Mega Clause vs. "Ubers" Clause vs. "Broken Pokémon" Clause vs. No new clause

With the thread suggesting and discussing a Mega Clause being very heated and expanding to discussion of some kind of "Ubers" Clause to restrict use of excessively powerful Pokémon in general, I thought it would be a good idea to make a poll to get a more complete picture of what everyone wants.

So let's vote! Please post reasoning behind your choices if you can.

Mega Clause
An optional battle clause to ban using all Mega Pokémon. Pokémon would not be able to mega evolve in a battle with this clause active.
Off by default.

Pros: * Simple
* Allows use of held items without Mega Pokémon
* No updates required

Cons: * Bans use of some Mega Pokémon of reasonable power
* Ignores excessively powerful Pokémon that aren't Legendary or Mega Evolutions

"Ubers" Clause
An optional battle clause to ban use of a list of excessively powerful Pokémon (with specific Abilities or not). Pokémon on the list would be illegal sends in a battle with this clause active.
Off by default.

Pros: * Combines with Legend Clause
* Allows use of reasonably powerful Legendary and Mega Pokémon
* Can extend to creating tier clauses

Cons: * Complicated
* Higher risk of banning reasonably powerful Pokémon through bias
* Requires a lot of work to determine list or tiers

"Brokémon" Clause
An optional battle clause to ban the use of a small list of excessively powerful Pokémon (with specific Abilities or not). Pokémon on the list would be illegal sends in a battle with this clause active.
On by default.

Pros: * Least restrictive change
* Helps protect newer players from abuse
* Helps create more balanced competitive metagame

Cons: * Requires integrity and maintenance of list
* Pokémon considered broken or unfair may not be so
* Likely to cause regular arguments over whether a Pokémon on or off the list is broken or unfair
* Likely to more widely reduce use and popularity of listed Pokémon

No new clause
No new clauses added.
Don't battle people who play unfairly. Learn and prepare strategies to take down common extremely powerful Pokémon and Megas.
High-level battlers have to deal with everything and anything, even if it results in a high turnover of E4/Champions or a small top-end metagame.

Pros: * Simplest
* Balances metagame around Gamefreak's design choices
* No updates required

Cons: * No mechanical penalty for unfair play
* Requires staff action to deal with abusive play

 

Echo pointed this out, but would it be possible to cross-post this to the other two forums because this seems like a really important thing and we want to maximize who sees it?

 

I missed the other thread so I haven't seen the arguments either way (and thx BT for facilitating the convo) but I think the idea of these clauses is mostly dumb and I voted for No new clause. Megas are hardly broken, with MAYBE a few exceptions, but those exceptions are as legal for one user as it is for the other. Everyone gets one Mega. Smart players can beat Megas with Megas, or without Megas. Many Megas aren't even much better than previously established top guys like Dragonite, SB Blaziken, etc. anyway. And those have proven to be counterable too.

We've never needed any sort of Brokemon clause before in spite of Blaziken/Dragonite/whatever else, and I don't think one Mega per team makes that much of a difference. Implementing a Mega Clause feels like a half-measure enabled by the ease of banning a defined group of Megas. You could have a Mega clause as a 'why not' in theory, but I dislike it very much and I would have a problem with compromising to its implementation even in that context.

 

Honestly, I wonder why we don't do this with a lot of Trainer's Court threads. (read: all of the trainer's court threads.)

 

Kidding, I realized that the poll would be difficult for counting if it were cross-posted because members could vote up to three times/general difficulties counting votes, but perhaps a thread that at least directs people here?

 

Let me point out that if we go with ubers, the Pokemon basically removed from urpg play would increase more and more with each new mega. Either of the 3 new Megas could become OP, and I'm pretty sure 2 of them well. Sceptile and Pert could too.

Doing nothing honestly shouldn't be an option imo. I don't like that a mega clause means you can't use some of the cooler megas, but if it prevents the way too uncompetitive Pokemon from turning e4 and ld from a game of skill, endurance and balance to one of predict the correct mega or lose, then I'm all aboard.

The balance is so ridiculous atm. I'd gladly give up using megakhan and megagar when this clause is up, so that no one else can abuse them when the optional clause is up. Any other time you can use whatever megas you want.

 

I agree with Nitro.

For the most part, I see restricting clauses as a dumb new option to mimic Smogon. Quite frankly, I don't think Mega Kangaskhan is that good. It's rather powerful with Parental Bond yes, but it's still easily revenge-killed or countered with Fighting Types. It lacks certain important moves to be able to carry out a sweep on itself as well. Mega Gengar is slightly more tricky to handle, but Shadow Tag is not really helping that much when you consider the distribution of passing moves like U-turn and Volt Switch.

Megas are like OU Pokemon. They are more powerful than the other Pokemon in other tiers. That is why players need to come up with strategies and counters to win battle, which usually end up in Mega VS Mega. When battling Pokemon like Blaziken, I play extra carefully to avoid situations where it managed to set up and sweep. While I agree that there is a very fine line between Blaziken being OP, there are also proper or niche counters to Blaziken. I do think Syn is right about how the Mega Clause means you can't use some of the cooler (or obscure) Megas though, like Pinsir for example. That's a factor that I dislike.

Still, the clauses are optional and I think imposing an optional Mega Clause wouldn't be that bad. I am not in favor of Uber or 'Brokemon' clauses at all, however.

On a separate note, who else is excited for Mega Lopunny?

 

let's go ahead and not base our decision now (in any way) on any future Megas that we don't know much about.

it's really sad that the justification for those who are in favor of the mega clause but not the other two are so because it seems like they just don't have faith in the URPG to pull it off successfully

I'd rather have no clause than a Mega Clause

 

Anything to get the word out about it, really. Echo's a bro for commenting on this. :0 And Elysia's a bro for posting about it. And Towelie's a bro for making it happen!!!

 

I voted Brokemon because I honestly believe URPG can determine what's broken or not. I do, however, believe that if we end up going for it it should be default off like the others otherwise it would never get used.

 

I also like Brokemon as a Clause. I voted for No Clause because it seemed to me like people were against the idea of URPG tiering, and that there was no definitive way to determine what should be banned under the clause. I have seen the misconception that the Clause would outright ban everything in it though. It's really just as optional as Mega Clause, but would address other threats as well without needlessly limiting things that dont need to be (If I'm understanding correctly).

 

Okay, I'm actually really happy overall with the discussion we had on this issue. Final thoughts:

I don't believe a Brokemon clause is the best option for URPG. Although it would be by far the most effective at eliminating overpowered threats, it doesn't fit with the URPG battling community. We don't tier, we don't ban combinations like Swift Swim and Drizzle, and we don't "suspect" specific things. A Brokemon clause requires that a line be drawn somewhere, and there will always be debate about that.
Hypothetically, lets say Mega Kangaskhan is currently the best Pokemon. We put it in the clause. Then Mega Gengar is best, it gets claused. Then so does Blaziken, then Dragonite. Something will always be "the best allowed Pokemon" and that's where the debate will always continue.

Personally my initial response is No Clause, which ended up being the most popular vote. However I have to admit that not adding any clause is dismissive of something which I can see is an issue. There's absolutely no resolution in this being an option.

Which brings me to the Mega Clause, something that would be entirely optional. I'm going to add the Mega Clause for this reason - although I do believe it really is an over-the-top bandaid fix to the problems cause by only a couple of Mega Pokemon, doing that does not have a negative effect on battling. The clause is optional, so it's up to the individual to use it or not. The argument that it will be forced on you in Gyms is irrelevant - any clause the leader wants to use is forced on you, and both battlers still have to compete under the same rules. No handicap is imposed as a result.

tl;dr I'm adding an optional Mega Clause.