Balanced Hackmons Species Clause Vote

[Rumors]

I bet you if this clause was implemented someone would just take x pokemon and replace it with 2 other subs for it, itself and 3 goodstuffs mons

So.... they'd be building a normal team then? I really don't see how that argues against species clause.

And also, what exactly am I slowing down? And what are these huge threats that need serious banning? I mean, I have a couple things in mind that are higher priority than species clause, but those aren't the discussion. Species clause is. And "don't implement this because I don't feel it's as important as this other thing" really isn't an argument against an implementation.


Also, for those saying that species clause would be too limiting, why? I ask because there's a reason why I don't offer an explanation in my above lists of arguments against. So, why do you feel that implementing species clause would make BH a less interesting, less varied, and/or less competitive meta? ("It hurts my teams is not" a valid reason, just like "it helps my teams" would not be a valid reason to be in favor of it.)

 

[Halliday]

Give me a few days.

I beat you to it with my megars

 

[Adrian Marin]

I have not heard of a single consistent team with many of the same Pokemon. It just compromises defensive structure and that's never an option whether it's offense or stall. HO being affected shouldn't even be used as an argument as it's an inconsistent strategy that depends a lot on match up. BH is also going to get standardized (with the coming of BH C&C), this is the first step. Implementing a change that makes BH more similar to standard metagames will not only make people take it more seriously, it will also make BH easier to get into.

As for actual valid arguments, there aren't any. Implementing this change will really affect the metagame and actually make stall a stronger playstyle, I don't think people want that, but I encourage you to vote yes for the reasons above.

 

[CashKP]

And we should add an evasion clause while we are here

 

[EV]

Well let's remember this is Balanced Hackmons and since its implementation it has always tried to use bans to even out the metagame. Plus, this isn't really the thread to discuss if this vote even needs to happen in the first place because, as you can see, the vote is already in process. Instead, vote yes or no, include a reason why, and get out.

I know BH is the sacred cow in Other Metas that a lot of you don't like to mess with, but I'll say it again: Balanced. Hackmons. If you don't like restrictions, play Hackmons. :^)

 

[berry]

imo there should be a limit to one per evolutionary family because double imposter is still scary. blissey+chansey may not be a huge threat but it feels like one

I agree with jrm, but i think that you should do the same thing with species clause as you did with ability clause. (inb4 item clause :/ ) You should only be allowed to have two chanseys as example. However, I think you should count megas and separate formes such as mewtwo-mega-x and mewtwo-mega-y as separate pokemon. I don't vote in favor of Species clause though, just because of the double-chansey example, and you're only allowed to have a maximum of two imposters, or any pokemon.

 

[Monte Cristo]

So.... they'd be building a normal team then? I really don't see how that argues against species clause.

And also, what exactly am I slowing down? And what are these huge threats that need serious banning? I mean, I have a couple things in mind that are higher priority than species clause, but those aren't the discussion. Species clause is. And "don't implement this because I don't feel it's as important as this other thing" really isn't an argument against an implementation.


Also, for those saying that species clause would be too limiting, why? I ask because there's a reason why I don't offer an explanation in my above lists of arguments against. So, why do you feel that implementing species clause would make BH a less interesting, less varied, and/or less competitive meta? ("It hurts my teams is not" a valid reason, just like "it helps my teams" would not be a valid reason to be in favor of it.)

ye could at least tag me fren.

Anyways:

Lets say you have a 6 mm2x team, you implement species clause and this is what you get:

mm2x/blaze-mega/lucario-mega/keldeo/m-herra/imposter

how does that increase variety? all your doing is encouraging type spam instead of one mon spam, which in some cases is actually stronger because of the variety.

The general banning philosophy should be not to implement clauses we don't need. This is taking out variety for no reason.

I haven't seen one good argument for implementing it other than "let me make a team and show you" or "why not- the anti ban is pretty weak so lets do it". We shouldn't be aiming to restrict things that don't need restrictions.

"And also, what exactly am I slowing down? "
by this term, what I meant was your slowing down the use of 5 mon spam, not outright preventing it. In a way it can live on in the sense of type spam which can be more variant.

"And "don't implement this because I don't feel it's as important as this other thing" really isn't an argument against an implementation."
sorry, what I meant by this is: why are we trying to restrict things that don't need restricting. We shouldn't be wasting our effort into something that isn't exactly broken. I don't mean we shouldn't have this at all, discussion is always nice but I find this to be the most pointless test in BH yet. (aside from having people actually have to vote to say PB was broken :/)

It wouldn't make BH that less variant but I see no reason to ban this if its just so we can be "omg we're so standard look at us". All we're doing is taking gimmicks as sacrificial lamb so we can look more standard or whatever the point of this pointless test is.

 

[Lcass4919]

ye could at least tag me fren.

Anyways:

Lets say you have a 6 mm2x team, you implement species clause and this is what you get:

mm2x/blaze-mega/lucario-mega/keldeo/m-herra/imposter

how does that increase variety? all your doing is encouraging type spam instead of one mon spam, which in some cases is actually stronger because of the variety.

The general banning philosophy should be not to implement clauses we don't need. This is taking out variety for no reason.

I haven't seen one good argument for implementing it other than "let me make a team and show you" or "why not- the anti ban is pretty weak so lets do it". We shouldn't be aiming to restrict things that don't need restrictions.

"And also, what exactly am I slowing down? "
by this term, what I meant was your slowing down the use of 5 mon spam, not outright preventing it. In a way it can live on in the sense of type spam which can be more variant.

"And "don't implement this because I don't feel it's as important as this other thing" really isn't an argument against an implementation."
sorry, what I meant by this is: why are we trying to restrict things that don't need restricting. We shouldn't be wasting our effort into something that isn't exactly broken. I don't mean we shouldn't have this at all, discussion is always nice but I find this to be the most pointless test in BH yet. (aside from having people actually have to vote to say PB was broken :/)

It wouldn't make BH that less variant but I see no reason to ban this if its just so we can be "omg we're so standard look at us". All we're doing is taking gimmicks as sacrificial lamb so we can look more standard or whatever the point of this pointless test is.

to be honest, nobody on the con list has(bar one) either given a good arguement for NOT implementing it, other then "it kind of limits the meta forcing us to...*gasp* use other pokemon in their place that are SLIGHTLY worse" and "there's no reason to do so because we have bigger problems like evasion" which doesn't even focus on the clause at hand and is kinda pointless for the discussion, i mean, who says we need to ban things in order from most broken/uncompetative to not broken? heck, infinitebattles are still a thing, which is far more broken then multiple abilities. to be honest though, klang is really the ONLY person so far who hasn't stuck to that, and actually points out a valid reason this clause could impact the meta negatively. and thus, i change my mind, and no longer want the clause to take effect. i feel like klang's reasoning actually makes a lot more sense then "YEAH THIS CLAUSE IS STUPID BECAUSE IT DOESNT STOP THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM " which might i add, isnt even WHY its a problem. your arguement is so pointless...a team of 5 mm2(x AND y mixed togeather which is the main problem here) is WAY more threatening then that team you just posted mainly due to the absured speed stat mixed with 190 attack/spc attack and actually DECENT bulk. and this clause forces the player to stop running shitty hyper offensive gimmics that only break down players due to the offensive momentum it can bring. when i play a match in bh, i want as close to a fair game as i can. i dont want to have to face the same stupid cat 3 times in a row untill the third one can safely clean up my team. at least with evasion i can safely stop it without resorting to 2 giratina with fur coat. HOWEVER, after discussing with klang about this, if we cant get a 2 poke clause, then i seriously no longer care about the outcome of this test.

so yeah, in discussions you ARE winning. because of klang though, but dont act like you are the "master" of arguments when you are just as guilty as the rest of making shitty arguments. and i say that because you are attacking the pro clause not realizing your argument makes zero contribution other then "this clause is stupid" even though half and half were for and against it, some even being the better players too.

 

[jrm115]

Anyways:

Lets say you have a 6 mm2x team, you implement species clause and this is what you get:

mm2x/blaze-mega/lucario-mega/keldeo/m-herra/imposter

how does that increase variety? all your doing is encouraging type spam instead of one mon spam, which in some cases is actually stronger because of the variety.

The general banning philosophy should be not to implement clauses we don't need. This is taking out variety for no reason.

so you're saying that getting more decent pokemon that are typically outclassed by existing pokemon a chance to shine, getting a wider variety of pokemon used decreases variety?
i kinda see a contradiction there.

 

[Monte Cristo]

so you're saying that getting more decent pokemon that are typically outclassed by existing pokemon a chance to shine, getting a wider variety of pokemon used decreases variety?
i kinda see a contradiction there.

I meant the variety of teams, instead of 6 mon spam, the gimmicky playstyle will be type spam. sorry if that confused you, I'll write a better argument when I'm not on smogon on the toilet for once.

I haven't gotten to writing up my rebuttal vs lcass yet but fyi
" but dont act like you are the "master" of arguments when you are just as guilty as the rest of making shitty arguments."
When did I act like the "master of arguments". I know you just added this so could you sound cool at the end by making a semi personal attack or whatever, but at least make it accurate. Just because I'm making an anti-ban argument that isn't Kl4ng's doesn't mean I'm trying to be the master of arguments (and apparently failing).

Generally the term "master" of arguments cannot apply to anyone because it's subjective and thus cannot be applied without any notion on what attributes you must require in order to be considered for such a title. So the whole concept of having someone who is the best at arguing or debating is not only impossible, but if we were to use the majority thinking to make the subjective objective- which is what we do all the time and I could totally understand- and found a list of reasonable traits people desire for them to consider them the best debater. It would be pointless, the point of a debate is to get your ideas out and try to provide a more reasonable explanation then people on the other side thus making a more appealing case to do X. (x = whatever the debate is about) So the whole concept of being the "best" or "master" debater is kind of pointless and kind of makes no sense. There shouldn't generally be a competitive factor aside from trying to write a better argument than the person you're debating. So I don't know where you got that from, and I'm just posting to say having a best debater is something I've seen before and I srsly don't get it so I'm posting it here.

 

[TheCommadore]

I voted no, because in my opinion species clause is simply unnecessary. Ability clause is already the tier's equivalent of species clause, furthermore thre is no pokemon that is so strong that it drowns out all others when used in multiple. The closest we have had to this was arceus when you could use the forms without multitype. His combination of bulk, speed, and offenses made the forms better than just about every other poke. For example fairy arc>xerneas, ghost arc>giratina, and dark arc>yeveatl. If this change had stayed species clause would have probably been necessary to keep the tier from becoming an arceus fest, however ever since that change reverted there has been nothing of the same versatility level to require a species clause.
The most common spam teams these days are megamewtwo teams. They can be strong if used well but are in no way unmanageable or deserving of a clause to stop them.

Balanced Hackmons is indeed our sacred cow. We have always had a very minimalist policy towards its bans and got a fairly balanced result last gen with only a single clause and 5 abilities banned. As is the tier does not have any standout things for being broken, unlike say spore-tail gigas last gen or parental bond anything this gen.

Having said all that, Showdown does wig out when you bring multiples of a poke, and god help your opponent if you bring multiples and illusion. The team display shows some really odd results in that case.

 

[Lcass4919]

I meant the variety of teams, instead of 6 mon spam, the gimmicky playstyle will be type spam. sorry if that confused you, I'll write a better argument when I'm not on smogon on the toilet for once.

I haven't gotten to writing up my rebuttal vs lcass yet but fyi
" but dont act like you are the "master" of arguments when you are just as guilty as the rest of making shitty arguments."
When did I act like the "master of arguments". I know you just added this so could you sound cool at the end by making a semi personal attack or whatever, but at least make it accurate. Just because I'm making an anti-ban argument that isn't Kl4ng's doesn't mean I'm trying to be the master of arguments (and apparently failing).

Generally the term "master" of arguments cannot apply to anyone because it's subjective and thus cannot be applied without any notion on what attributes you must require in order to be considered for such a title. So the whole concept of having someone who is the best at arguing or debating is not only impossible, but if we were to use the majority thinking to make the subjective objective- which is what we do all the time and I could totally understand- and found a list of reasonable traits people desire for them to consider them the best debater. It would be pointless, the point of a debate is to get your ideas out and try to provide a more reasonable explanation then people on the other side thus making a more appealing case to do X. (x = whatever the debate is about) So the whole concept of being the "best" or "master" debater is kind of pointless and kind of makes no sense. There shouldn't generally be a competitive factor aside from trying to write a better argument than the person you're debating. So I don't know where you got that from, and I'm just posting to say having a best debater is something I've seen before and I srsly don't get it so I'm posting it here.

you do realize, the post i made after, was referring as to why i called you that. Instead of nitpicking my every argument out of anger, why don't you actually take time to read what i say. anyways, what i meant by "master" wasn't to sound cool or to actually label someone as it. what i was saying was attacking the opposing side isn't strengthening an argument, its just trying to put down what others say making your argument seem better. and also, again, throwing out useless facts to me about what "the term master imply's" do you think i was seriously suggesting there's a "master of arguments"? i was saying, if your going to post a point, don't bother attacking the other side because it only makes you sound like you're a know-it-all and doesn't strengthen an argument/change anyone's opinions. but fine. i will play your game. and i will rephrase the meaning of what i meant so you can understand better. when i said Klang's argument was the only one i felt was justified, was because he actually made a very solid point, without resorting to bashing the other side/using useless arguments like evasion clause. a debate isn't a fight. its to prove that YOUR side is right. so if you are going to argue someones words, instead of saying "lol this is so pointless" give a decent argument, and if you are going to argue, make sure you actually understand what your saying, because as i said before. the argument you posted before, made no contribution to anyone's point other then "yeah, with mm2 spam gone, you can use weaker versions of mm2x which is just as threatening"(which it really isn't). your ignorance is really showing right now, because you just then resorted to define something to me that i obviously wasn't seriously considering, instead of actually doing something beneficial and proving my ACTUAL point wrong. yet again. useless argument proving nothing but your ego. (inb4 commenting about my "personal attack" to sound cool when i'm really just stating what you sound like right now)

also didn't you JUST tell someone to tag yourself when they do this? but seriously, this is off topic, and arguing about it gets us nowhere. and will cause verbatim to lock the thread. so ill agree to stop this argument if you do too(after you counter argue of course)

 

[Monte Cristo]

also didn't you JUST tell someone to tag yourself when they do this? but seriously, this is off topic, and arguing about it gets us nowhere. and will cause verbatim to lock the thread. so ill agree to stop this argument if you do too(after you counter argue of course)

that's because they were rebutting my exact words so I feel like if they want to have a debate with me specifically I should be involved. like holy fuck do you not pay attention.

" (inb4 commenting about my "personal attack" to sound cool when i'm really just stating what you sound like right now)"

You introduced the concept of having a master of arguments then saying I falsely labeled myself that. Even though I didn't at all. So I had to reply back, don't act like I'm just doing this out of age, when someone ignorantly and annoyingly enough labels me things I am not, I am going obviously fucking say something back. Use your head.

If you wanted to avoid this whole mess then posting something like that makes no sense

" its just trying to put down what others say making your argument seem better. "
Nobody has literally said anything about me being the argument master or anything or whatever bullshit you supposedly acknowledged. This whole mess makes no sense and I don't know why your continuing to go further into this even though it' a pointless endeavor when I said I was taking time to actually reply back to the real thing at hand once I got the time to do so. But instead I had to take more time out of my day to play this little side argument bullshit you set up just by putting a little annoying note at the end of your argument which was clearly ignorant of the situation.

So please don't ever do this bullshit again, at the end of the day I just want to debate what in the actual fuck we came here to debate about, I have flaws I admit in previous arguments (read; on the toilet, but sitll that doesn't excuse me from posting such a flawed argument like the on I posted later, my second post was just me trying to tie it together , but I admit it, yeah I did that, oh so terrible, I made an admitted flawed argument in which I will improve in my next argument)but that doesn't mean I'm eager to get out of the situation at hand. Obviously there was some dumb shit that I said but that's really no reason to start a whole side argument about argument masters or whatever bullshit.

If you reply I'm not replying back because obviously you want to continue this bullshit side argument that popped up just because I was defending myself of a bullshit notion you started that I claimed myself to be something when I wasn't. End of story, I'll argue what actually needs to be argued about. I'll probably be back with another post on the actual matter at hand later.

 

[E4 Flint]

Lcass, I'm going to have to disagree with you there just as I had with the Ability Clause or whatever pseudo-implementation we have of it now. Why is having two specifically good for the meta? It seems like an arbitrarily chosen number just like three, four or the entire team. I disagree with this whole notion of two being the "viable" number because to someone else, three or six may be perfectly "viable" to them, or two can be just as overpowered to a different team as six. Clauses should be black or white, either go with it or don't at all, none of this fuzzy stuff in between to suit our own teams because this will only serve part of the player base no matter what number it is and seem self-serving, and what's more these numbers might change in the future among the people who decided it in the first place. Instead, it confuses new people would want to check out and play around with in this shiny new Balanced Hackmons tier without having to worry about being OHKO'd out of sight.


The most I can give away is like for a strict species "by name" clause which would allow Megas (and Formes I suppose) to be acknowledged as different mons i.e. Mewtwo Mega Y != Mewtwo Mega X so you can have one of each. I personally think this option would be the best but having no species clause isn't that bad either. Consider; a team that has six Mewtwos but only ever uses two to break a team apart is actually worse than a diverse team having two Mewtwos as the main team-breakers, just as having a diverse team with two Chansey's is probably a better team than one with six.


I would really prefer to rather have a strict ability clause, and no species clause, than the "two-and-two" clause, since I personally believe the ability decides more in a BH game than the 'mons themselves do. I wouldn't mind having an evasion clause either, luck has always not been one of my stronger suits and my conspiracy theory of BH having effect rates and accuracy rates lowered than standards is already enough for me to not want something that can lower them further :P


E:http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/balancedhackmons-147979213

 

[CashKP]

If we put in an evasion clause i will play BH again

 

[verbatim]

Majority says no, no change