Forretress (QC 2/3) written

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overview: Forretress isn't great, but "mediocre" is an overstatement, both Steeljackal and I used it effectively in SPL. Also, Sturdy is as much of a draw as TSpikes / Explosion (no Defog for u) / Rapid Spin are, without Sturdy no one would use Forry bc it wouldn't be able to Explode or get off emergency spins.

EV's: No 252 Speed mention please, because even without Gyro Ball, speed is totally unnecessary except the turn Custap activates.

Moves: You don't need two layers of Toxic Spikes on the HO teams you'll be using this on, one layer is more than enough for offense to pressure CM Arceus with. Also Explosion isn't that powerful, remove the word "very" before it.

Set details: Make a note that Explosion blocks both Defog AND Rapid Spin. This is really important for Custap Forry.

Usage tips: The major issue I have with this section is when you mention that Forretress should avoid setting up hazards in the face of Defog or Rapid Spin users. This is wrong, you have many more hazard PP than the opponent will have Defog PP. When the Defog user realizes they cannot stop Forretress from getting up hazards so long Forretress is on the field of play, they will eventually attack or switch out. If they attack and put you in Custap range, you can then use Explosion to deny Defog and deal damage (unless Ghost Defog user). If you play properly, the offensive pressure on your team will then either stop Defog completely or punish your opponent severely if they use a precious turn removing hazards. Rapid Spin is even more irrelevant considering Forretress will always be used with an offensive Arceus-Ghost or Giratina-O. Also, remove the"However, it can be useful against several Arceus formes lacking Refresh" line.

Team Options: Most of this is good, but focus more on Pokemon that can stop hazard removal later in the battle (via Taunt or offensive pressure) moreso than Pokemon that resist Fire moves. You do talk about Taunt and pressure, I'd just remove the Fire resist mentions. Believe me, Custap Forry does not mind being brought down to Sturdy! Also Mega Diancie is not very good on the HO teams Forretress will be used on, as you cannot use Mega Salamence / Mega Aerodactyl / Mega Gengar, all of which fit better due to higher Speed, access to Taunt, significantly more power, or a combination of the three. Diancie easily surrenders a Defog to support Waterceus, for example.

Other Options: "Mental Herb is a final option to set up Spikes after a Taunt, but only lasts once and Leftovers's recovery is in more cases appreciated." <-- remove the Leftovers mention. Also don't mention Pain Split, and maybe mention Toxic here as an option over Toxic Spikes or Gyro Ball. SR and Counter mentions are fine.

Checks & Counters: Mention Diancie dies to Gyro Ball and is not nearly as reliable a Forretress answer as Sableye is. Don't mention Darkrai in the Taunt section, as it has its own section. Finally, mention Kyurem-W and Reshiram as Pokemon that can OHKO Forretress through sturdy thanks to their abilities.

Thanks for writing this up so quickly.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
In addition to Sweep's section:

- Regarding Gyro Ball: Mention that it also pressures Deo-S so it can't easily Taunt you without dropping its ability to set up hazards. Also mention that if you can get a <25% Forre in later in the game (which can happen if you preserve your Forre), you can bop GeoXern with priority Gyro Ball.
- Do mention that you don't always need to Explode when you get down to <25%. You can save Forretress if your opponent hasn't got a Defogger/Spinner in your face that you need to prevent them from removing hazards right now. Getting Forre in later to priority spin/Spike/Explode/Gyro Ball can be invaluable.

Please read this next section carefully. Warning: Possibly harsh words ahead:

I feel like your analyses in general are always lacking in relevant content and loaded with things that don't need to be said. For example:

Spikes is another entry hazard which damages foes upon switch in which helps teammates beating them with more ease.
People know what the move Spikes does. There are links on the dex that people can click if they are unsure of what something does. You don't need to baby readers by telling them what they can easily find out with a click of a button. What you as an analysis writer need to do, is explain why that choice has been made in the set. For example, you should say something like "Spikes allows teammates on offensive teams to breakdown their checks more easily". You don't need to tell them that it wears down HP every time something switches, that should go without saying.

Another example:
Custap Berry lets Forretress move first when it is lower than 25% of its health, which lets Forretress set up a last layer of Spikes, or use Explosion when it is about to faint.
Again, people know what Custap Berry does, or can easily find out. What you need to tell your reader is why you have it there. Why is Forretress being able to priority Explode a good option? Explain that it's supposed to block Rapid Spin and Defog, explain that it gives you sweeper a chance to switch in while doing as much damage with Forretress as possible. I feel you're writing way too superficially. You're not here to tell the reader what something does (which is just a waste of prose), you're there to explain why it is relevant.

Other things that annoyed me:

Forretress is a highly mediocre Pokemon in the metagame. However, it can now use Custap Berry since its release, which gives Forretress a small niche. Outside of that, it doesn't have any other viable set. A good supportive movepool with options such as Rapid Spin also makes Forretress a good pick on certain teams.
So here, you start off by saying Forretress is mediocre. Fine, but then you say it has a small niche, then you turn around and say that it's a "good pick on certain teams". I understand what you're trying to saying to say, but you keep contradicting yourself. Like, it goes from mediocre -> has a niche -> no other viable set -> good pick -> (later in the Overview) you go through all of its cons to make it look bad. This should really be a GP checker's job, but my god, you need to organise your paragraph better. Tell us all of Forretress's pros in one go, then tell us Forre's cons (or vice versa). Then you need to finish off your paragraph in a way that sounds like you're finishing the section. This isn't really Pokemon specific, this is just how you write an essay and how you logically structure prose.

Another thing jumped at me while reading your Overview. I recognise that English may not be everyone's first language, but you have so many sentences that are really, really short. It sounds like you're reading off a list. Perhaps this is my impression from your analyses, is that you're basically going through an analysis and thinking of things to be done instead of thinking of the Pokemon as a whole, what its role is, how you use it, why you should use it, and translating that into prose. Like I said, I recognise English may not be everyone's first language (I don't know your English speaking status), but essay-writing techniques are universal, whatever the language you're using.

I've seen that you've written a lot of analyses in the recent past. While I appreciate the effort you've put in, you also come off as another one of these writers that are writing analyses for the sake of writing analyses rather than writing them because you want to educate people on how to play this game. I understand that a lot of users when they start off writing analyses tend to be that way. The attraction of a badge drives people to write a lot of analyses to be noticed. However, we do value quality > quantity. From what I've seen (your analyses that I've QC'd), your analyses tend to be quite minimalistic and barebones. Like this analysis, I've had to tell you on more than one occasion to expand from "What X does" to "Why X is relevant".

Now, I know this is a hard ask, but I would like you to rewrite this analysis with the above in mind. Again, I appreciate that you can write analyses quickly and I appreciate your effort. However, it's about time you moved from the mentality of writing a lot of analyses quickly to writing them with more substance. I'm sorry I had to be so harsh, but I really don't want to continue to tell you to expand on your analyses.

edit by sweep: this was reassigned
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top