Mega Clause

Why do we need a middle ground where people can use the megas they want but not op ones. Even if you could work out tiers they wouldn't be useable in gym/e4/ld which is where megas being op is the problem.

It really is only people who haven't seen the good megas in action actually against this. It's like people opposing vaccines because they hear from one source they can give diseases instead of hundreds of legit sources that are preventing kids dying. Maybe get on aim and look at some e4 or w/e battles before arguing against.

 

Yup, you are right! Let's do everything your way!

 

The passive aggressive here is too damn high.

My suggestion is that we establish a new battling style--unless something else is being discussed that I'm not aware of, there isn't anything in the works for X/Y or X/Y Revo yet. All of the previous battling styles have been implemented because of some major, ground-breaking mechanic introduced in the new generation that completely changed how battling worked:

As such, each of those battle styles has been defined around that central mechanic (well, D/P/Pt got kind of screwed, but you get the point). X/Y doesn't have anything nearly as game-changing as, say, Physical/Special splits, but I suggest creating an X/Y battle style for mega-Evolutions.

tl;dr: We could make X/Y and X/Y Revo exactly like B/W and B/W Revo, except Mega-Evolutions are allowed in X/Y/(Revo) and not allowed in B/W/(Revo). People who don't want to deal with Megas can run B/W, and people who want to abuse them can run X/Y. Problem solved?

 

If we're going to ban things we don't like battling, then I'd like to propose banning every single one of Ash K.'s Pokemon based solely on the fact that I just cannot beat them because they're so overpowered and so much more well EM'd than everything else I own, and it's just terrible battling him because I always lose.

All joking aside, about the only thing in this thread I agree with is the addition of an X/Y battle mode and an X/Y Revo battle mode, where if you want to use megas in X/Y, you can, but if you don't, you play X/Y Revo. (Or it can be X/Y that has banned megas and X/Y Revo that allows megas, whatever makes y'all happy, I guess.)

Or you know, you can do helds off or have them on and just use a gentleman's agreement to not use megas. Because obviously if your battling partner breaks a gentleman's agreement, they're not a very nice person, are they?

But really, part of having a gym/E4 is learning how to and knowing how to defend yourself against these OP Pokemon you're so claiming to be OP, or maybe that's just how I look at.

Also, for the record, I have seen these so called "good megas" in action, and I still disagree with this Mega Clause.

 

To clarify, X/Y Revo would be like B/W Revo but with megas, and X/Y would be whatever derivation of D/P/Pt that B/W currently is, but with megas. The X/Y styles would literally be just the B/W styles but with megas.

And, if we're going to be real and talk about the "but it's not that bad!", here are the calcs of Mega-Lucario against your/my mono-Dark gym:

Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Houndoom: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 207% (OHKO)
If you want to risk using Mega-Houndoom, meaning you have to Protect in order to M-Evo in turn and outspeed to OHKO with Fire Blast, which has an 85% hit rate, you can do that. You also risk giving it a free turn to Nasty Plot, which allows Vacuum Wave to deal 98% damage to your Mega-Houndoom, meaning any prior damage fucks you over anyway
Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Umbreon: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 115% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Sharpedo: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 237% damage (OHKO)
You can play the same Protect game here, but with Speed Boost. Of course, if it Nasty Plots on the turn you Protect, Vacuum Wave deals 157% damage (OHKO). Furthermore, your best attack against Mega-Luc is Earthquake, and that does about 57%.
Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Hydreigon: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 135% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Krookodile: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 143% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Cacturne: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 194% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario Close Combat vs Tyranitar: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 225% (OHKO)

But wait, what about teh Sableye!?
Oh, right, you can Prankster Will-o-Wisp it! Problem solved!
No, jk, it has 379 Special Attack.
Mega-Lucario Flash Cannon vs Sableye: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 63%. OHKO's with a Nasty Plot.
In fact, let's just say you have to waste on turn switching, if you've got a poorly attacking offensive mon in there, and Lucario gets up a single Nasty Plot. Just one. Literally, this just comes down to bringing in Lucario on one mon that can't OHKO it, because it can live most attacks, get up one Nasty Plot, and then:
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere/Flash Cannon vs Drapion: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 110% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere/Flash Cannon vs Malamar: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 101% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere/Flash Cannon vs Honchkrow: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 115% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere/Flash Cannon vs Drapion: M-Luc outspeeds and deals 110% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere vs fighting-weak Greninja: M-Luc deals 226% (OHKO)
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere vs fighting-neutral Greninja: M-Luc deals 113% (OHKO)
I should note that fighting-resistant Greninja (Bug, Fairy (unobtainable on Greninja and OHKO'ed by FC anyway), Flying, Poison, and Psychic all get OHKO'ed by +2 Flash Cannon anyway
Mega-Lucario +2SpA Aura Sphere vs ghost-Greninja: well, nothing, but Shadow Sneak isn't going to do anything but give them one turn to Swords Dance, Crunch, and wreck your shit unless you've got some serious prediction pants
Everything else already in your lineup gets OHKO'ed by a stock Close Combat as discussed above, btw.


tl;dr: basically everything in Geosenge is OHKO'd by Mega-Lucario, and things that aren't can get OHKO'ed after a single misplay. This isn't even counting the Blaziken that can come in after, or the Togekiss, or any of the other threats that you'd see all the time because those can be dealt with. In this case, though, Mega-Lucario will either flat-up OHKO most of your lineup or take advantage of a single misplay to stat up and then actually OHKO your entire lineup. That is over-centralizing. That is unfair. That is what should probably be banned.

If anyone honestly wants to call me out for being a wuss and banning big threats to my own gym or something, I can run calcs for any type and demonstrate how pathetically ridiculous some of these Pokemon can be to a mono-type team. Bug/Grass vs Charizard X comes to mind.

Obviously, there are ways to work around Mega-Lucario, and I'm not going to spell out strats in this thread, but they are difficult, irritating, and literally all that has to happen is Mega-Luc gets up one Swords Dance or Nasty Plot and it's gg. I've watched three E4 battles recently, and they basically boiled down to "Mega-Lucario beats Mega-Kangaskhan beats Mega-Gengar beats Mega-Lucario; whichever battler has the better Mega will win." These Pokemon are hilariously over-centralizing and over-powered lol, and it'd be nice if people stopped dismissing it as other people not wanting to deal with babby threats rather than legitly OP bullshit.

 

So, minor sidetrack on all these battle styles and shit, but would there be a X2Y2 battle mode that would be like B2W2, because that's pretty fun sometimes.

 

Removing items to combat megas lends to this scenario;

"No, you cannot use a mega clause to ban all mega pokemon since it discriminates against the weaker megas!!!"
"Instead why don't you ban all items and ignore the hypocrisy since not all items are the trouble child???"

also I'm failing to see why "Just use a verbal agreement" is still being thrown around since whats the diff between that and an actual clause?

Elysia essentially nailed it on the head in regards to some gyms downright needing the mega clause. Owning a certain pokemon shouldn't be an insta win

 

But you can just do a gentleman's agreement? If they don't abide by that they aren't very nice are they?

Also, sidenote: pretty sure at least half the gyms are screwed over by *insert mega* in a similar fashion. What's just as bad though is Gym Leaders abusing them against people who don't even own megas ie to beat up/discourage a noob for easy money. It's different when the opponent has at least a mega of their own.

It's a two-way street where all the signs point to mega clause.

 

Ugh. I'm on vacation and have very very limited Internet and I really really didn't want to spend it on URPG if I could avoid it (though snapchatting nitro his lookalike was very important). But, y'all have drawn me out. I have so much to say too, holy crap

Ok. Though my post may seem biased toward the NonClause option. I'm more posting to point out flaws in the logic and I just don't want people rash decisions on fake realizations. That's why I'm going through all this trouble. Personally, I haven't been convinced, but i am definitely not opposed to the idea here. I would be all for a clause which banned uncompetitive Pokemon, but I don't like the idea of banning competitive Pokemon just because it's simple. To me, this is worse than how it currently stands (which you are welcome to disagree with).

My first problem with this clause is that it sets a standard. A lot of people in this thread seem to think the Legendary clause is silly. They are using the fact that it is encompassing, in that it bans Pokemon that are not overpowered along with those which are, as a justification for why the Mega Clause being similarly encompassing should be okay. They're using the precedent as an argument point. This trait has never really been called into question though because Legends are few and far between. So most people don't really mind if they couldn't use their Articuno in a gym battle because most people don't have an Articuno. But obviously banning these bad Pokemon doesn't make sense. So to me, using that precedent is not at all convincing. Why are people pretending like it's okay to have a clause which bans Pokemon that are not at all overpowered?

No one who is in the support of this clause has given me a legitimate answer to this. Syn briefly pointed out that a lot of Megas have very good stats anyway, so even the non OP ones are very good. But he also said that he would never consider banning Pokemon like Togekiss and Dragonite, because despite being very good, they are not overpowered. What? This inconsistency doesn't make any sense to me. If someone from that side could also explain to me the problem with a "Shadow Tag" clause I would be happier. Because just saying you don't like something isn't really being intelligent. Why not address the specific threats that are OP, instead of trying to oversimplify?

My second problem is that I don't think that having Pokemon your gym has to go through extreme measures to deal with is a new development. With the removal of wildcards, there was not a realistic way for a Bug gym leader to deal with a Dragonite. Armaldo cannot OHKO and is outsped after a DD and promptly KOd. There are extremely few bug Pokemon that get any Ice moves (none STAB) and not a single one learns a Fairy move. The options are essentially limited to: Final Gambitting an Accelgor (which is one of the most valuable Pokemon in the gym, so sacrificing it is much worse than you'd think AND it doesn't even KO it), Statusing it either with Prankster Volbeat or Volcorona (both of whom can do almost nothing else to it), or platoon damage it somehow. Realistically, there is no counter to a Dragonite in a Bug gym. Sometimes you have to simply team damage something in order to beat it, very few people have multiples of these Pokemon so you just have to bring it down once. But to me, this was such an insurmountable problem that I dropped the gym.

Now, I'm not saying that this necessarily means that Megas are OP or not, but I don't think that Megas are new in their ridiculousness in gyms. So this argument also does not convince me at all.

Finally, I think it's ridiculous to assume the URPG is at all comparable to what Smogon does, or that we could ever get close to doing what they do. Don't compare them. For starters, we do not have the manpower nor the experience of that site. Thousands of battles take place everyday on Pokemon showdown. Everything we do is in extremely small sample sizes, which is why I'm always skeptical to things being "broken." It is entirely possible that people haven't discovered a perfectly viable option in the URPG that would simply thwart those Pokemon. But, because the URPG operates on such a small scale those things may never be found. Also, there are quite possibly things that are entirely broken that don't become a problem because people do not abuse them enough. For example, Swift Swim Drizzle which I abused the shit out of last generation, but was pretty much alone in doing so and so no one cared. But that was so broken and I didn't even have the best users for it (Kingdra). This sort of leads me to my second point, metagames are entirely unique which is something people don't totally understand in URPG. Pokemon can be uncompetitive in specific environments. For example Shuckle was just banned from RU, not because of it's offenses (obviously), but because it could consistently come in and lay both Sticky Web and Stealth Rock. People decided this was competitively centralizing. So my point here is that I'm not sure if the URPG is at a point where it can definitely say that something is "centralizing" simply because there doesn't seem to be enough evidence. Saying that something is getting banned from Smogon Ubers does not convince me that it is uncompetitive here. It's a totally different ball game. If you could present me with a significant amount of evidence, then I would be happy to null this point, but currently standing I don't think it exists. And this is coming from someone who does battle frequently so I'd be happy not to hear that argument.

So ya, really, if you think about it, this post is for the people pro Mega Clause. Address these points and I think people will be more inclined to like this idea. Keep resurfacing the same arguments and you'll keep getting the same rebuttals. also, don't be salty

 

It has come to my attention on AIM that the X/Y battle modes are just another name for Mega Clause without it being outright called a Mega Clause. I said that was the only idea I agreed with, and with that new knowledge, I disagree with this idea again, and I'm just gonna leave it at that.

tl;dr no mega clause kthxbai.

 

It's really hard to even find your points when you aren't breaking up your paragraphs but these are what I'm getting from them.

1) "Legend clause is silly"

Legends don't seem as OP as they are because they're so rare is what I think you are saying. We don't know how OP they are because all we can really do is theorymon with the lack of them, and the people who do have them tend to be good battlers. If you really want to play the numbers game, there are three definitely OP Legends out there (imo), one Mega Luc, 4 Mega Khan and about 4 Mega Gengar. Still, your point here is so muddled. Most people don't complain of no legends because they don't have Articuno to abuse somehow relates to this discussion. Yeah, moving on.

2) "OP mons in Gyms isn't new"

I agree with your point on how Bug types had it rough. It sucks, really. So why should this have to become the norm in like 10 more Gym types?

3) "Smogon isn't comparable to URPG"

Absolutely, yeah. I agree, especially on the scale thing. Buuut, we're not idiots. Kyogre is obviously so overpowered in standard play, but it gets checked pretty well by Parasect. Having a a few Pokemon that are pretty useless outside of checking an OP mon only highlights how centralising and OP it is, not that people need to discover new mons that stop them. That's like me telling you to that you that you just haven't tried hard enough to find a Dragonite counter in a Bug gym, which is just unfair.

Edit: the fact that Felly was not okay with mega clause, but fine with X/Y until it was pointed out that it was the exact same thing is a problem. People arguing because of the name probably shouldn't be taken into consideration so much.

 

I wish I could give 5 thumbs up to Smores' post.

For the record, I'm also a person who battles (and refs) actively, and disagrees with Mega Clause. What fawkes stated about the hypocrisy of wanting to have "turn items off" be the only way of limiting Megas while still being opposed to the clause is just as true the other way around. If you don't want "turn items off" as the only way to limit Megas because that also places limitations on items that don't need to be limited, then limiting all Megas just because a few (or even many) are OP is just as hypocritical. With all due respect, all this justification and the calculations of highly overpowered Megas in certain scenarios are unnecessary. The argument isn't that Megas dont need to be limited at all; the argument is that plenty don't. I doubt you can find me a Gym where Mega Blastoise or Mega Banette OHKO all in their paths and cannot be stopped. I just don't understand the logic. That's like saying Blaziken is OP, so let's make a clause where you can't use Fire-types.

Making it optional (be it through a Clause or a battle style) doesn't really help either. It's essentially forcing the decision between "get swept, or don't use Megas at all" which is just unnecessary. There are plenty of useful Megas that are not OP. I can't state that fact enough. I'd rather have middle ground instead of choosing an extreme. Otherwise, I think things should stay the same.


PS dont hate me for disagreeing pls; I love you all. ;-;

 

Things are just going round and round, the same points are being brought up and the same arguments are being thrown back. Lets do an ol' fashioned poll so we gauge that this is not just a loud minority situation

 

Seriously though, I don't see the harm in making it an optional clause. Let the battlers make the choice of whether they want to witness the bloodcurdling fury of a Mega-Kangaskhan or not. If they do, cool. If they don't, cool.

 

I so very much agree with Smores' post.

Syn, just wanted to ask you one question about this statement:

I completely agree that's pretty shit form and I'm against the whole notion of coaxing a player into a gym battle they'll clearly lose "for extra money" or whatever other reason is often given. However I don't see how this supports a Mega Clause, because if the intention of the gym leader is to sweep with a mega, they aren't going to turn the clause on.

Other than that, Fawkes is right and this is going around in circles. I'd like to keep this thread to new ideas and discussions, not just arguing over the same "YES WE SHOULD/NO WE SHOULDNT" point. Staff will be discussing this and I'll probably contact anybody who has had good contributions to this thread personally for input.

If this thread keeps going in a circular argumentative fashion I'll just lock it.

 

@Monbrey ; Yeah that point was more of an aside than anything since I don't think it really hinders or helps either side.

And now, we wait!

 

tl;dr, against mega clause because there's not even enough active users with these OP megas to even make it a problem.

 

Another idea has just occurred to me.

Someone mentioned some time ago that Shadow Tag Mega Gengar is the first thing to be suspect in Ubers (or something to that effect). Would a "suspect" system work in URPG? Discuss singular, specific Pokemon or strategies which are non-competitive and need to be excluded from regular gameplay.

 

@Felly ; Your lists of players are really off btw. If you want to E4 you're going to be faced with an OP mega no matter which you challenge. It's not so much about numbers. If you really want to run them though just message me on AIM.

@Monbrey ; We really couldn't do a suspect thing for a few reasons that smores mentioned in his last post, and probably many others. We lack anywhere near the amount of battles and battlers to actually suspect ban something. Not to mention not even enough knowledgable active members to form any kind of council. The URPG really shouldn't be about outright banning things, imo. I'd actually much rather no mega clause than trying to head down that route.

 

The battling numbers I can agree with. Suggesting we as a community aren't knowledgeable enough only makes you sound elitist unfortunately.