I just dont agree that sleep is uncompetitive when it’s limited to one mon at a time. Its strong but not banworthy.
-
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!
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [Volcarona Banned]
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
Poor strawman, but yes you could do that if you want. We already have cosmetic changes like changing sprites and what not. It's fundamentally different from modifying game mechanics. Sleep clause isn't some minor UI tweak for QoL improvement. Sleep clause has no place in modern smogon.
Then vote as such when the survey comes out.
Also we have to look at the bigger picture. If sleep gets banned what would happen to moves like Rest and other similar moves? 
viability would drop immediately and there goes the tiers best physical wall. Not to mention other trickle down effects
viability would drop immediately and there goes the tiers best physical wall. Not to mention other trickle down effects
CobsonYaoi
formerly Holesum420
Finch already stated that Rest won’t be touched. Only sleep inflicting moves would be banned.Also we have to look at the bigger picture. If sleep gets banned what would happen to moves like Rest and other similar moves?
I think Rest will probably stay in the tier. It is wildly different from other sleep moves, as it inflicts it on the user, and in BW where sleep is banned, rest is allowed. If rest was banned, then I could see a problem with banning it as dondozo, while annoying at times, is a valuable part of the tier.Also we have to look at the bigger picture. If sleep gets banned what would happen to moves like Rest and other similar moves?
For sure I didnt know. Now i know its only sleep inducing moves.
How is this question relevant?
An option is a sleep rule like if 2 Pokémon get slept, you lose.
Would you be willing to change Sleep Clause on Showdown to work the same way? Because it currently doesn't.
If we’re revisiting old clauses can we revisit the same species clause? Such as not being able to use both 
and 
on the same team. I fell like its pretty outdated.
and on the same team. I fell like its pretty outdated.You can’t use both? WhyIf we’re revisiting old clauses can we revisit the same species clause? Such as not being able to use both
Because they have the same pokedex #, which is dumb because they’re entirely two different mons.
If the species clause is removed, you could simply use multiple Zapdos-G in your team, instead of having one Zapdos and one Zapdos-GIf we’re revisiting old clauses can we revisit the same species clause? Such as not being able to use both
No im saying it should be revised to where you cant have 2 mons with the exact same name, so that having zapdos and zapdos-g on the same team would be fine.
Species clause actually exists in-game unlike Sleep clause. That being said, I don't think simply existing in some in-game formats is really a solid reason to implement a clause in OU, but I do think Species Clause stands on its own right.If we’re revisiting old clauses can we revisit the same species clause? Such as not being able to use both
If we outright remove Species Clause, that allows the use of multiple Pokemon on the same team with no restrictions. I hope we can agree this would be a bad move and that there are all kinds of cheese strategies that would arise from this; imagine facing a team of like 4 Imposter Dittos and a couple sweepers/revengekillers to deal with stall and Substitute mons.
So an obvious compromise would be Species Clause is modified to allow for the use of alternate forms of the same Pokemon on a team, but no more than one Pokemon of a specific form. This, too, has problems. Should I be allowed to use a Gastrodon-East and a Gastrodon-West on the same team? They're essentially the same Pokemon but technically two separate forms. How about a team of 6 different coloured Minior?
So maybe we allow the use of alternate forms but only if they have different stats, typing, or abilities from the standard form. We've arrived at a clause that's way more arbitrary than the current one just to allow the use of multiple Rotom or Zapdos forms or whatever, which I would say is a big step in the wrong direction, and there are probably instances of that being unbalanced too. Should I be able to use two Ogerpon on the same team?
Some form of Species Clause is necessary, and I think disallowing Pokemon of the same species full stop is both the simplest and most effective option available to us, and actually has precedence in game.
i like this idea, i really do. in a perfect world we'd be able to do this. it can theoretically open up some new strategies—one might want more than one form of, say, ogerpon or slowking or even deoxys on their team—while seemingly not inviting anything actually broken because you're usually either weakness-stacking on some level or just running something that isn't that good.
however.
this is in fact not a perfect world, as evidenced by the fact that i don't own a submarine, and so there's a very large and obvious problem that we will inevitably run into: not every distinct form is mechanically different. for example, you'd be able to use zarude and zarude-dada on the same team because they're legally two different forms, even though they're exactly the same mon in every respect aside from one wearing a scarf. this might not seem a problem to some, but it's becoming increasingly common for game freak to give these alternate forms to mons. this gen alone, there are 2 dudunsparce forms, 2 maushold forms, and 4 squawkabilly forms, all of which are almost identical (the squawkabillies get different abilities but they're still close enough to mention), plus some other things i'm sure i forgot to mention. we'd have to open up a discussion on what forms of alcremie even count as "forms" and even if we chose the bare minimum you'd still be able to run a full team of alcremies. even if we decide to not do anything about alcremie, you can run a 6-pikachu team in whatever tier pikachu's in because they keep giving the rat bastard a billion new hats every gen. and these are just the problems we have right now. what happens if next gen comes around and they give identical forms to a good mon, or worse, a great mon? say something that's, like, iron-valiant-tier good drops next gen and there's 4 mechanically identical but cosmetically different forms of it. what do we do then? we can't go picking and choosing what forms "count" under species clause, it's all or nothing. it's better to just keep species clause the way it is; the potential dangers outweigh the potential benefits of reworking it
also the fact that it's an actual in-game rule you can implement
Allow 2 Pokémon if there is anything different between them in terms of base game mechanics? Doesn’t seem too arbitrary to me.
CobsonYaoi
formerly Holesum420
I agree with this but IIRC don't regular Link Battles have no species clause?
that still allows for stuff that's almost identical, like maushold and maushold-four, to be used. the only mechanical difference is that maushold-four weighs 0.5 kg more, which makes a difference literally never, but we'd have to allow it. you really want one maushold to wear down your checks and the other one to sweep? you want an army of funko pops coming in to slaughter the tier en masse (or rather, en mouse)? well, that's what we'll have unless we get more arbitrary, and we're already stacking arbitrary on top of arbitrary. as much as it pains me to say it, species clause has to stay how it is
also, the way our clause works is how the actual clause works in-game, but who even cares about that
I see, just wanted to promote discussion. I just wanna run zapdos and zapdos-g together. Fuck the 6 pikachu’s team lol
