Fare thee well.
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm probably doing myself a disservice by posting again at this time, but I feel as though I owe it to myself and the CAP community to explain my thoughts a little more clearly than I have been doing. I can only say in my defence that, well, I've been under a fair amount of stress recently, more so than I expected at this time. In any case, if any part of my argument is incoherent, then I apologise. I would dearly like people to know where I'm coming from, but from what I've seen that is impossible. I have seen people in this thread entirely missing the point, or else approaching it from their own point of view, which clashes with my own. Perhaps I should have been more clear on the point, but I assumed it was made clear by Concept Assessment. I fear I must now have to revise that judgement. The most I can do now is present an argument and invite you to adopt it if you have not done so already. If you refuse to even consider it, you are unlikely to enjoy the rest of this CAP that much.
What did I set out to do with this CAP? I reaffirm what I said at the start of this Project that I wanted this to challenge us, to force us to experiment, to see what we could come up with. When I saw capefeather's concept, I immediately interpreted it as a way to take something very generic and make something entirely new out of it. Risk and Reward are inherent to every single Pokemon in the game, or at least by my definition - that Risk is purely the negative consequence of any given action, as Reward is the positive consequence. Hence a risky Pokemon would be one that had a potential, in any one of its actions, to merit a greatly positive or a greatly negative consequence. Simple, yes? Well, I wasn't satisfied by that, because it was easy to solve. Hone Claws Sheer Cold, job done. I thus decided we should ignore the parts of this concept that meant little in terms of build. Out went luck-related factors. I tried to reconcile what was left, but there're still far too many different views of what Risk should be out there. Every part of a Pokemon incorporates a Risk - the opponent's potential moves, set uncertainty, team support, right down to the individual move choices on CAP4's set.
So, what I want to accomplish out of this CAP is something, if not unique, then at least noticeable. That is where the interesting parts of the process lie. I am adamantly of the opinion that if we cannot achieve this, we have failed the concept. I slated Weak Armour against my better judgement - it is true that almost any Pokemon with access to Weak Armour becomes automatically a greater Risk than a Pokemon without, especially if it has no viable alternatives. Hence why I am so opposed to abilities such as Flare Boost and Reckless - the strategies they promote are those all too familiar to us, namely the limited-duration breaker (for "glass cannon" is something I want to wean us off). I do not care about them. We are achieving nothing by selecting them - the rest of the CAP only serves to make them usable, perhaps adding a few extra risks here and there. This is not a role I want to encourage, and much more importantly, it is not a mindset I want to encourage.
Am I merely being neurotic? Well, that's not really a concern of mine. I'd like to say that I pushed the boundaries with this CAP, and that I didn't just blindly build a Pokemon to pre-existing specifications based on the prejudices of others. I see now that there was a real danger that that would happen with this CAP. So, I'll say it here now: I'd rather this CAP failed miserably and we tried something that wasn't straightforward, than we went for the safe option and this CAP was a resounding success. That's about as much as I can say on the subject.
Now, on to the subject of duality. I am afraid that, alike to my interpretation of Risk, the interpretation of duality is being taken differently (or just plain ignored) by different people. So, my version would be as follows: that both abilities grant a specific positive and a specific negative that are distinct from one another, and importantly, that both have their own individual merit on similar sets. This can be seen on Pokemon such as Bronzong, Yanmega, Relicanth, Gyarados, and indeed quite a few things you could care to mention. I selected and slated Weak Armour in the belief that it could pair up in this way with other abilities, and I remain in that state of belief. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that we can and will make it work with the hand that was dealt to us. If I had not believed that, I would not have slated it, simple as. I'd like to think that my trust in the CAP Community will pay off, though I have confided my doubts to some.
No Guard I believe can work, for the simple reason that we have complete control over the Reward aspect of the ability. I have made it quite clear that the CAP will not be receiving any moves that it could not viably use without No Guard, as that undermines the duality aspect. As such, I do not see any argument that it could be overly dominating as entirely valid, especially as its function is largely independent of stat spread. Furthermore, No Guard has no even comparable abilities to its function, so occupies its own singular niche as far as usage goes. As for Illusion, it has been made clear already that that ability is as far removed from any other as it is possible to go, and more to the point, has quite as many problems associated with its use on this Pokemon as Weak Armour does. Finally, Moxie creates an interesting duality that I'd like to see explored further. The decision between Speed or Attack boosting could be accentuated by the relevant boosting moves, perhaps. I'd be curious to see how we could get it to work.
Other abilities? I dislike Contrary and Simple for being too restrictive on our movepools. I dislike Marvel Scale for being counterproductive - or, if you are using Rest, then down to the luck of Sleep Talk, which is not something I want to promote. Harvest I'm not fond of for its weather reliance. Analytic I have made my opinion clear on. Once again, I want to make it clear that I want to find another great ability to slate, and I am convinced that there is one out there if you go looking for it, or if you can present an argument that grants new potential to a typically bland ability. I don't want to slate only three abilities, but I will do what I think is best for the Project, even if that means going against popular opinion. I've already reneged on that count once, and I'm hoping I don't have reason to regret it, but based on the way that decision has caused some people to direct their comments towards me, I cannot be sure.
I will readily hear any and all lobbying towards one's favourite abilities, but I really don't want to have to hear strictures on how you think I'm running the CAP. It's really not helpful or likely to change anything.