Item Clause

Discussion in 'Implemented' started by Frenotx, May 17, 2010.

  1. Frenotx

    Frenotx New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd really appreciate it if an item clause checkbox was added to this program. 100% leftovers teams are both annoying, and incredibly uncreative.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2010
  2. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    I think if it were hard coded into the program, it would be so you couldn't utilise an item that has already been utilised on another pokemon in battle. Otherwise in a script, you can just do a command that blocks challenges to/ from those using more than one of the same item.

    It's certainly a good suggestion to appeal to a wide audience who use item clause in battles.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  3. Astruvis

    Astruvis Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like that idea, I think having less clauses and more freedom is good. Although I might be in favor of a hax clause...
     
  4. Kioku

    Kioku Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
  5. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    It will be good if I want to do a tier system in VGC. Anyway I already prepared it, and it would replace Level Balance. No objections?
     
  6. Darkon

    Darkon Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boy i think that item clause is not necessary.

    Leftovers are a good item, very much people use, but Life Orb too, Choice Scarf too...

    I think it's not necessary.
     
  7. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    If I want to do a system with tiers, and people want to be able to have VGC tier, item clause is necessary.
     
  8. Darkon

    Darkon Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    In this case ok :0
     
  9. Tickle

    Tickle New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    I agree with item clause being added, especially as it is necessary for VGC.

    Just one question: Would item clause become a standard clause for all battles? I hope not, for obvious reasons.
     
  11. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Of course not. And the item clause being standard would become relevant to Beta Server Discussion only, as I hope to make something so the servers can really customize their tiers.
     
  12. Kioku

    Kioku Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Level Balance is used much, aside from Challenge Cup.
     
  13. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't think there's a need for an "item clause" clause.

    Just make like a VGC clause instead of item clause... (item clause, level 50 pokemons, 4 pokemons doubles etc)
     
  14. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    No. There are lots of players who use item clause in other metagames because they like nintendo's rules. Why should there be a VGC Clause if there's no Little Cup Clause? Doing a VGC clause seems too explicit. I'd rather have singular clauses/requisites constituting it. The Level 50 and the fact there are 4 Pokemon can just be scripted for the time being.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2010
  15. Conrad500

    Conrad500 New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about bannable items? Either a clause that bans the hax items or letting each person choose the items they ban
     
  16. Frenotx

    Frenotx New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    As much as I would love to see certain items banned, I don't think that is the right direction to go in. I'd rather just stick with the nintendo/battle tower rule set of no duplicate items.
     
  17. Knots the Notorious

    Knots the Notorious aka Gary Oak from HC

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    6
    PO Trainer Name:
    Gary Oak
    Item Clause is an official clause that is present in all of the latest pokemon games. It is a must have if you guys are going to accurately simulate all types of conditions possible in the official games.

    I do NOT think it should be enforced on the ladder, but not having it is a silly omission and it should definitely be fixed.
     
  18. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    Item Clause seems like it would be used for little other than VGC, and if you're getting rid of level balence that messes with CC a bit. However, if Level Balance was implemented as a script then removing it from the challenge window would be fine imo.
     
  19. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Well, Level Balance and CC are two different things , so it doesn't matter :)

    Randomly generated pokémons would still have the "level balance level".
     
  20. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    would that not make it impossible to have Lv. 100 CC battles? or is Lv balance included in the CC clause already?

    Edit: also, I nominate kioku's post itt for best post on the forum.
     
  21. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    Yes, there is no level 100 CC. It has Level Balance because it is believed CC should still maintain some sort of fairness.
     
  22. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    CC without level balance still had level balance. There never was level 100 CC.
     
  23. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    fair enough, then level balance has almost no use.
     
  24. R4M3N

    R4M3N Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    This. I actually LOL'd. :)


    So what exactly did you mean? They ban evasion is some circles. That's sort of like hax.... I gues....
     
  25. DragonAce2

    DragonAce2 Guest

    refer to my final post
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2010
  26. Akusu

    Akusu Guest

    So you're in favour of narrowing the variety of the game? I could have sworn this was an argument for increasing it... Either way, this is smelling of QQ.

    I am mostly in agreement that leftovers is too good as an all-purpose item for stall, but I am not in agreement about Life Orb. Anyone who puts Life Orb on all 6 of his pokemon isn't planning on getting too far unless they're really good at predictions and switches. In any case, the solution is not Item Clause, but competing items that make it a less obvious trade off which is not the case in a stall situation:

    Offensive items are actually balanced pretty well:
    - Do I need to outspeed my opponent consistently? Choice Scarf.
    - Do I want to hit extremely hard? Choice Band/Specs.
    - Do I want to hit hard from both sides and remain flexible? Life Orb.
    - Do I want to make sure I *can* hit? Lum Berry/Focus Sash.
    - Do I want to supplement my set-up for a sweep? Stat-up berry.
    - Do I want to defeat my counters? Resist berry.
    - Do I have an ability/move that allows me to abuse a gimmick item? Flame Orb/ Toxic Orb

    On the other hand, look at Stall:
    - Do I want to survive a long time with something re-usable? Leftovers/Black Sludge.
    - Do I care about status effects? Not really.
    - Do I care about super effective attacks? Nope.
    - Do I need an extra boost after setting up? Nope.
    - Can I even hit hard? (Usually) Nope.
    - Could an item ever hope to help me defeat my counters? Nope. (Shed Shell excluded)

    This is the problem, it's too big of a loss to not use leftovers 9/10. It's also a problem we can't fix since it's up to Nintendo/Game Freak to figure it out.

    I'll also note that my current most successful team (UU) has 1 scarf, 1 leftovers, 1 Specs, 1 Flame Orb and 2 Life Orbs, and damn if I'm not at a disadvantage.
     
  27. alan

    alan Guest

    What about Stall teams?? Or HO Teams? Those teams can't exist under an item clause, so its kinda unfair.
     
  28. Lutra

    Lutra All Gen Battler/Scripter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    188
    PO Trainer Name:
    Lutra
    Item Clause will never be enforced for all tiers on the Beta Server. That would be tyrannical. Clauses belong to tiers, not the other way around.
     
  29. DragonAce2

    DragonAce2 Guest

    Valid point, I see your point of view on this issue. I'm sensing that in the next generation they're will be a greater selection of items to choose from, making this issue redundant.

    Another valid point, and you are right an item clause would disadvantage stall teams, however those teams disadvantage Offensive teams while playing without an item clause so it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it?
     
  30. Frenotx

    Frenotx New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a team can't operate without breaking the item clause, then it is an invalid team (imho). The same could be said about a team that relies on putting several opponents to sleep, or one that requires several instances of the same pokemon to be present. Figure out a way to build a team that follows the rules, or go home. XD
     
  31. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Well, people come from different universes, and people used to come to battle sims wouldn't like the item clause enforced at all while people on DS wouldn't see a problem, and on DS it's hard getting more than one of the same item.

    The majority of the people here are really used to sims, and we can't imagine battling standard battles with that item clause. Later when a tier system is implemented, each server would be able to easily have item clause or not for their tiers, for Beta Server the answer would be No.
     
  32. Akusu

    Akusu Guest

    Even sims-wise, it's fairly simple (if a bit time-consuming) to acquire 6 leftovers. I have something like 4-5 from pick up pokemon alone, and if I transferred from HG to platinum I'd have a full set. If I'm not mistaken you can even buy them from the battle tower, but for sure you can get all the offensive items that way.

    This argument is only valid when you're talking about the RNG in the game (Hidden Power does not translate well to the DS). Playing a sim is supposed to be kind of like having everything available to you anyways.... what could you do if you could catch or make anything in any way that's possible without putting effort into it? These end up being the kinds of teams you see at championships because those people put in the time and effort to make those pokemon a reality.
     
  33. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Yeah, Akusu, when I said it was hard to obtain more than one of the same item I never meant it was impossible, but getting items with points from the Battle Frontier consumes time...

    Anyway, we agree on this.
     
  34. Erebos

    Erebos Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    this Item clause thing just doesn't make sense outside VGC. One person just started to rage in here about being unable to beat stall teams or teams with two revenge killers (the same person who proposed 30 seconds time for a turn) and we take him at face value and discuss a universal Item clause. That one person should just become a better player. Everyone gets frustrated sometimes, some people are bad whiners (like myself when I face hax, I admit - and I'm still adamant on the "NO HAX CLAUSE, that is just stupid ffs".) but in the end, all that's left to propose is an "If you face DragonAce2, you lose by default" clause to keep him happy, since nothing else will.

    just quoting from another topic, to make my point clearer to people who have not seen it. I don't mean to insult or be aggressive. I'm just trying to say, take facts into account.
     
  35. DragonAce2

    DragonAce2 Guest

    No no it is quite okay gold it seems you have put me in the position of checkmate. In fact I found your post quite amusing, and I am able to have a laugh about it. Since going through the posts here and reading everyone's views on this issue, as well as doing some item experiments of my own, I have since changed my view. Gold is right we shouldn't take people at face value, I am not an expert on battling and I have never suggested that I am, and to listen to me and me alone without taking into consideration the views of others would be ludacris.

    As for the Item clause discussion, I agree, there is no discussion, an enforced item clause would make the meta-game very one dimensional. I no longer fear teams with six choice scarfs, or six life orbs, as people who run these teams disadvantage themselves, more than their opponent could ever hope to. Summing up, I no longer support the idea of an enforced item clause, and I happily admit that I was wrong, the fact of the matter is that it would kill the game. As for my view on the move timer - my opinion is the same as it was when I posted it, and I reserve the right to be different. I thank you for your constructive criticism Gold, you are obviously a very educated individual.

    Oh and one more thing, you did not quote my whole post, I went on to say
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2010