Why doesn't Smogon use item clause?

This. I'm tired of seeing life orb plastered on almost every sweeper moveset.

Because item clause is fucking retarded and just limits team building for no reason

>>30644481
My autism makes me do it

Because then they can't use Leftovers on every single pokemon on their team aside from Sableye and Chansey.

>>30644481
because item clause has always been a non-sensical bullshit

>>30644774

Then stop copypasting movesets from Smogon like a mouthbreather and make a sweeper without life orb.

>>30644866
so has sleep clause and species clause

>>30644481
It limits team archetypes and playstyles. If you did this, you'd have 6v6 teams who all look the same, a la what VGC top 8 always is. You can look at competitive card games the same way that have banned lists and card limits. 4 of the decks are exactly the same, 2 decks are exactly the same, one deck is an old playstyle, and 1 deck is anti-meta.

You can't have Hyper Offense, Bulky Offense, BirdSpam, Stall, Balance, VoltTurn, FGWcore, and teams based around 1 'mon if you limit item usage.

Its to try and make a competitive game fair and fun to play for the community that plays it.

>>30644883
how can this guy influence how other people are building their teams.

>>30644927
>sleep clause
In a single meta it's needeed. The game is litterally unplayble otherwise, expecially pre-xy.
>species clause
That makes sense, I don't see how it doesn't.

>>30644481
Item clause is a thing just because during GSC the only good item was Leftover (and tick club if you are Marowak), GF didnt wanted to se everyone runing the same shit so they limited the items for championchips.
The only reason to keep it is tradition, to make thing less confuse. Smogon dont see a problem with two pokemon using the same item.
btw that anabel look like a trap

>>30644798

/thread

>>30644798
There are plenty enough usable items out there now that the only real limitation is on Scarf being limited to one

>>30644481
It's a stupid clause to be honest, it doesn't really do anything outside of arbitrarily restrictions potential cores.

>>30644481
item clause would be pretty dumb

Item clause would damage the extreme ends of teambuilding too much

Can't do full stall without multiple Leftovers

Can't do VoltTurn without multiple choice items

Can't do hyper offense without multiple Life Orb, multiple choice items (depending on build)

You basically force the teams go more midrangey/balance which means you wind up seeing the same midrange balance mons every match

>>30644927
Without Sleep Clause, you are pretty much forced to run Sleeper, one of the few Magic Bouncers or have Taunt on all Pokemon, and something that can trap Espeon and Xatu.

It would inhibit bulky teams (not just stall) too much because leftovers is basically the only viable item for a lot of their mons. Offensive teams can manage with mega stones/Z-crystals/LO/choice items/resist berries/leftovers/arceus plates/etc all being viable items, but there's really only a handful of viable defensive items.

With Item Clause, things would get even more same-y because you would just use the best user of each item.

>>30647801
>Can't do full stall without multiple Leftovers

And this is bad because...?

>>30648187
Because as awful as full stall can be to play against, it's necessary as a metagame check to balanced goodstuff teams that can't break six walls.

Same idea behind control decks in card games, they're annoying to play against but you don't want to see a metagame without them.

File: 1476566659003.png (171KB, 431x539px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 431x539px

>>30647801
>Can't do full stall without multiple leftovers

Well, you know, before I was against the item clause, but now...

>>30648297
If I could have a metagame without Paleozoics and ABCs, I would. I miss Nekroz.

>>30648378
>Nekroz
I bet you miss Dragon Rulers, too.

>>30644798
Nah, I like item clause. Makes the game more interesting when everything isn't LO+LO