubles item clause is harmless, but it's also pointless, and therefore we must resort to Smogon's ideal of "simplicity of ruleset". In any case, if you find yourself using several Rock Gems or multiple Yache Berries, you are, respectively, using redundant attacking coverage or stacking defensive weaknesses, neither of which is good teambuilding.
Honestly I had no idea you went around saying, "This pokemon is useless because not everyone is using it", if you noticed I was replying to someone completely different. It is a shame you have that mentality, it is little more than racism when you think about it, like that employeer who won't hire Mexicans because they are "lazy" or those of African decent because they are "thieves". Also I can tell you seem to be getting frustrated, or that is how it appears, so I should point out that this part of the post is meant in jest.
Infact every team I have ever made I test on Wi-Fi random matchups first, so I have to play with those rulesets, so if it does not work there I do not then try to make it work here. That is like the entry exam before I smogon the team, red card donphan has always been one of my favourites.
I doth think the lady protest too much, I have not said I think we should put in this ban, I just said you are being lazy with your reasons.
Last edited:
You were the first one to become hostile in this thread. You should try backing off like the Heatran in your avatar.
So just because you weren't talking exactly to me on a public forum I can't call you out for ad hominem? Sorry, I don't play by those rules. Also, I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or how you found racism in this.
You have mentioned in your previous posts that you think item clause should have put in, so. Honestly, is that all your argument amounts to? "I can make a good team with Item Clause on?" So...what's stopping you from doing it whether it's on or not?Kyrone616 said:
I asked a question in this thread. I would argue that changing the fabric of the metagame with no regards as to why but simply because "But people will be able to use creative and new sets!" is being hostile from the get-go.
Would you argue that teams that do not follow the Item Clause are generally superior to teams that do? I think that's the whole reason why Item Clause would be a good optional ruleset.
Don't be fooled, you were doing great until Page 2 when you started making things personal.
Read much?
Firstly I started with saying that teams are not viable because I cannot use all of one items is lazy. Then I added item clause does not exactly hinder me building a team, no point was I playing devil's advocate, I was just adding to the discussions there are still options. There are plenty of offensive and defensive options you can play without repeating items, you being lazy and taking offence to that is on you, I know full well if I wanted that I could just play in official tournaments.
Second of all if you had read the comment I was replying to someone said it will change from this pokemon sucks because it is not in OU tier to this pokemon sucks because 99% of people are not using it. To which it is true those who just follow the crowd cannot think for themselves. Why play pokemon at all if you are just going to copy everyone else's team? I stopped playing Yugioh because it got too easy, I built one deck to beat the top meta format, well everyone ran that one meta deck so I swept my way through tournaments, boring.
Still I have not said we should do this, I am just adding to the discussion, unlike you who are just presenting shallow arguments rather than discussing.
Implementing an item clause sounds really weird to me because I thought that we were trying to create a metagame that resembles the REAL game of Pokemon as closely as possible. You could argue that it's Smogon so we only do competitive battling, but the point isn't necessarily to make things more diverse or more fun, although that would be nice.
Things like Sleep Clause are necessary not just because the game would be fully of Pokemon throwing pixie dust left and right, but because it's been proven before (in the Sleep suspect test up in UBERS, where Darkrai probably sat on top of the tier during this time) that being able to put multiple Pokemon to sleep is an absolute monstrous ability. This is where the term "broken" applies. We have things like Sleep Clause, Species Clause, and various bans like Soul Dew and Moody because these are either broken or uncompetitive and the game would be absolutely chaotic without such things in place. There's absolutely nothing uncompetitive about having multiple copies of the same item on a team.
An item clause may sound nice, but encouraging creativity is not the point here. It's not "broken," it's not "uncompetitive," and we've lived with it ever since held items were a thing. We're playing a game made by forces outside our control, and we're doing our best to keep it as close to the original game as possible. If it's such a huge deal, take this desire to the "Other Metagame" forum — there's a place for things like this there.
Things like Sleep Clause are necessary not just because the game would be fully of Pokemon throwing pixie dust left and right, but because it's been proven before (in the Sleep suspect test up in UBERS, where Darkrai probably sat on top of the tier during this time) that being able to put multiple Pokemon to sleep is an absolute monstrous ability. This is where the term "broken" applies. We have things like Sleep Clause, Species Clause, and various bans like Soul Dew and Moody because these are either broken or uncompetitive and the game would be absolutely chaotic without such things in place. There's absolutely nothing uncompetitive about having multiple copies of the same item on a team.
An item clause may sound nice, but encouraging creativity is not the point here. It's not "broken," it's not "uncompetitive," and we've lived with it ever since held items were a thing. We're playing a game made by forces outside our control, and we're doing our best to keep it as close to the original game as possible. If it's such a huge deal, take this desire to the "Other Metagame" forum — there's a place for things like this there.
In that case, are you arguing FOR Item Clause? Because the actual cartridge enforces Item Clause on everything except Free Battle.
Except Smogon simulates the Pokemon games, not the (official) Pokemon metagame. Hence Smogon accepts various other stuff not allowable on Wifi, like using all six Pokemon and allowing event legendaries.
How do Wifi battles handle sleep by the way?
EDIT: My bad, in my defense I don't actually play on Wifi. I'm getting confused between it and GBU.
Last edited:
No Sleep Clause on Wifi that I'm aware of, but nobody on Wifi is big enough of a prick to put more than one Mon to sleep anyways.
- Status