At the risk
of getting in trouble for posting too much in this thread...
Originally Posted by Fat srk1214
I remain utterly unconvinced of the benefit to concept of No Guard, as quite frankly there has not been a single logical, substantive argument made arguing how it actually enhances risk, rather than removes luck.
I'm struggling very much with trying to figure out why so many people are struggling to understand how No Guard increases risk. It seems so straightforward to me. So that we can better help you understand, please, explain to me exactly what part of this step-by-step explanation you have difficulty with:
Risk, according to Dictionary.com, is "exposure to the chance of injury or loss" (if you have a different definition, then please let us know what it is). What does No Guard do? It does two relevant things: it causes all moves used against you by your opponent to hit, and it causes all moves used against your opponent by you to hit. Let's look at some of the fantastic and popular moves that are super-effective against our Riskymon: Fire Blast has 85% accuracy, Hurricane has 70% accuracy, and Stone Edge has 80% accuracy. Because it's right in the middle and an easy number, let's examine Stone Edge and its 80% accuracy. The "chance of injury or loss" (from the definition of Risk given above) when an opponent uses Stone Edge against our Riskymon is 80%. In the same scenario but with No Guard, that "chance of injury or loss" increases
from 80% to 100% (a 20% or 25% increase depending on how you want to do your math). In other words, No Guard results in a higher
"chance of injury or loss" in that scenario and therefore increases risk.
No Guard is actually one of the few
abilities being proposed that on its own increases
risk. The likes of Analysis, Flare Boost, and Rattled do not do that (having one in any scenario would not on its own actually increase the chance of injury or loss). If we want to get into a debate about whether No Guard increases risk too little
or too much
, then that's one thing that I think would be worth discussing, but that it increases risk at all is self-evident to me.