For the meta, just another reason to band genesect or something. It would also make it a beautiful revenge killer in ubers.Originally Posted by your boss
THUNDERSTRUCK
For the meta, just another reason to band genesect or something. It would also make it a beautiful revenge killer in ubers.
Spoiler:- Creamery Command Stuffs:
Needs a title.
Perhaps, but doesn't Arceus get Extreme Speed STABed for revenge killing?
The only advantage I see for using Genesect over Arceus is U-turn...though I guess that may be because I don't play Ubers.
be your own guru
The Bug Sage
Sleeping clause
Be Aware this post is concerning the sleeping clause and as to why their should be exceptions to it.
Recently my venomoth and i had our gonads kicked due to the discovery of the sleeping clause.
Obviously the prominent threat of a "juiced" up smeargle being able to pass that power onto other pokes is deemed to dangerous to be legal.
Though within the research that i have discovered the sleeping clause is only really active because of smeargle and its baton pass compatible moveset.
In other situations the "sleeping clause" somewhat limits and incapacitates certain Pokemon from being able to compete on a competitive level with other pokemon way beyond its tier. Like butterfree,venomoth and yanmega whom could potentially put a few pokemon to sleep and level the playing field.
For example as a purely bug-type trainer, i use a venomoth, which is currently situated within the Borderline 2 (BL2) tier.
Now before i was aware of the sleeping clause, i was using venomoth on a constant basis within OU battles. My moveset on my timid venomoth is, sleep powder, sludge bomb, bug buzz and roost with the item wide lens.
Though now I'm well aware of the sleeping clause and that many of the situations that my venomoth and I created for my
opponent would have been deemed illegal and I'm forced to no longer "double sleep powder" with my venomoth.
I can understand the situations where smeargle could be deemed as Un-fair, Un-just and even cheap. Situations were smeargle has spored/sleep powdered a pokemon and that pokemon switches out, though the next pokemon switching in then becomes spored/sleep powdered again and smeargle then begins to power up at an obscene rate and could even pass that power along.
But.. It seems like the sleeping clause is purely created to prevent this and or smiler scenarios purely with smeargle. Because i have no come across one example to suggest otherwise.
Now, within my current knowledge their are at least 126 different pokemon whom can use one of : Sleep powder, spore, grass whistle, sing and hypnosis.
However, of the 126 different pokemon that can use one of these 5 sleeping moves, only 23 of them can use one of these moves and baton pass at the same time. These are the 23 different pokemon that can learn one of these 5 sleeping moves and batton pass at the same time.
Hypnosis, Accuracy of 60%:
- Mr mime, Mew, spinda, Lunatone (from Gale of darkness game), Patrat, Watchog, Munna, Musharana,, Rapidash ( from gale of darkness game), Drifloon, drifblim, Mime Jr .
Spore, Accuracy of 100%
- smeargle...
Sleep Powder,Accuracy of 75%
- venonat, venomoth ='(
GrassWhistle, Accuracy of 55%
- Sewaddle, Swadloon, Leavany, Deerling
Sing, Accuracy of 55%
- Skitty, Delcatty, Plusle,Minun
With this information its clear that the reality and likelihood of pulling of a "sleeping, powering up,batton pass" move set on any pokemon other than smeargle is dismal.
Now if you look over the provided information, it's evident that my main example and reasoning behind this post, venomoth, is able to apply a similar "Smeargle" like moveset to itself. Because of its ability to learn baton pass. Which I'm quite frankly appalled by
Though this is not a realistic situation because even if it were to happen, a sleep powder with 80% accuracy does tend to miss a lot. Even if a venomoth were to have a "smeargle" like move set with wide lens, it would be helpless because it can't hold focus slash and its at the mercy of the many moves that could easily k0 it. Which greatly diminishes the likelihood of venomoth being able to cause the threat and or immoral decision that Smeargle with a spore, power up and baton pass set creates.
Now if your still with me lol, I'm suggesting that an exception be created for some pokemon like venomoth,yanmega or even politoad. Because the chances of any pokemon other than smeargle pulling of the move-set and or plays that the sleeping clause was intended to prevent, are zero.
Last edited by Celestial Moth; 29th December 2012 at 3:43 AM.
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
Free Bird!
Besides the fact that there's no way we're going to implement an exception for Sleep Clause just to be "nicer" to certain Pokemon, your proposal is based off of a false premise. Sleep Clause wasn't implemented because of Smeargle. It was implemented because of the nature of the sleep status. Sleep incapacitates a Pokemon for several turns at times, and it can almost be an effective KO due to the sleep timer being reset every time a Pokemon leaves the field as of 5th Gen. If you were allowed to put as many Pokemon to sleep at one time as you could, you might completely shut down the opponent's team with no effort. Smeargle is hardly the biggest reason for this; I'd be far more afraid of Breloom and Venomoth if there were no Sleep Clause. With Venomoth, if you could find just one opportunity to put something to sleep and guarantee at least one free turn, it might be "game over" right there. All you'd have to do is start setting up Quiver Dance while your opponent frantically switches around, and you'd just put whatever they brought out to sleep again. And just think of how dangerous a Pokemon like Breloom would be if it could just put whatever was in front of it to sleep with no consequence before setting up SDs and spamming Technician boosted Mach Punches and Bullet Seeds.
Removing Sleep Clause (even just for some Pokemon) wouldn't be helping some Pokemon's viability, you would just be breaking an already powerful status condition.
† I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†
Random Quote of the...For Now:
Having one child makes you a parent; having two makes you a referee.
-Unknown
The Bug Sage
Yeah true. I can understand that.
I cant even dispute any of that really because i was unaware of the fact that smeargle wasn't the primary sauce of the sleeping clause, but i'm sure its got some contributing factors .
Regardless, if the logic behind the sleeping clause is (correct me if I'm wrong) that because of the status condition being able to prevent other pokemon from effectively battling to their fullest extent and or that sleeping moves incapacitates pokemon to the extent that the battle is futile, then, shouldn't similar movesets and or moves and situations that work of similar basis's be illegal as well??
For example, If i had a mew that had whirlwind and thunder-wave (forget the other moves for a sec) it would and could essential incapacitate my opponents entire team, or at least the pokemon that offer a threat to my team. Which by essence is the reason why the sleeping clause is in effect, to prevent situations like this? By the logic of the sleeping clause ( again correct me if i'm wrong) multiple status conditions on opponents should also be illegal? And even movesets and or plays that consist of overpowering up and reaching the max power up status, ( example, registeel max's its stats in game with curse and or venomoth doing same things with quiver-dance) should also be illegal, shouldn't they?
I mean, the reason I'm talking about all this is because the sleeping clause effectively is preventing an "unfair" situation arising, were, a pokemon is able to put multiple pokes to sleep and then gain an unfair advantage, or even gain one interdependently by putting a few pokes to sleep.
Though by this premiss, their should be so many other situations that are illegal as-well.
Now I'm be no means suggesting new rules be implement to prevent pokemon from battling, using moves and or participating in battles, but this rule that states;
All moves that increase Evasion only (e.g. Minimize) are banned.
Is based on the same premiss as the sleeping clause, is it not? With this same logic their should be a few more rules..
Now obviously I'm being a bit biased here cause i like venomoth, but all I'm suggesting is that perhaps an exception towards certain move-sets and or situations be created.
Because the situations were multiple pokes are allowed to be poisoned and or paralyzed are allowed...
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
Needs a title.
Paralysis and Sleep are completely different. Sleep doesn't allow your opponent to do anything. That is a huge difference. If it was spore and whirlwind, your opponent really wouldn't be able to fight back, while when paralyzed, they still have a fighting chance.For example, If i had a mew that had whirlwind and thunder-wave (forget the other moves for a sec) it would and could essential incapacitate my opponents entire team, or at least the pokemon that offer a threat to my team. Which by essence is the reason why the sleeping clause is in effect, to prevent situations like this? By the logic of the sleeping clause ( again correct me if i'm wrong) multiple status conditions on opponents should also be illegal? And even movesets and or plays that consist of overpowering up and reaching the max power up status, ( example, registeel max's its stats in game with curse and or venomoth doing same things with quiver-dance) should also be illegal, shouldn't they?
At least while Registeel is using curse, your foe can still attack.
Getting to +6 takes 3 rounds at the very least, and putting a foe to sleep only takes one. If you're faster, your foe can't even do anything in return for that one round.Though by this premiss, their should be so many other situations that are illegal as-well.
Also, nothing, and I mean nothing, can safely swap into spore unless it's ability does something about it. Which means, if your Quagsire ends up against a Breloom, you're screwed. It could be as simple as you try and swap it out, Breloom uses Spore on it's "counter", then sets up substitute to guard itself against whatever faster threat it has to face next, or in case the "counter" wakes up.Well, if we do come across another set that's overpowered, it'll be banned. But so far, nothing is too dangerous.Now obviously I'm being a bit biased here cause i like venomoth, but all I'm suggesting is that perhaps an exception towards certain move-sets and or situations be created.
I mean, think about it, how difficult would Blaziken be if it didn't get Swords Dance or Speed Boost.
Last edited by Zachmac; 29th December 2012 at 5:08 AM.
The Bug Sage
But bro,their not, they are no different on the basis that the sleeping clause is in effect because it generates an unfair advantage.
If i somehow manage to paralyze your most destructive and or dangerous pokes. I am essentially removing them from the equation because
they are no longer a threat because i have pokemon that can easily out-speed them now, with moves that can easily k0 them.
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
Needs a title.
Because you have some pokemon that can outspeed and defeat them?
I guess that means that my Terrakion is useless because my opponent has a Gliscor in their team.
Weakening and making completely useless are different. And that's what sleep does; it leaves almost every pokemon completely helpless. Unless you want a metagame were everything is forced to carry sleep talk? But that would be like a metagame where everything carried sheer cold; it's left up to luck and almost nothing else.
Free Bird!
No, paralysis and sleep are nowhere near the same thing. With paralysis, you still have a 75% chance of at least moving during that turn. Sleep completely shuts you down. Having a Pokemon paralyzed would still let your Pokemon fulfill its duties most of the time, and it wouldn't give you completely free turns like sleep would. There is an enormous difference between putting something to sleep and guaranteeing a free turn or more and paralyzing something in the hope that you'll get that 25% chance of a free turn.
There are no other statuses that can produce such an unfair advantage beside freezing, which has no reliable method of infliction. Only paralysis comes even close, and it always comes with an enormous risk that your opponent will still attack.I mean, the reason I'm talking about all this is because the sleeping clause effectively is preventing an "unfair" situation arising, were, a pokemon is able to put multiple pokes to sleep and then gain an unfair advantage, or even gain one interdependently by putting a few pokes to sleep.
Though by this premiss, their should be so many other situations that are illegal as-well.
No, each clause is added on a case-by-case basis. Evasion Clause was implemented because of the luck factor brought upon by modified evasion, which further destroys any competitiveness this game might have. Sleep Clause was implemented because of the raw power of the sleep status and the way that a player could effortlessly win if he/she were able to put the opponent's entire team to sleep. As many BW players have said before, the new sleep mechanics now make sleep an effective KO at times since a Pokemon will often die before they are able to wake up.Now I'm be no means suggesting new rules be implement to prevent pokemon from battling, using moves and or participating in battles, but this rule that states;
All moves that increase Evasion only (e.g. Minimize) are banned.
Is based on the same premiss as the sleeping clause, is it not? With this same logic their should be a few more rules.
But situations where multiple Pokemon are poisoned ore paralyzed are nowhere near the same. In fact, poison isn't even in the same ballpark. Even then, making an exception for certain Pokemon would not only be a subjective slippery slope; it would do next to nothing to help the viability of most of those Pokemon you mentioned. All you would do is make the good sleep abusers broken, and the bad sleep abusers would still be bad.Now obviously I'm being a bit biased here cause i like venomoth, but all I'm suggesting is that perhaps an exception towards certain move-sets and or situations be created.
Because the situations were multiple pokes are allowed to be poisoned and or paralyzed are allowed...
But you have to look at exactly the unfair advantage it generates. Having multiple Pokemon poisoned just means that those Pokemon are losing a little extra health at the end of each turn, which is hardly game breaking. Having multiple Pokemon put to sleep means that a third or more of your team is incapable of doing anything whatsoever, no exceptions.
Those Pokemon still have a 75% chance of hitting you, which may cause your paralysis inducer to die before it can really do anything. Again, you aren't getting free turns like you would with sleep, and you're certainly not removing them from the equation.If i somehow manage to paralyze your most destructive and or dangerous pokes. I am essentially removing them from the equation because
they are no longer a threat because i have pokemon that can easily out-speed them now, with moves that can easily k0 them.
† I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†
Random Quote of the...For Now:
Having one child makes you a parent; having two makes you a referee.
-Unknown
The Bug Sage
Well..Either way that's kinda irrelevant isn't it, because, their are countless more situations were my premiss still applies.
The sleeping clause is in effect because it renders Pokemon useless due to a status condition? Though theirs a lot of other status related conditions and or effects that can
render some pokemon useless, conditions and situations effected by status problems that are more detrimental to a match than the "sleeping clause", which are all legal.
Though paralysis for example is evidently less of a threat than spore/sleep powder, but when raw threats are concerned if i have a tank with even roar or whirlwind and thunder-wave, i could effectively render the majority of your pokemon useless. Which is really the same result as putting a few pokes to sleep because now i could easily and effortlessly defeat those pokes now that i can outspead them.
One of the very rules in essence prevents a pokemon from gaining an unfair advantage over other pokes: All moves that increase Evasion only (e.g. Minimize) are banned.
But this rule , essentially, is saying that its illegal for a stat to become maxed in-game because it creates an unfair advantage. Again, my premiss with pokemons in game stats are still quite relevant and related to the status problems and or conditions that could be inflicted onto others concerning the sleeping clause. The difference between the status conditions in which allow a poke to gain an advantage over another ( maxing a stat in game with moves, eg minimize ) are virtually minimal, because ultimately their eventual outcome is the same, which is, an "UN-fair" advantage over another pokemona and or team.
Though it would seem that pokemon still has a usefully possibility in a battle, what use does it have if all your pokemon are paralyzed and i have pokemon that are now evidently faster than your pokes. I understand that the chance is still their that their still are possible outcomes, while paralyzed, were you could win but their minimal.And that's what sleep does; it leaves almost every pokemon completely helpless. Unless you want a metagame were everything is forced to carry sleep talk? But that would be like a metagame where everything carried sheer cold; it's left up to luck and almost nothing else.
Within the meta-game though, if one of the reasons as to why the sleeping clause exists is because it in itself decrease "chance" and or the effects of chance in the game, then
why is Jirachi and its serene grace ability legal and exploited within games? Isn't that a Hippocratic acceptation to game-play and the meta-game??
Though theirs a chance in this particular situation, if the outcome of a paralysis would be a pokemon slower than usual, which it is, then essentially a person could exploit this. Because when under paralysis one of the key mechanics of paralysis is to make the pokemon slower. Which allows other pokemon to be faster than it, which allows pokemon to gain an advantage over it.
There's a difference in these 2 status conditions. Definitely, I'll acknowledge that, though theirs still very much an advantage in which is gained through the status conditions. Different they may be, they still, provide an advantage in which people with the knowledge can exploit easily and effortlessly.
Which is understandable. My point was more or less as leading into the fact that when slowed down, with paralysis, a pokemon which other could not be defeated is easily defeated due to the status condition and a situation in which would and could NEVER have happened if that status condition was applied. Which i still think is the premiss of the sleepling clause.
That exact situation is aloud. Where I'm able to gain an unfair advantage over multiple opponents due a reduction in speed, because of a status condition. A status condition that renders a pokemon essentially useless in a situation were it is now versing a pokemon whom is faster than it.
Fair enuf and its easily understood because the new mechanics are quite interesting lol. But ya see, a jirachi with iron head and a kinds rock is legal.. And jirachi's in multiple situations and varried move-sets are exploited because of its mechanics that improve "luck" and in essence adds to the meta-game itself.
You correct again it would be a subjective and slippery slope. But how was this sleeping clause implemented in the first place, wasn't it a subjective decision on some part to create it? If the sleeping clause is in effect, then similar standard rules to prevent the exploitation of similar situations and or un-fair and unjust accerance's of advantages should also be implemented. First of my head would be look at the example of jirachi again ( i'm sorry to bring it up twice buts just a perfect multiple example), JIrachi with iron head @ kings rock will incapacitate.
But that little bit of extra health can mean the difference between a win and loss. I'm sure theirs countless situations were stealth rocks,spikes and toxic spikes have caused the death of a pokemon purely on those entree hazards alone. Weather it be the effect of a focus slash being negated or that one hp'd, switch out sturdy pokemon being killed on its way back in or wise versus. With toxic spikes though that status condition could provide the same result. They are all moves, which create a small advantage over an opponent. Now theirs a big jump between entree hazards and sleep powder. But it would be deemed an advantage non the less.
But if my objective is purely to slow down your poke so i can out speed it with a different poke or even with the very poke that used t-wave. Then, i am essentially removing it from the equation?
An exception or modification to the sleeping clause would obviously have to have a lot of thought put into it, though in my eyes the relative situations discussed couldn't be more similar. Which is why i cant help but thinking of situations were the outcomes could essentially be the same.
Their is a difference in the unfair advantages generated from different status conditions, stat raising conditions and situations were an advantage is generated through either. But eliminating the effectiveness of a pokemon purely based upon the moves it can learn is in my eyes unfair in it self. Which is why i strongly believe a modification to the current sleep clause needs to be made, weather it be moveset exceptions or what have you.
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
Needs a title.
I won't even argue at this point, since I'm feeling too lazy to read your post. I'll just ask you this: Have you ever had any of your pokemon put to sleep before? No matter how much you argue, I've seen and used it in practice, and it's so overly powered I can't always describe it in words if there is no restriction.
Even though I know the rule is fair, sometimes, in the back of my head, I just wish sleep is just plain out banned.
Last edited by Zachmac; 29th December 2012 at 6:49 AM.
The Bug Sage
Fair enuf, i encourage you to come back to this discussion when you've regained you energy
I have and i have experience both.
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
Free Bird!
And again, none of those other status conditions can render a Pokemon useless like sleep can. Sleep makes a Pokemon completely unable to do anything whatsoever. It's free turns, which can literally make or break a game. No other status does that. You keep mentioning paralysis, but again, paralysis will only incapacitate a Pokemon 25% of the time. Not only that, but many Pokemon might actually prefer paralysis. Gastrodon would love to be paralyzed by a random Stun Spore since the speed drop doesn't bother it, and that would give it immunity to poison. But no Pokemon likes the sleep status at all.
No, you would not be rendering those Pokemon useless like sleep would. They still have a shot at attacking and doing something during that turn, while a sleeping Pokemon will not. Besides, being able to outspeed something the next turn and kill them isn't exactly a super cool accomplishment. Running Agility or Rock Polish would do the same thing.Though paralysis for example is evidently less of a threat than spore/sleep powder, but when raw threats are concerned if i have a tank with even roar or whirlwind and thunder-wave, i could effectively render the majority of your pokemon useless. Which is really the same result as putting a few pokes to sleep because now i could easily and effortlessly defeat those pokes now that i can outspead them.
Like I said earlier, it's not just about getting an "unfair" advantage. Lots of things could be considered "unfair" advantages, like extra hazards and weather. It's about the exact advantage in particular, and there is no battle condition that can make multiple Pokemon complete dead weights like sleep can.One of the very rules in essence prevents a pokemon from gaining an unfair advantage over other pokes: All moves that increase Evasion only (e.g. Minimize) are banned.
But this rule , essentially, is saying that its illegal for a stat to become maxed in-game because it creates an unfair advantage. Again, my premiss with pokemons in game stats are still quite relevant and related to the status problems and or conditions that could be inflicted onto others concerning the sleeping clause. The difference between the status conditions in which allow a poke to gain an advantage over another ( maxing a stat in game with moves, eg minimize ) are virtually minimal, because ultimately their eventual outcome is the same, which is, an "UN-fair" advantage over another pokemona and or team.
You'd have the exact same advantage if you ran some random Rock Polish user that can outspeed everything after just one move. Besides, how often do you think you'd be able to actually paralyze everything on the opponent's team? If your opponent has a 75% chance of attacking even after being paralyzed, then chances are your paralysis inducer will be dead before they can paralyze the entire opposing team. Sleep isn't like that. If something is put to sleep, it's completely useless for at least one turn (if not more), giving you a much better chance at setting up, phazing the opponent out to put anther Pokemon to sleep, etc.Though it would seem that pokemon still has a usefully possibility in a battle, what use does it have if all your pokemon are paralyzed and i have pokemon that are now evidently faster than your pokes.
No, the chances of winning based on getting free turns with paralysis are minimal, seeing as how you only have a 25% chance each turn of doing so. You're really underestimating the importance of those free turns and the chance you'll actually get them.I understand that the chance is still their that their still are possible outcomes, while paralyzed, were you could win but their minimal.
Sleep isn't about chance. That's the whole point. Sleep is too easy to exploit because unlike paralysis, there's little to no risk involved. If the opponent is asleep, they're asleep. And no, we shouldn't just ban Serene Grace Jirachi just because there is some luck involved. According to the Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame, we should only ban luck when absolutely necessary (i.e. when it breaks the game). Jirachi with Serene Grace has never once broken the game, and although it has been contested several times, such a ban has never received enough support from the community to even be suspected.Within the meta-game though, if one of the reasons as to why the sleeping clause exists is because it in itself decrease "chance" and or the effects of chance in the game, then
why is Jirachi and its serene grace ability legal and exploited within games? Isn't that a Hippocratic acceptation to game-play and the meta-game??
Almost every decent action that can be performed in a game can "provide and advantage". It's the particular advantage and the extent of it that matters, and no advantage matches the potency of the sleep status.There's a difference in these 2 status conditions. Definitely, I'll acknowledge that, though theirs still very much an advantage in which is gained through the status conditions. Different they may be, they still, provide an advantage in which people with the knowledge can exploit easily and effortlessly.
The premise of the sleep clause is sleep itself, not just making battles easier to win. Even if you wanted to paralyze a whole team to run through it with a faster Pokemon, you'd still have to get through the entire team when they can move freely 75% of the time, which is nearly impossible. Besides, your example is no different than if I softened up an opponent's team with Specs Keldeo just so I could clean it up with SD Scizor's Bullet Punch. Should we ban Specs in that case? or priority? No, because that would require skilled playing on my part to get the opposing team weak enough to clean up with SD Scizor. That's what the mid and end games are all about. But sleep isn't something that you have to be skilled about in order to achieve a winning condition. You literally just hit a button and BAM, free turns.Which is understandable. My point was more or less as leading into the fact that when slowed down, with paralysis, a pokemon which other could not be defeated is easily defeated due to the status condition and a situation in which would and could NEVER have happened if that status condition was applied. Which i still think is the premiss of the sleepling clause.
Do you ever wonder why people have the term "sleep fodder" and not "paralysis fodder"? It's because sometimes people will have a certain Pokemon for handling a sleep inducer (such as Breloom), but that particular check or counter might be easily defeated if put to sleep. So people have sleep fodders that they'll switch into the sleep move, something that they don't mind losing, and it's because they know they'll probably end up losing a Pokemon to it. You see, a sleep inducer like Breloom can make a potential counter like Amoonguss completely useless while they set up. Paralysis can't do that, though. You say that paralysis makes a Pokemon useless because it makes them slower, but that's simply not true. Even Pokemon that rely on their speed to be effective can still be a threat if they can get a hit in now and then, so even they aren't complete dead weights. Then there are Pokemon that do not rely on their speed stats at all, which couldn't care less about the speed drop. In that case, you effectively just hit them with Flash, which is hardly even comparable to sleep.That exact situation is aloud. Where I'm able to gain an unfair advantage over multiple opponents due a reduction in speed, because of a status condition. A status condition that renders a pokemon essentially useless in a situation were it is now versing a pokemon whom is faster than it.
This is a similar argument that was used in the test of Sand Veil/Snow Cloak, but I'll address it again here. Jirachi with Iron Head is not the same as the free turns that sleep would offer. If you get a free turn due to sleep (like you did with a Sand Veil/Snow Cloak miss), you can do whatever you want with that free turn. You can attack the opponent, set up, heal your Pokemon, whatever, Jirachi with Iron Head cannot do that, though, because his variety of hax is active, not passive. He is forced to spam a fairly weak STAB move with poor coverage just to attempt a flinch, not to mention it completely fails against faster Pokemon.Fair enuf and its easily understood because the new mechanics are quite interesting lol. But ya see, a jirachi with iron head and a kinds rock is legal.. And jirachi's in multiple situations and varried move-sets are exploited because of its mechanics that improve "luck" and in essence adds to the meta-game itself.
The creation of the Sleep Clause was not subjective in the same manner that such a change as you have proposed would be. When the Sleep Clause was created, people saw just how powerful sleep was and decided to restrict it in some way. The most logical thing is to just limit it to one Pokemon at a time for starters, and even now we've seen through experience that just one Pokemon at a time is still a powerful thing. On the other hand, you're suggesting we give an exception to certain Pokemon based upon whether they are too "good" or not. That is where the extreme subjection comes into play. How do we decide which Pokemon are "bad" enough to get an exception? You mentioned Venomoth, but there's no chance on Earth that you can give a Pokemon with decent offenses, Quiver Dance, and Tinted Lens the ability to put an entire team to sleep and it still not be broken.You correct again it would be a subjective and slippery slope. But how was this sleeping clause implemented in the first place, wasn't it a subjective decision on some part to create it? If the sleeping clause is in effect, then similar standard rules to prevent the exploitation of similar situations and or un-fair and unjust accerance's of advantages should also be implemented. First of my head would be look at the example of jirachi again ( i'm sorry to bring it up twice buts just a perfect multiple example), JIrachi with iron head @ kings rock will incapacitate.
But by that logic, should we ban wall breakers as well? Is their main purpose not to soften up the bulkiest members of an opponent's team so that a designated sweeper can clean up late game? Doesn't that bit of damage matter as well? The difference is that those benefits are something that you have to work towards. You don't just hit a button and get free turns. That takes careful prediction and planning.But that little bit of extra health can mean the difference between a win and loss. I'm sure theirs countless situations were stealth rocks,spikes and toxic spikes have caused the death of a pokemon purely on those entree hazards alone. Weather it be the effect of a focus slash being negated or that one hp'd, switch out sturdy pokemon being killed on its way back in or wise versus. With toxic spikes though that status condition could provide the same result. They are all moves, which create a small advantage over an opponent. Now theirs a big jump between entree hazards and sleep powder. But it would be deemed an advantage non the less.
And what if that Pokemon doesn't care about the speed drop? If you used Thunder Wave on a Forretress or Ferrothorn, you might have just strengthened its Gyro Ball and done little to hurt it otherwise besides a 25% chance of paralysis. Even if you use it on an offensive Pokemon like Terrakion, that Pokemon is still usable. I might switch Terrakion into your Volcarona (assuming you're not running Giga Drain or HP Ground) and you might switch out, giving me a 75% chance of tossing out one of my powerful STAB moves and nailing a switch-in. On the other hand, if my Terrakion were asleep, that would give you a completely free turn to switch to whatever you want, plus more possible free turns after that. Even with an offensive threat, you still aren't matching the restrictive power of sleep with paralysis.But if my objective is purely to slow down your poke so i can out speed it with a different poke or even with the very poke that used t-wave. Then, i am essentially removing it from the equation?
But what would this accomplish exactly? If you really think that Pokemon like Watchog and Butterfree are in lower tiers simply because they can't sleep more than one Pokemon at a time, then you're sadly mistaken.An exception or modification to the sleeping clause would obviously have to have a lot of thought put into it, though in my eyes the relative situations discussed couldn't be more similar. Which is why i cant help but thinking of situations were the outcomes could essentially be the same.
You're not eliminating the effectiveness of a Pokemon by preventing it from putting everything to sleep that it wants. You're only limiting the effectiveness of that particular status. If a Pokemon can't effortlessly snatch wins by putting everything in front of it to sleep, then too bad. This is no different than saying that we're unfairly punishing Drifblim for banning Minimize under the Evasion Clause, or that we're treating Walrein badly by banning Sheer Cold under the OHKO Clause. These Pokemon in particular are not being punished, it's just that we're restricting the use of the most powerful usable status in the game.Their is a difference in the unfair advantages generated from different status conditions, stat raising conditions and situations were an advantage is generated through either. But eliminating the effectiveness of a pokemon purely based upon the moves it can learn is in my eyes unfair in it self. Which is why i strongly believe a modification to the current sleep clause needs to be made, weather it be moveset exceptions or what have you.
† I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†
Random Quote of the...For Now:
Having one child makes you a parent; having two makes you a referee.
-Unknown
The Bug Sage
*errrheemm* *clears throat*
For the record you basically just said Venomoth is one of the most powerful pokemon in the game hehehe. <3
Praise jesus
This might seem a bit inappropriate but would like you to summarize that quotation for me perhaps using venomoth as an example? >.<
I didnt quite understand it
buttt errhaa-that doesn't matter right now lol
Alright, paralysis is some-what irreverent in some cases in comparison to the effects of sleep powder. Because their are obvious exceptions to the rule and or situations as to were it cause a brain splitting
yeah i got nuthing to that lol
Alright, *sigh*
Unfortunately I'm smart enough to know when I've been defeated... hahaahaa
Though I'm quite pleased with this discussion bro , cause I'm at least now aware of reasons of my poor little venomoth being unable to sweep in its own right, on an in depth level and i thank you for that (knowledge is power). I hope your now aware of a bug trainer point of view now though lol
I can understand the reasoning behind why such a situation is deemed illegal. I still somewhat disagree with it, though, its understandable non the less.
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
be your own guru
I overheard Multiscale Lugia is outstanding (sadly, mine has a Brave nature) however Smogon is disallowing the combination of Multiscale and Roost on it. Thoughts?
Spoiler:- 3DS friend-code:
Free Bird!
The analysis says that the combination is illegal simply because it's an old analysis. At the time that was written, there were no tutors yet, so Roost would have only been legal in-game with Multiscale if Lugia somehow got it as a DW move. Now that Roost is a tutor move, it's fully compatible with Multiscale. In fact, there is currently an analysis revamp for Lugia in progress in which Roost + Mulitscale is given as a possibility.
† I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†
Random Quote of the...For Now:
Having one child makes you a parent; having two makes you a referee.
-Unknown
THUNDERSTRUCK
Happy New Year folks, and congrats to the winners of the sppf competitive poll thingy.
Tier changes time!
I'm first gonna start off by reporting news that i've not reported yet: Hail is unbanned in every tier under OU. This in spite of forgetting that they originally banned it for blizzspam in the first place.
DOWN TO UU
chansey
abomasnow
~None of these are surprises to me, they've been right on the 3% border for the majority of the BW2 meta.
UP TO RU
amoongus
snover
emboar
absol
cinccino
~Hello NU team shift.
DOWN TO NU
Stoutland
Roselia
~And so continues stoutland's fall from grace. Remember when it and sawsbuck were both UU? Me neither. (J/k, Idk if anyone would remember that sawsbuck was UU until a year ago or so.)
Mk, and since the NU <-> PU list is chaotic, I'm not gonna post it
Spoiler:- Creamery Command Stuffs:
Free Bird!
Yeah, Amoonguss and Emboar moving up was really dumb. They only got there because of another Pokemon spamming prank, seeing as how their most used items are DeepSeaScale and Sticky Barb, respectively. Not that I'm complaining that Amoonguss is gone, but it honestly shouldn't be.
As for the others, they were expected. I am a bit sad to see Hail gone from NU since it gave me one more team archetype to run through with Combusken, but we did get a new Spikes/Toxic Spikes user in Roselia.
Now we just need to wait for the Tornadus-T and Keldeo tests and see where they land!
† I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†
Random Quote of the...For Now:
Having one child makes you a parent; having two makes you a referee.
-Unknown
Aeon
I'm curious about that, actually. If Tornadus-T is banned, do you think a mixed rain dnite with Hurricane/Thunder/Extremespeed/Outrage would rise in usage? I run that set now because I had felt like it, and I personally like it and wonder why I don't see it more often. Probably because I can't ladder to high (like 1400-1500 on PS!), but still. I would expect to see it more as a Tornadus-T alternative. As for Keldeo, I don't think it's as hard to deal with as Tornadus-T simply because it doesn't have as good range. Or I feel like it doesn't have as much of a range so I don't feel as helpless against it. I don't know, but I wouldn't mind Keldeo staying in OU.
Thanks Extroph for the banner, EG for buttons, and Eeveelover for any mugshots I may use.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
