Shrug
LCPL Champion
He isn't saying "you will be run through by Abra if you don't pack either of those two mons". The pro-Abra test people agree Abra is not "broken" where broken means too powerful or uncounterable for the metagame. What TCR means by Vullaby and Stunky being the only things that prepare teams is those two mons are the only ones you can have on your team and know for sure you wont have to deal with Abra's shit. That shit is the 50/50 switchin games where the nonabra user is at an inherent disadvantage, etc. I and others covered all that in earlier posts.Wobbyble said:So you're saying if you don't prepare for something then you will get dumped on by it? Alright. I'm sure that Vullaby and Stunky are literally the only two Pokemon in the game that can deal with Abra.
The way i see it, the opportunity cost for using Abra should, without sashguard, be very close to the cost of other fast frail special sweepers - your gastlys et al. (im aware gastly gets in more easily because it has immunities, just go with the hypothetical) have a certain cost, and it should be similar for another >17 Speed mon w/ high SpA and good coverage. When you choose to pick a mon like that, you understand it is not designed to take many hits - neither Abra nor Gastly provide a huge bump to defensive synergy. However, unlike its peers, Abra provides the benefit of guaranteeing at least 1 hit if you need it, something no other mon like it can promise. Therefore, it has: (opportunity cost (fast special sweeper) - reduction for guaranteed hit), coming with a cost far below mons similar to it. It seems you imply keeping the sash is in and of itself an added cost, which it is not - you dont NEED to keep it intact, you can still play abra proactively. However, you can counter with the argument that the sash greatly aids in the causing 50/50 prediction bullshit that we deem unhealthy, and you would be right. However, you were criticizing the mon itself and not the sashguard chicanery that is so harmful, so my contention holds. I'll similarly state that the (granted) oppertunity cost of NEEDING the sash to force 50/50s is outweighed by the benefit of said sashed 50/50s.What I don't get is why you're only talking about Abra's strengths. Why don't you focus on the fact that it brings absolutely NOTHING to your team in terms of defensive coverage? That playing around the enemy to keep your Sash intact has an opportunity cost? Or keeping a 1 HP Abra alive also has similar costs?
We agree Abra lacks the risk factor for its user. It is a very safe mon, both in its own usage (you always get 1 hit and nearly always get 2) and its role on a team (is a supersafe winstop in case a user is set up and swept on). However, I feel like its safeness is dissimilar to that of other mons, and i will explain why. First, I will try (this is impossible) to define safeness in a pokemon-specific context. "Safe" are things that change little in how they are used in a variety of battle conditions: team matchup, battle flow, necessary decisions made etc. Team matchup meaning safe mons will put in a relatively consistent (of course there's some variance) amount of work vs. most playstyles, battle flow meaning safe mons will be able to do their thing most of the time regardless of how the battle is progressing, and necessary decisions meaning things the user herself needs to decide: prediction, double switches, etc. I'm unsure if the dichotomy is perfect, but i feel comfortable in defining "risky" as essentially the opposite: things that change in usage (in battle) a lot based on matchup, flow, choices. With these rough definitions hewn, I feel ok in saying safe things, therefore, have little effect on the variance of the other team's mons - if a mon does the same thing every time (this is safe) the other mons will only be as variant in effectiveness as they were previously, whether risky or safe. If a mon is risky, the way the other team must deal with it is more variant - you dont know exactly how to defend against it based on the other user's choices and interpretation of matchup / flow. This supports your argument that good players use risky mons more effectively (didnt you have a thread on this right before i started lc?) as they are better at recognizing battle conditions and making predicts. I contend Abra subverts the natural balance between safety and risk. As stated previous, Abra acts very similarly in nearly every battle it exists in. However, they way the opponent deals with abra is inherently risky. One fighting Abra needs to predict its moves to get things in to bring it to a Sash. This depends entirely on team matchup (what you have to outspeed and counter vs. what moves abra is packing) battle flow (what you have left when abra comes in) and decisions (in this case, predictions, which might be closer to coin flips). So it is a safe mon which drastically increases the variance of the team it is fighting. This is what is more than anything unhealthy to the meta. Risky mons do this sometimes, but that is their nature; if played against right they do not (hence risky). Abra is almost assured to do this, greatly increasing the luck needed by the opponent in the game most battles without ever afflicting the user with the capricious whims of risk.RayJay said:I think to ban Abra is to eliminate a valid playstyle of LC. Abra is a staple of "safe" teams. Using risky Pokemon is unsurprisingly a risk with some payoff value, which "good" players are frequently able to make use of more than non-good players. Abra is at the other end of the spectrum, and as it lacks this risk factor, it can be used more effectively by a larger percentage of the playerbase. My problem is that "riskiness" seems to me to be a characteristic impossible to quantify, and yet the argument seems to be Abra is beyond x point of safeness and therefore needs to be banned. I'd need to see a more effective argument on how we quantiy "safeness" and why that's actually a bad thing
I might be wrong, prolly am some places im sure, so point it out if you see it. srry for tl;dr - ing a bit, hope that works