Mega Clause

Mega Clause = "Megastones banned"

This has been brought up multiple times in chat and almost every time it has ended up in agreement that mega clause should be a thing.Surely it couldn't hurt to have it as an option with it being off by default.

atm people have to resort to no items to avoid megas, which removes a large aspect of tactics from the battle at the expense of removing the threat of one pokemon which isn't exactly an efficient way of going about it

 

To clarify, Pokemon in this clause wouldn't be able to mega evolve but could still hold mega stones (think of BH on Showdown). There really is no reason this shouldn't be an option because there are about five megas that are very centralising and ruin the balance in battles. Battles become more about building a team to counter mega khan or gar, rather than one that's balanced.

The argument of you can just use the same megas against them doesn't solve anything imo.

 

I honestly don't see it as a problem either way. Doesn't hurt to add it I guess, but also don't really see a need for it. Doesn't really seem like a problem, the two battlers could just agree not to use them and have items on anyways without the clause (unless you guys don't trust each other, idk lol). You're right it doesn't hurt to add it though.

 

I hear ya, but what's the difference between "lets both agree to not use megas" and "lets both agree to have mega clause on"? not much but having it as a clause removes the chance of deceit poisoning the battle and allows gym leaders to include it as mandatory in gyms.

 

Making it a clause would make a difference in LD where the challenger changes a rule. That's really all I can think of that hasn't been mentioned.

 

This is yet another clause I don't wan't to see in gyms/E4/LD

I honestly don't think something like this belongs in URPG. As Ataro has said before, URPG battling is all about having all your moves and the "full potential" of your Pokemon available to you. There are more than enough mega Pokemon readily available to everyone that I don't believe they need to be restricted.

Being unable to counter a mega is no different to being unable to counter a Blaziken or a Dragonite or whatever else happens to be able to wreck your shit. They just happen to fit an easily determined category that people can try and remove from battling.

 

Monbrey for Pidgeocrat 2014

But seriously, folks. I support this. What harm would it be to add it, if you can just play without it on? Also, it'd be entirely beneficial for Gym leaders in many cases, and would also even the playing field for some Gyms which have access to Megas that your average URPGer doesn't have. It can make it easier for either the Gym leader or the Challenger, depending on the situation. This leads to the conclusion that it isn't any more biased than choosing the starting weather.

 

I don't really understand what you're saying about gyms there. The Mega Clause would prevent the use of Mega Pokemon, how is it beneficial to the Gym Leader if the Gym has access to good Mega Pokemon?

 

It would be beneficial for Gym Leaders that don't have access to good Megas, or to Megas that are easily outclassed by others that the challenger could bring.

 

Well see, now I think that's the gym leaders fault. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, idc to look it up) every type has a mega. If so then every leader has access to one (even if they have to rent). It's really easy to obtain pokemon in URPG, it's EMing them that is a bit harder.

Also, every type will be outclassed by something so that doesn't really seem valid to me. In a Rock gym (which I think you have? Forgot that too but don't care to check (also don't you get like three megas in your gym?)) obviously Mega Blastoise/Venusaur could be a problem, but you'll just have to find a way around it. It's like Monbrey said, Pokemon like Blaziken and Dragonite are hard to counter in certain gyms, but you have to find a way to make it work.

 

No offense bee and monbrey, but you don't exactly battle enough to really get it. Yes, blaziken is really good and there's not going to be a no Blaziken clause or anything obviously. But this is so different.

Having the option to not be completely wrecked by megas that are both uncounterable (checks exist for everything, big difference) and very centralising seems pretty acceptable for any kind of battling system. We're no Smogon obviously and we're not going to ban things obviously, but it's a very reasonable request for it to be an optional clause in every battle type.

 

eh

I actually don't care much for this. I'd either wanna see a full on attempt at a metagame or no attempt at all. This seems more like a wetting your feet kind of thing that I don't care for. In my opinion Blaziken is just as threatening as MGar/MKhan. All three you have to be extremely wary around both in team building and during the battle.

While MGar can always come in and KO a weakened Pokemon with ST, Blaze can come in on a non threat and get an SD on the switch and prepare to sweep probably half-all your team, or BP to something that can handle the counter. They are different monsters, but I don't see the point in having a clause for one but not the other. Plus, this is really only for the few overpowering Megas right? Why have a clause that bans MegaHoundoom, when you're really just trying to address the two OP ones?

I'd much rather see a comprehensive "Ubers" clause, that would really address the problem of an over centralized battling system. In fact, if you really think about it, this clause would really only over centralize the game more by limiting the options of terribly OP Pokemon that aren't covered in the Mega Clause (Blaze, Nite, Kiss?) and removing a crop of nonOP Pokemon that are pretty good (MPinsir, MMawile, Zards etc.). So ya, if you wanna talk about over centralization of battling, then id be happy to agree/discuss with you, but I don't think a Mega Clause is the solution.


EDIT: actually, an Ubers/Tier 2 tournament could be kinda cool

 

That's exactly my point Elamite, except you explained it a lot better.

The only reason it's possible to isolate Mega Pokemon is that they fit an easily determined category with URPG, and an Ubers category doesn't. If we DID have Ubers, then no doubt people would be trying for an Ubers clause too, which would throw Blaziken and Dragonite in with the likes of Mega Gengar and Mega Kangaskhan.

 

What you guys say does make sense but you really can't compare Blaziken to Mega Gengar. Mega Gengar is the first Pokemon ever to be suspect in Ubers, deemed far more centralising and OP than Arceus, Kyogre and co who are all conveniantly banned from lots of URPG battles. Long story short Shadow Tag is actually uncompetitive as it prevents the opponent switching which is pretty crucial to battling, among many other things. Even the worst of the megas, like Houndoom or Abomasnow, are pretty great to be quite honest.

I think the point here is that if you don't have any megas, or even not the best ones, you're at a huge disadvantage, which unfortunately is something that can and is pretty easily abused. It's pretty comparable to enticing noobs to battle your gym to sweep them in 5-8 turns.

Still proper tiering would be really cool.

 

Ya, I totally agree with you that MGengar is ridiculous. But this sorta begs the question, why Megas? Shadow Tag seems to be the ability at stake here so wouldn't a "Shadow Tag Clause" be more reasonable? That would lump like 2/3 Pokemon that we don't have a problem with (Wobb, Gothorita fam, and ~Chandy, though ST chandy is arguably OP too). The Mega Clause lumps like 20+ Pokemon that are not at all overpowered (with Khan & I guess MBlaziken being the only other ones that are debatably OP).

Just a thought tho since I think MGengar is the real problem child. Khan is ridiculous but in my opinion not nearly as much.

 

I personally agree with smores. I'd rather have an all-encompassing Uber's clause instead of a Mega Clause. Mega Clause would ban things that aren't necessarily game-breaking (also it would ban mega garchump lol) and it wouldn't take care of some things that are. I get what Syn is saying about how Megas are even more OP than some of the most OP nonMegas, but the point is that this doesn't apply to every mega.

That being said, an Ubers Clause would come with issues of its own. It might get confusing to only include certain items (mega stones) and abilities (speed boost, protean etc) but I I also think that's the best way to do it, since blaze blaziken and torrent greninja don't deserve to be lumped in with their op alternatives. What I'm saying is, Ubers Clause would (and should, if implemented) be a lot more complicated than just "AHHH it's a threat! Banit banit banit!!"

 

Parallels can be drawn from the legend clause in the way they are both "categories" of pokemon, I'm not entirely sure how accurate it is to compare the two but the principles are still the same, since I'm pretty sure urpg stat wise it is probably more accurate to compare Megas to legendary pokemon rather than to a blaziken. What I mean is the legend clause prevents weaker legends to be used at all in the same way the mega clause prevents weaker megas to be used the only difference being that the weakest mega far outclasses an average-good legend.

The only reason this flaw in the legend clause has been overlooked is because legends are sparceand affect only one or two people at a time, and as a result of this flaw they are doomed to FFAs only

 

I just want to say, if we are all ready to get rid of Shadow Tag Chandy from being against my gym, I'm for it. Screw that thing and outspeeding and OHKOing most of my mons with little counter play.

 

I agree with Fawkes, lets abolish the Legend clause.

 

Not exactly the point I was trying to get across, I was just pointing out there was a small hypocrisy. Someone getting an arceus and dominating urpg is the last thing we want xD.

A dynamic uber clause replacing the legend clause while encompassing the mega clause as mentioned is probs the best idea, banning the overpowered legends and megas while allowing manageable legends and megas to be free to use.