I'd really appreciate it if an item clause checkbox was added to this program. 100% leftovers teams are both annoying, and incredibly uncreative.
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.
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...
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?
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.
If I want to do a system with tiers, and people want to be able to have VGC tier, item clause is necessary.
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.
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.
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)
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.
How about bannable items? Either a clause that bans the hax items or letting each person choose the items they ban
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.
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.
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.
Well, Level Balance and CC are two different things , so it doesn't matter :) Randomly generated pokémons would still have the "level balance level".
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.
Yes, there is no level 100 CC. It has Level Balance because it is believed CC should still maintain some sort of fairness.
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....
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.
What about Stall teams?? Or HO Teams? Those teams can't exist under an item clause, so its kinda unfair.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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