The Concept of "Overwhelming"

[Bunkbed]

When trying to explain Pokemon to unsympathetic friends, its best to cut out the jargon and speak in terms that are familiar in every day speech. In attempting to do this, I’ve relied heavily on the term “overwhelm.” That is to say:

· One player beats another by overwhelming their opponent.

· A competitive team is one that minimizes the threats that can overwhelm it, and one that can consistently create conditions that allow their team members to become overwhelming.

· Certain effects are overwhelming in a way that trivializes preparation.

Or, with respect to ubers:

· A Pokemon that proves to be an overwhelming force by itself is not a fair competitor.


So a successful meta-game seeks to remove things that are intrinsically overwhelming, because fairness promotes regularity, regularity allows the formation of strategy, and the accumulation of strategy makes a player skilled. In what I’ll call the “Smogon Metagame” the most popular ideas about promoting fair and competitive game play include banning Pokemon and banning moves. Something I see less often, however, is people taking issue with items.

The two items that immediately come to mind are Life Orb and Leftovers. In keeping consistent with the idea of “overwhelming the opponent,” a successful offensive team is one that is overwhelmingly offensive, in that their offense defeats their opponent’s defenses. Likewise, a successful stall team does the opposite. It would seem that people are more comfortable with being overwhelmed by certain items than they would be by certain Pokemon or moves. As it stands, I’d argue that the majority of games are decided before the match begins. The comparative strength between both teams often leaves little room for skill. This is especially evident when looking at a stall team, whose players seek to counter as many threats on paper before entering the match.

I see an inconsistency between the lack of the Item Clause and the enforcement of the Species Clause. Both are in effect when playing in the DPPt Battle Tower and in the official video game tournaments. Both are intended to promote diversity in team building, and both help prevent a player from stacking their deck against their opponent. Further, both reduce a team’s ability to overwhelm by pre-game conditions, and help keep the focus on playing the match itself.

Consider the following:

· Would the reduction of Life Orb users reduce the importance of Stealth Rock? Lots of Life Orb users rely on Stealth Rock for either OHKOs or 2HKOs. Stealth Rock checks many Pokemon weak to Rock-type, but Life Orb variants of Gyarados, Salamence, Dragonite, and others are among those Pokemon’s most powerful sets. Could Pokemon weak to Stealth-Rock survive as well with other items, or is the predictability of choice items enough of a liability? Would suicide leads be as viable?

· Would the loss of Leftovers to stall teams make residual damage more offensive? How would a stall team compete with both stealth rock and sand/hail, given the general weakness of stall’s attacking power and the usefulness of resistances? Would the lack of Leftovers recovery allow for more or less 2HKOs/3HKOs, keeping in mind there would also be a change in offensive power and possibly residual damage?

· In a previous post, Tangerine highlights that balanced teams might become more viable under the Item Clause. Is it even possible for balanced teams to overwhelm opposing teams enough to win? Is it possible for a team to switch between offensive and defensive pressure without becoming too reactionary?

There are a lot more implications to the idea of overwhelming, but for now I’ll put this up for debate.

 

[MrIndigo]

I would say that in the literal sense of overwhelm (i.e. to create a situation where an opponent cannot prevent an unfavourable outcome regardless of the resources they have available to put against it), Stall teams don't overwhelm with their phenomenal defenses or healing; instead these things just make them impossible (or difficult) to overwhelm. If a stall team does any overwhelming, it is overwhelming through residual damage (i.e. providing so much residual damage that your opponent simply cannot defend against it for ever).

In regards to the item clause; I think the difference is that without some form of Species Clause, the game would frequently come down to potluck about what counters/sweepers you chose. There are so many viable threats in OU that no team could hope to counter the possibility of two of any of them (many teams have trouble just countering one of everything). Consequently, you'd have to just pick what sweeper you expected noone to counter, and pick the counters for the sweepers you expected everyone to use.

Item Clause, however, is not quite the same, partially because items don't directly interact with one another across teams. You don't need to 'counter' a Choice Band, for instance. Your opponent's choice of items essentially cannot create a situation where you have lost before you started because they have two items of the same kind that you can't 'counter'.

I think it may well be worth testing to see what happens to the metagame with Item Clause enforced, but ultimately I think it would be imposing something that isn't necessary to the balance of the game, and it would probably be unpopular (and if noone wants the rule, then it shouldn't be there because the fundamental motivation of all pokemon battling games is entertainment/fun).

 

[Bilaterus]

With regards to Item Clause, I think that it would be difficult to create a team of 6 Pokemon all holding different items which maximise their effectiveness. This highlights the difference between the Battle Tower and Wi-Fi/Shoddy: you use 6 Pokemon instead of 3.

Item Clause limits creativity and could lead to roles being more defined. One Choice Scarf per team, for example, would mean that freedom in constructing the team is lost. It also gives extra information about the team; once your scarfer is revealed, your opponent will know that no other Pokemon holds a Scarf, reducing the element of surprise. Therefore, Item Clause actually limits creativity and diversity when comparing teams as a whole, as the reduction of surprise limits alternative sets and the item restriction could lead to a structure of a scarfer, a LO user, etc. Team structures such as Heavy Offense will be completely eliminated, or at least severely crippled, by the restriction of items.

The difference with Species Clause is that, while both Clauses seek to encourage diversity, there are many more viable Pokemon than there are viable items. Without Species Clause, versatile Pokemon would rise dramatically in usage, centralising the metagame around the prominent threats and counters. Not to mention how annoying it would be to play against two identical-looking Salamences and forgetting which is which.

On the other hand, Item Clause could lead to a greater variety of items, such as more damage reducing berries, expert belts and type boosting items, which would actually increase the element of surprise. Certainly, the introduction of Item Clause will lead the Metagame in a whole new direction, with prediction, surprise and team building becoming important in different ways. While a motivation for many is having fun, for others, "fun" is winning, no matter what, meaning that a compromise between winning and playing for fun could emerge.

With regards to Stealth Rock, it will still be effective as it does still have the use of punishing repeated switchins. Gyarados will still find it difficult to switch in to a Scizor's U-Turn repeatedly, and the bulky waters will still find it easier to KO a mence that has switched in once with rocks rather than twice without. While it is true that Life Orb being restricted would cut such Pokemon's offensive properties, the restriction of Leftovers and defensive items would actually make it easier for such Pokemon to sweep lategame. Without Leftovers, Walls get whittled down much faster and easier, as no other item can be as beneficial to a wall. In contrast, there are many items which boost damage, so Offense still does damage, which builds up on the defensive Pokemon. So, by saving your LO sweeper until the end, it can wipe out the remaining HP of such walls much easier. This would have a negative impact on the Metagame, as Stall would be crippled, and Offense would benefit more from the weakening of stall than it would lose from the loss of Life Orb.

To conclude what has become a rather long post, I think that Item Clause would result in more standardisation of teams, with Offense dominating once more. Although, my lack of experience means this is mainly theory, so this could be one meaningless text wall. Ah well, at least my sig is true.

 

[Sheshi]

I see an inconsistency between the lack of the Item Clause and the enforcement of the Species Clause. Both are in effect when playing in the DPPt Battle Tower and in the official video game tournaments. Both are intended to promote diversity in team building, and both help prevent a player from stacking their deck against their opponent. Further, both reduce a team’s ability to overwhelm by pre-game conditions, and help keep the focus on playing the match itself.

There is one major difference between Wifi/Shoddy and the Battle Tower. Wifi/Shoddy allows 6 Pokemon, which allows for a greater range of Pokemon with different roles. The Battle Tower, with the 3/4 (doubles) is different. If you have 3 Pokemon, your opponent could have a team that counters your 3. This would be different with 6 Pokemon. Your opponent could have 3 Pokemon that counter 3 of yours, but you still have 3 more Pokemon to move around and hopefully KO their counters.

Item Clause reduces teams efficiency all around, I believe that Balanced teams also suffer slightly as generally balance teams have about 2 walls or so. However, stall teams take the greatest hit with Item Clause. Stall would be preferable as it helps gather information about your opponent while you battle because it takes longer, hence Leftovers being the best item for stall. With offense, its a lot more difficult as you don't know much and the battle would take a shorter amount of time.

Consider the following:

· Would the reduction of Life Orb users reduce the importance of Stealth Rock? Lots of Life Orb users rely on Stealth Rock for either OHKOs or 2HKOs. Stealth Rock checks many Pokemon weak to Rock-type, but Life Orb variants of Gyarados, Salamence, Dragonite, and others are among those Pokemon’s most powerful sets. Could Pokemon weak to Stealth-Rock survive as well with other items, or is the predictability of choice items enough of a liability? Would suicide leads be as viable?

· Would the loss of Leftovers to stall teams make residual damage more offensive? How would a stall team compete with both stealth rock and sand/hail, given the general weakness of stall’s attacking power and the usefulness of resistances? Would the lack of Leftovers recovery allow for more or less 2HKOs/3HKOs, keeping in mind there would also be a change in offensive power and possibly residual damage?

· In a previous post, Tangerine highlights that balanced teams might become more viable under the Item Clause. Is it even possible for balanced teams to overwhelm opposing teams enough to win? Is it possible for a team to switch between offensive and defensive pressure without becoming too reactionary?

Stealth Rock, even without LO, is still a great supporting move. Even if you have 1 LO sweeper, it still will open holes in your opponent's team. On Stall teams, Sandstorm/Hail residual damage is still used defensively but needless to say, the ability to survive for the extended period of time is reduced. The lack of leftovers recovery leads to more 2HKO/3HKOs however immunity to weather effects would suddenly be more evident without leftovers.

Balanced teams still take a hit from Item Clause. I often use balanced teams myself and I find that it is certainly possible for a balanced team to 'overwhelm' other teams (both offence and stall). As your your last question, I am not too sure.

 

[cantab]

Personally, I don't think weakening stall teams is a bad thing, given in OU at least they are currently the strongest.

I think imposing item clause would hurt quite a few team styles though. Stall has been mentioned - at most you get three auto-healing items (leftovers, black sludge, toxic orb breloom). Weather stall is even worse hit since you rely on Leftovers to counter sand/hail damage.

But HO is also hurt, since as far as I know they tend to be Life Orb heavy.

I think item clause would thus end up strengthening balanced teams, that by definition can effectively use more items, and weakening specialised teams in both offense and stall directions. That, IMHO, is not a good thing. It would promote more variability in items - type boosting items would probably see an increase, as might berries - but at the cost of variety of teams.

 

[IcyMan28]

Item Clause is on an entirely different level than Species clause, IMO, and I don't think that the present item situation is overwhelming at all.

Imagine for a second that species clause is not present. Your opponent has 2 Salamence - on DD and one Mixed. You have no idea which one he is switching in, what he is going to use, and if moves overlap, that could lead to further confusion. Quite literally, you cannot defend yourself until you kill one Salamence, because you don't know what you are dealing with.

The situation is different with items - although there can be certain levels of ambiguity, such as bluffing a Scarf with an Expert Belt, you can generally decide which item the pokemon is using. Additionally, you don't need to counter the item directly, merely the pokemon who is using it. And, like pokemon, items have their drawbacks - LO has recoil, choice items lock you in, etc. And of course, using one item means you deemed it more worthy than another viable item.

 

[lati0s]

enforcing item clause would only serve to limit options in team building with few benefits, species clause is likely necessary because it would be so easy to 'overwhelm' an opponent with multiple of the same pokemon. It is not, however, just assumed to be right, if you check the threads in policy review you will see that species clause is soon to be tested.

 

[Tangerine]

The Item Clause statement was a facetious remark I made since everyone complained about Trick during the time I made the statement, about how they made balanced teams not playable. The idea was that they need to learn how to adapt to changes in the game, unless they want something "worse", like Item Clause.

About the concept you've described... I'm not sure what "Overwhelming" is supposed to mean. To me, it just means you "beat" your opponent. To an extent, you're just rewording the idea behind "broken" - overpowered relative to the metagame (hence, "breaks" the metagame), meaning that

• The player who uses the "broken" strategy gains an immediate advantage over someone who does not
• The person who has to play against the broken strategy must play in such a way where he is dominated against other strategies , or he is significantly limited in available strategies

As it stands, I’d argue that the majority of games are decided before the match begins.

Of course. This is because there are simply too many threats to effectively deal with on DPPt, rather than a threat being "overwhelming". You can make an argument that this is a "bad thing" only if you can show that this is due to something being "overwhelming". However, it'd be difficult to show that item clause is the case behind it.

Overwhelming is a "useless" statement, since there is always a set of "best strategies". In a game like Pokemon, however, no pure strategy (ie, one team, or what you may call "overwhelming" strategy) will win all of the time, since players can easily adjust to you using that pure strategy. It's a difficult concept to find in Pokemon, because the efficient strategy is to mix your strategy. There are many variables that make it difficult to nail down what is "broken" or not

The reason why items aren't really mentioned is that we have a tendency to blame the Pokemon rather than the item. Garchomp is banned, not Yache Berry, for example, despite the fact that Garchomp may be "perfectly fine" without the Yache Berry. Leftovers, or even Life Orb, don't have an argument in it themselves that these are the items that make everything else broken. The cause of people not blaming items is that no one has ever tried to make a full argument on why we should blame the item and not the Pokemon that is arguably breaking the game.

I don't think it's inconsistent, but I don't think you make a compelling case for Item Clause. It assumes that do want more "variety" (despite the fact that having more variety may lead to a worsening of the "games decided before they are even begun" issue you brought up) in the game, for example. You would have to make a more compelling case for Item Clause, in my opinion, before the idea is taken seriously.

 

[Quaily]

It's certianly not an insurmountable task to create a team with the item clause in effect. Lets look at some more used items:

focus sash
life orb
leftovers
choice scarf
choice band
choice specs
expert belt
various berries(occa/lum tend to be fairly common)
or even a plate on scizor/silk scarf on ambipom

I think it would be interesting for a brief period, but eventually it would get stale as limitations to team building can be a turn off.

 

[TSPhoenix]

Would the reduction of Life Orb users reduce the importance of Stealth Rock? Lots of Life Orb users rely on Stealth Rock for either OHKOs or 2HKOs. Stealth Rock checks many Pokemon weak to Rock-type, but Life Orb variants of Gyarados, Salamence, Dragonite, and others are among those Pokemon’s most powerful sets. Could Pokemon weak to Stealth-Rock survive as well with other items, or is the predictability of choice items enough of a liability? Would suicide leads be as viable?

Not likely, if Salamence lost Life Orb then SR would be even more important as you can't rely on walling him as his LO damage kills him (in tandem with say Sandstorm).

Would the loss of Leftovers to stall teams make residual damage more offensive? How would a stall team compete with both stealth rock and sand/hail, given the general weakness of stall’s attacking power and the usefulness of resistances? Would the lack of Leftovers recovery allow for more or less 2HKOs/3HKOs, keeping in mind there would also be a change in offensive power and possibly residual damage?

Interesting, the loss of Leftovers would in a way be a big loss for stall as there really aren't that many viable defensive items. But as mentioned the no Lefties would apply for the opponent too meaning stalling opponents out might become easier. But IMO it'd be crippling to stall and a boon to offensive teams. 6% is a lot more that it seems.

As it stands, I’d argue that the majority of games are decided before the match begins. The comparative strength between both teams often leaves little room for skill. This is especially evident when looking at a stall team, whose players seek to counter as many threats on paper before entering the match.

I really have to disagree, in any case where teams are unknown to the opponent its easy for the better player to suffer some casualties. I've played many opponents where the rematch has had a far different result than the initial faceoff.

 

[Bunkbed]

enforcing item clause would only serve to limit options in team building

Item Clause actually limits creativity and diversity

Surely, the creativity (and challenge) would come from creating a successful team under the item clause, not simply saying “I want Life Orbs!” and handing them out to your team.

Item Clause reduces teams efficiency all around

If this were true, then it would imply that all teams are balanced enough already. My point is that teams constructed around the idea of maximizing one or two items are inherently at an advantage to teams that are more diverse. The match is decided beforehand, because teams that are not as good as they can be on paper have no way of making up for it through skill. Discovering and/or exploiting a “broken” strategy is not skill, it is simply taking advantage of the balance in a game with an imperfect rule set.

But if all teams right now really are competing fairly then evenly reducing the power level of the meta-game might allow certain suspect Pokemon to compete in OU. For example, take a standard offensive team. Now, put it under the Item Clause. Next, add Garchomp. What happened to its power level, considering that many common switches into Garchomp do not use defensive items? Or even the strange case of Latios, whose offensive stats are only slightly different from Latias. Would the extra 10 Attack and 20 Special Attack be accounted for through an overall reduction to the team’s attacking power? Here is the opposite example: would a stall team have as much of a hard time with Garchomp if it were not previously softened up by powerful mixed sweepers who do not have to lock themselves into one move?

I'm not sure what "Overwhelming" is supposed to mean. ... Overwhelming is a "useless" statement

If you don’t understand my usage of the term by reading the OP, then redefining it yourself in order to understand my argument will naturally lead to such a conclusion. Additionally, simplifying facets of this game is somewhat useless to someone (you) who already understands them as simple. The term would not mean “broken.” The idea merely accounts for what happens in seemingly different situations.

Further, the idea of “overpowered relative to the metagame” would imply something that is more powerful than the metagame, i.e. an Uber. Otherwise, the strategy is simply “the most powerful within a balanced metagame” and is fair to use. If using Lucario to Swords Dance on the switch and sweep is “overpowered relative to the metagame” then what one would be saying is that (1) the strategy is above the metagame, (2) the strategy cannot be dealt with within the metagame, and (3) the strategy would not be fair to use in the metagame.

However, it'd be difficult to show that item clause is the case behind it.

Wouldn’t a simple test of the Item Clause clear this up easily?

You would have to make a more compelling case for Item Clause, in my opinion, before the idea is taken seriously.

So essentially when people say “there are simply too many threats to effectively deal with on DPPt,” what they really mean is that they are being overwhelmed in general. Maybe reducing the overall power level of teams would allow for more skillful matches and more careful consideration during the team building process? As it stands, the most successful teams are the ones that remove as much human interpretation as possible.

 

[Bilaterus]

Just because one team has one or more Pokemon that the other cannot counter doesn't mean that the match is decided from the start. There is a large amount of skill involved in deciding when and how to use a Pokemon, and besides, it is impossible to counter directly every threat in the game. This has not stopped people from beating them without one. The fact is that Pokemon involves battle between teams, not individuals. Pokemon such as Gengar have no true "counters". They are beaten, or not beaten as the case may be, through strategy. Or they could be brushed aside because the user was too late to prevent the opposing team set up. No single Pokemon in the game can be slapped onto any team and guarantee any player a kill. Thus, there must be skill involved in the use of any Pokemon.

Pokemon has become such a vast, varied game that is now difficult to make any one set that can destroy everything. The most threatening Pokemon are the ones which can do a few things very well, rather than one thing exceptionally well or many things quite well. This has resulted in very few sets completely ovewhelming teams.

An overwhelming game can occur when one skilled battler goes up against an unskilled battler who, despite having counters, still loses. While this seems to be unfair, remember that competitive battling is supposed to be about finding out who is the most skilled, so you would expect the skilled battler to keep his Infernape hidden until its counters were removed, so that he could overwhelm the opponent with it.

On to Item Clause, from the discussions, it seems evident that offense will dominate. That would restrict the number of effective teams, forcing battlers to resort to Offense if they want to win consistently. The reason is due to the fact that Item Clause does not weaken each playstyle equally. As mentioned before, stall and heavy offense would become crippled and could disappear, certain Pokemon would rarely be used, and staple Pokemon and items would become even more standard and popular. That is how Item Clause can limit creativity and diversity; by taking away the wealth of options, less things become viable, so some things will become extremely efficient in comparision, and teams will become even more standardised.

As for Item Clause lowering the average power level, remember that it does allow one LO user, on CB user, etc. By using such Pokemon skilfully, their power level in comparision to others increases. What if everyone decided to give Garchomp the LO? And save it until late game, when the walls are crippled by Silk Scarvers, Choice Banders and Specs users because their Leftovers is banned?

 

[Tangerine]

I'm not "redefining" it. I'm really just pointing out that your definition of Overwhelming is really just a variant of the definition of Broken. There's no need for a new term. You will need to clarify instead of accusing other people of misunderstanding you.

Further, the idea of “overpowered relative to the metagame” would imply something that is more powerful than the metagame, i.e. an Uber. Otherwise, the strategy is simply “the most powerful within a balanced metagame” and is fair to use. If using Lucario to Swords Dance on the switch and sweep is “overpowered relative to the metagame” then what one would be saying is that (1) the strategy is above the metagame, (2) the strategy cannot be dealt with within the metagame, and (3) the strategy would not be fair to use in the metagame.

I'm sure you missed my bullet points that came after it, or something. Here, let me quote the relevant part.

The person who has to play against the broken strategy must play in such a way where he is dominated against other strategies , or he is significantly limited in available strategies

What you say is "overwhelming" is a consequence of something being Broken in the game. Hell, it's the same thing as the concept of centralization. Your definition of overwhelming, as it is, doesn't mean anything to me. You will have to clarify a lot better. We can restate all of your statement using "Broken" and it would have identical connotation, at least how I see it, so if you wish to continue using that phrase, I recommend you clarify or else no one will actually understand you.

Wouldn’t a simple test of the Item Clause clear this up easily?

Nope. You say "easily" because you already have that opinion of the item. The actual result will be a lot more complicated.

So essentially when people say “there are simply too many threats to effectively deal with on DPPt,” what they really mean is that they are being overwhelmed in general. Maybe reducing the overall power level of teams would allow for more skillful matches and more careful consideration during the team building process? As it stands, the most successful teams are the ones that remove as much human interpretation as possible.

Your last statement is utterly wrong. There are a ton of "successful" teams that no new user would be able to use effectively. It isn't as robotic as you make it seem to be, unless you're playing absolute scrubs.

Secondly, reducing the general power level won't do much. The issue is DPPt in general has a whole lot of variety built right into the game. If you wish, it's "overwhelming" in general (although I still don't think that's a useful statement since it's literally just another way of saying centralization/broken/what have you not).

If you are using "overwhelming" as "too much variety available so players can't deal with it", then your entire statement about item clause has to go - item clause actually does a good job keeping things standard. I haven't seen you make a good argument on why those items are "overwhelming" so i recommend you do so instead of just restating yourself over and over again in your responses.

 

[Bunkbed]

Hell, it's the same thing as the concept of centralization.

Well, if you would like to go in that direction, you could say that the absence of an Item Clause centralizes the game around exploiting certain items, because its too strong of a strategy to deviate from. Leftovers helps stall overcome its lack of traditional offense, and Life Orb helps offensive teams get by with weaker defenses. This prevents the weaknesses in each team from being exploited, thus making it harder for them to lose.

Nope... The actual result will be a lot more complicated.

Here would have been a good place to touch on the complications, but your point is taken.

If you are using "overwhelming" as "too much variety available so players can't deal with it"...

I would be using "overwhelming" as "the attacking and defending power in DPPt is so high that variety becomes a liability." One of the most successful strategies in team building is redundancy. Having more than one Pokemon that do the same thing makes it easier to accomplish one's goals. As it stands now, teams do not win by unleashing as many "unpredictable" or varied strategies that fit into six Pokemon. Winning teams pick one thing and try to ignore as much else as possible. It is because of this that I consider most matches over before they start. Its also why I claim there is little human interpretation, because the team can either handle the threat or it cannot -- the team is going to play in the way it was created regardless.

As far as my usage of the term "overwhelming," it was simply meant to account for the similarities between things that are considered entirely different. It seems that rather than people engaging me in order to evolve the idea, people choose to highlight perceived weaknesses. If no one wants to do that, I am happy with discontinuing its use.

 

[Sheshi]

Well, if you would like to go in that direction, you could say that the absence of an Item Clause centralizes the game around exploiting certain items, because its too strong of a strategy to deviate from. Leftovers helps stall overcome its lack of traditional offense, and Life Orb helps offensive teams get by with weaker defenses. This prevents the weaknesses in each team from being exploited, thus making it harder for them to lose.

So you're saying that Item Clause is centralizing?

I would be using "overwhelming" as "the attacking and defending power in DPPt is so high that variety becomes a liability." One of the most successful strategies in team building is redundancy. Having more than one Pokemon that do the same thing makes it easier to accomplish one's goals. As it stands now, teams do not win by unleashing as many "unpredictable" or varied strategies that fit into six Pokemon. Winning teams pick one thing and try to ignore as much else as possible. It is because of this that I consider most matches over before they start. Its also why I claim there is little human interpretation, because the team can either handle the threat or it cannot -- the team is going to play in the way it was created regardless.

By this, I understand that you mean two different teams can fight and whoever has the better matchups wins. This wouldn't always be the case. The more skilled player with the team with worse match -ups should be able to win because he knows what strengths and weaknesses his team has.

As far as my usage of the term "overwhelming," it was simply meant to account for the similarities between things that are considered entirely different. It seems that rather than people engaging me in order to evolve the idea, people choose to highlight perceived weaknesses. If no one wants to do that, I am happy with discontinuing its use.

You need to say what your definition of overwhelming is I think. Then we might get somewhere.

 

[cantab]

By this, I understand that you mean two different teams can fight and whoever has the better matchups wins. This wouldn't always be the case. The more skilled player with the team with worse match -ups should be able to win because he knows what strengths and weaknesses his team has.

Not to mention the luck factor and the knowledge factor. A more skilled player, with a team that wins on paper, can still lose due to bad luck. A more skilled player, with a theoretically better team, could also lose because the other player had or did something unexpected.

 

[FlareBlitz]

You seem to be attaching quite a few value judgments to value-neutral qualities of the metagame. Even assuming that lack of an item clause is responsible for metagame centralization and teams that are either offensive or stallish (and not balanced), there's still no argument for implementing an item clause, because those facts are not necessarily bad things. Centralization in and of itself is not a bannable offense; if it were, the top 10 OU Pokemon would have to be banished to Ubers...and then we'd have to banish the new top 10 a few months later. Therefore, the lack of an item clause is only cause for concern if it is significantly detracting from the integrity of an enjoyable metagame (which is the only reason to ban anything).

 

[cantab]

"Centralisation" is a tough thing to define though. Even the most used OU, Scizor, is on only 30% of teams - for every team with a Scizor, there are two without one. Even in Ubers, Kyogre's off more teams than it's on, as is Groudon. (Though I expect there the majority of teams have one or the other, since you're unlikely to run both.)

I think centralisation should mean over 50% usage. This can be of a single Pokemon, like Garchomp in some of the suspect testing. It could be a common 'either/or' pairing - Ubers could be called centralised around Groudon and Kyogre - though that's essentially less severe. Or it could be of a team style. I believe the very top of the OU ladder is stall-centralised, but in general I haven't noticed any centralisation at the lower levels I play at.

For items, I think the most relevant measure is how commonly an item is carried by a Pokemon (any Pokemon). (This is as opposed to how commonly an item is seen at least once on a team, or how often a specific Pokemon carries a certain item) If more than half of all Pokemon on all teams carried a certain item, I would call the metagame centralised around that item. I'm reasonably confident this is not the case.

 

[mtr]

Ubers is completely centralized around the Advance trio. Most teams need a check for both DDRay AND SDRay if they can't stop them from setting up (and even then, we have Wobbuffet to contend with). Kyogre is what forces teams to use a Palkia/Latias or just keep up the momentum against the foe, and permanent Rain is nothing to laugh at. But compared to those two, Groudon isn't really that centralizing, simply because most teams can handle him fairly well with Water or Dragon-type special attacks.

Therefore, I don't think centralization can be defined as a simply measure of usage. It is far more complex than that, and it has a lot to do with how Pokemon relate to each other, check each other, and enable various strategies. For example, Rayquaza enables the Deoxys-A/Wobbuffet/Rayquaza combo to blast walls and lure in scarfers to kill them so Ray can sweep. Kyogre enables things like Palkia to become monsters, not to mention lenfing usability to stuff like Kabutops and Kingdra.

 

[Scoopapa]

Item clause would probably make Toxic Spikes less useful, as fitting a poison-type on your team would carry the advantage of using both Black Sludge and leftovers. You might see a lot of Tentacruel, Roserade, or maybe even some UU's like Nidoqueen, Drapion, and Venasuar.

 

[Sheshi]

Actually, since Poison Pokemon in general aren't that commonly used in OU, the only two Pokemon to worry about are Tentacruel and Roserade and the latter is oft seen as a lead. Tentacruel isn't used very often, as of the november statistics.

 

[Anachronism]

I support having no item clause for the simple reason that having it makes the extremes too impossible to use. Seeing balance team after balance team would get boring...i like the fact that offense can use multiple banders, scarfers, LOrbers, etc., and stall kind of sucks with 1x black sludge + 1 leftovers. In the end it would be very unfair to HO and Stall, because losing redundant life orbs and leftovers kills them. Arguably type resist berries and lum berries are good on stuff in HO, but having the option to use 5 LOs is nice. Basically the only teams that really benefit are balanced/standard offense, because everything that uses 2 or more walls will have not having lefties on one, and anyone who refuses to use choicers will also suffer, while balanced offense or standard offense can still use choice items, LO, Leftovers, Type resist berries, Light Clay, Lum berry, etc. Pretty much any themed team would be garbage too, considering you need more than one Damp Rock on Rain Dance, for example.

What the rule brings is a bit contradictory. You would expect allowing multiples of different items would promote similarity, but it fact it makes a lot of teams more viable, which enriches the metagame.

 

[A.P.]

Actually, since Poison Pokemon in general aren't that commonly used in OU, the only two Pokemon to worry about are Tentacruel and Roserade and the latter is oft seen as a lead. Tentacruel isn't used very often, as of the november statistics.

Nitpick: GENGAR.

Anyways, I agree with Anachronism. But this is exactly the same thing as one of the current Policy Review Topics for Stage 4 - they'll be testing Species, Item, and OHKO clauses, which should make for a fairly interesting metagame once 3-3 is done with.

 

[MrIndigo]

Nitpick: GENGAR.

Anyways, I agree with Anachronism. But this is exactly the same thing as one of the current Policy Review Topics for Stage 4 - they'll be testing Species, Item, and OHKO clauses, which should make for a fairly interesting metagame once 3-3 is done with.

Gengar levitates, thus it is irrelvant for considering in regards to Toxic Spikes.