Anyhow, after some thought, I say we go to Option 2 and if it doesn't work out, we can try other options.Option 1: I feel it is completely arbitrary and don't think it should be done.
However option 2 vs normal clause is definitely something we should discuss. I remember during the STABMons Frontier, all the brains bar one had a few restrictions. TEG said no Normal type teams(Monotype). Pagoose(LC) said no new normal type moves for a Pokemon. insanelegend(UU) banned only Belly Drum. Lcass(NU)(DEATH TO YANMA) also said no new normal type moves. I mean, if four of the best players in the tier, as well as a lot of other good players all feel that normal type moves are bad, surely we should look into that?
However, at the same time, I feel limiting only normal type moves is bad.
Look at the banlist. Yes, about 50% of them were banned due to normal type moves. And even there, most of those Pokemon would remain banned. (I typed this out and added some stuff later. That stuff is in italics.)
Even if it can use only Boomburst/Extremespeed, Altaria would still be broken. It can still boost with Dragon Dance/Agility. It will still be broken with Option 2 but normal clause will make it a little less powerful.
Sylveon is bulky enough to set up and spam Boomburst. It can also run a scarf set and outspeed everything below base 114. Or it can even run Power Herb Geomancy and still destroy things with Hyper Voice. Same as Altaria.
Porygon-Z gets Nasty Plot, Agility AND Adaptability. Adding Boomburst to it still makes it broken. Same as above.
Diggersby's main set was FakeSpeed/BellySpeed. True. But it could function perfectly well with only Extremespeed. It too gets Swords Dance and Agility. It also gets Precipice Blades and the elemental punches. While it will certainly be nerfed, it will still be a top threat. Same as above.
And so we come to Loppunny. It's fast enough to run SubSmash + Drain Punch and Return. It can still run FakeSpeed. I don't see it being unbanned either. Same as above.
Now for the rest of the Pokemon. Keldeo and Mega Aerodactyl aren't going to be affected regardless of any of the options and so can be ignored. Normal clause has no effect.
Kyurem-B was broken because it already has huge stats, it gets physical Ice STAB AND Dragon Dance. Option 2 would make Kyu-B a little less broken. Normal clause wouldn't affect it.
Mega Slowbro, I believe was broken due to its insane bulk, ability to set up on half the meta and ignore crits. The only thing it really gains is Stored Power. So again, both options are irrelevant.
Mega Metagross, Shift Gear + Heavy Slam is ridiculous. Option 2 nerfs it. Normal clause has no effect.
So if we apply option 2, we manage to do something about 7/10 of the bans. On the other hand, Normal clause affects only 5/10.
Then you come to the top threats of the current meta(Note that I'm saying top threats, not broken things only.): Darkrai, Braviary, Kangaskhan, Sableye, Landorus-T, Mega Scizor, Aegislash, Serperior, Thundurus and Tyranitar:
Darkrai: The only thing it really gains is a slightly stronger STAB and for that one dude that loves ruining my games, Topsy Turvy. Neither clause affects it.
Braviary: It gets Swords Dance so if it uses Option 2, it won't really be changed. Normal clause nerfs it a lot. Option 2 barely affects it.
Kangaskhan: Same as above except using option 2 means it can't use Lovely Kiss. See above.
Sableye: Neither clause affects it.
Landorus-T: With option 2, it loses Roost but still gains two strong STABs. Normal clause has no effect.
Mega Scizor: Option 2 nerfs it. Normal clause has no effect.
Aegislash: Doesn't really change all that much. Normal clause has no effect.
Serperior: It gets Spore. Unaffected by both clauses.
Tyranitar: Gets Diamond Storm and Sucker Punch. Unaffected by both clauses.
Thundurus: Gets Oblivion Wing and Bolt Strike. Unaffected by both clauses.
Now here, option 2 affects 4/10(It affects them all but only 4 of them get any sort of nerf) while normal clause affects 2/10.
Basically, normal clause nerfs only the normal type Pokemon but leaves Pokemon of other types which become stronger/more viable thanks to it.
Option 2 affects all Pokemon equally. But to be entirely honest, I dislike it. It only benefits Pokemon which have access to strong setup moves/strong attacks as they can simply pick one option and sweep. Stats are simply a bonus. But out of all the suggestions so far, I feel it's the best.
tl;dr: Fuck Yanma
Edit: On the topic of voting, I'd like it if only people who've played the meta for a while vote. I certainly don't have anything against new players and welcome it. But suppose I wanted a certain option 2 win, I could easily get a bunch of people to come vote for it. I propose an eligibility thingie. Like the person should have either won at least 10 matches or played 20 matches to vote. I'm not really a fan of the mini-council idea as it would exclude newer players.
"Though possibly slightly favoring offense." Is a huge understatement. Stall has been discussed a million times in STABmons, the new additions offer offense soooo much more. Offense gets things like Belly Drum Scrappy Espeed sweepers with Elemental Punchs and Superpower. Stall gets… recovery on Snorlax (still worse then Chansey), and random niche utility stuff like Transform. Stall has to try to counter premium wallbreakers like mixed Char Y and Thunderous along with multiple sweepers that can hit max attack in one turn. Correct me if I am wrong but the only player that consistently plays stall in STABmons is insanelegend. If stall was really so viable why don't more people play it?Personally, I'm going to go with Option 3. Why? I agree with unfixable in that it is not a meta where whoever sets up first wins; stall is still a viable strategy. Also, looking at the viability rankings, you can find that of all the S-ranked, the only ones who utilize both Attack and Status moves are Scizor-Mega, and possibly Lando-T. Choosing between attack and status moves will not affect over half of the S-ranked pokes, and may even make them more difficult to wall. And like many other people believe, i feel that Option 1 is too restrictive. The meta is still good as it is, though possibly slightly favoring offense-but is there any OM where offense and stall are equally viable?
im just going to throw it out there and say again this is not why this suspect is being held. its being held due to the plethora of pokemon who are easily capable of setting up and smashing various pokemon HARD. i don't mind different opinions dont get me wrong, but this ISN'T a "reasoning" as your not outlining the problem at all. this aspect can be found in both stall AND offense...and restricting it doesn't help EITHER playstyle be more viable both can run setup mons with powerful attacks. i'm not saying "change your opinion" i'm saying "give an opinion that actually contributes to your reasoning" having scizor be capable of setting up to +2 speed, +1 attack, and have a 150 base power move BEFORE stab is just rediculous. especially when the best unaware user risks the OHKO from pin missle(literally the ONLY reason to run pin missle...but its a HUGE reason). by implimenting this "nerf"(from option 2) we allow scizor to STILL HAVE ACCESS TO BOOSTING. what it does, is prevent it from having NEW completely overkill moves. forcing pokemon to either rely on their attacking movepool, or their support movepool, most of which do one or the either regardless. sure some pokemon don't care about this change, but that's NOT why were considering it, its NOT to completely change the meta, its to stop MANY pokemon from being broken with setup. (seriously, bibarel single handedly sweeps teams...and im talking people in the top 100's). and if you don't agree with that, outline THAT, and not something we all agree on already.Personally, I'm going to go with Option 3. Why? I agree with unfixable in that it is not a meta where whoever sets up first wins; stall is still a viable strategy. Also, looking at the viability rankings, you can find that of all the S-ranked, the only ones who utilize both Attack and Status moves are Scizor-Mega, and possibly Lando-T. Choosing between attack and status moves will not affect over half of the S-ranked pokes, and may even make them more difficult to wall. And like many other people believe, i feel that Option 1 is too restrictive. The meta is still good as it is, though possibly slightly favoring offense-but is there any OM where offense and stall are equally viable?
Sableye can still run d void, topsy turvy, parting shot, destiny bond, whatever. Thundurus can still run O Wing, t-bolt Taunt, and Nasty Plot, Tyranitar might lose dark Void, but it is still viable with sucker/knock off, diamond storm, and earthquake. I could go on and on about many B and above rank mons (Lando T, Chansey, Ferrothorn, Mega Diancie, Togekiss, and others I'm forgetting) that have sets that they commonly run, or sets similar to ones they commonly run, would be unaffected by this change.
...? care to explain what you mean?Option 3.
STABmons is supposed to be fun with offense gaining the upper hand slightly. Even though I haven't been around for a while, I can see that defense still has the upper hand here. I confess, I've used defense + back up offense strategy as well, but I'd say I was forced to.
I remember discussing with Eevee General about STABmons becoming stale with the mounting number of bans. If you choose Option 1 or 2, you're basically adding more to the staleness.
I'm sure that people who actually love playing STABmons (And not just for the sake of laddering) will instinctively vote for Option 3.
First off, I have refuted Dinaisha's assertion that defense is better then offense in STABmons multiple times and he has yet to provide solid proof he is correct. If you feel you are forced to run defensive mons, it is not because they are so powerful you can't win without them. It is because set up mons like Scizor and Azumaril are near impossible to revenge kill after they set up. The only things capable of checking Gear Grind/Shift Gear Scizor are bulky fire types. Azumaril gets 2 new priority moves and Shell Smash to complement Belly Drum. Several revenge killers such as Talonflame aren't taking a +6 Espeed, so you may find yourself "forced" to run defensive mons like Quagsire.Option 3.
STABmons is supposed to be fun with offense gaining the upper hand slightly. Even though I haven't been around for a while, I can see that defense still has the upper hand here. I confess, I've used defense + back up offense strategy as well, but I'd say I was forced to.
I remember discussing with Eevee General about STABmons becoming stale with the mounting number of bans. If you choose Option 1 or 2, you're basically adding more to the staleness.
I'm sure that people who actually love playing STABmons (And not just for the sake of laddering) will instinctively vote for Option 3.
I sort of get your logic, but not really; if you think set-up is so centralizing, why don't you just vote option 1 and try to get other people to hop along? At the very least vote option 2 to nerf set-up offense and as a result making other types of offense more viable, as opposed to just saying "do nothing and the problem will solve itself"Maybe I didn't word it nicely at all. I agree, Offense is the preferred play style. So then logically, as Kingslayer explained, you have to run Defense if you have any hopes of saving grace (Remember all those times you lost because you mispredicted and you opponent set up a Tail Glow or Shell Smash or Belly Drum and finished you off). Now my point was that Defense in STABmons wonderful, what with all the Offensive bans (Remember that I wasn't against a handful of those bans).
The obvious proof of this is the plethora of Defensive mons used extensively by the top ladder players. The offensive mons they use are either Revengers (Which is next to necessary in STABmons) or an end-game sweeper.
If you argue that setup (Especially bulky setup) Offense can be countered by Offense itself, then I point at you and laugh.
So, I think more restrictions will not contribute to betterment of the game in any sense. STABmons should remain the same and that's that.
Your logic doesn't match your vote. If Offense can't check/counter other offense because of set up, then why did you vote option 3? Also if top ladder players are really using defensive mons backed up with offensive revenge killers and sweepers, that sounds alot like balance. Nothing is particularly wrong with running balance, though you shouldn't be forced to run it to win. Which brings me back to my original point. If you really think set up is a problem why leave things alone?Maybe I didn't word it nicely at all. I agree, Offense is the preferred play style. So then logically, as Kingslayer explained, you have to run Defense if you have any hopes of saving grace (Remember all those times you lost because you mispredicted and you opponent set up a Tail Glow or Shell Smash or Belly Drum and finished you off). Now my point was that Defense in STABmons wonderful, what with all the Offensive bans (Remember that I wasn't against a handful of those bans).
The obvious proof of this is the plethora of Defensive mons used extensively by the top ladder players. The offensive mons they use are either Revengers (Which is next to necessary in STABmons) or an end-game sweeper.
If you argue that setup (Especially bulky setup) Offense can be countered by Offense itself, then I point at you and laugh.
So, I think more restrictions will not contribute to betterment of the game in any sense. STABmons should remain the same and that's that.