The goal is to explore the extent to which an existing Pokemon is (seemingly) defined by a single trait, be it a powerful move, a quirky ability, or maybe something else, by creating a rival that lacks that trait.
One of the concept submission archetypes that come up and fail in what seems to be every single CAP concept submission stage is the idea of a Pokemon that's extremely good in one area, while sucking in every other area. However, not only do many existing Pokemon try that very concept and utterly fail to make a mark in OU, but some existing Pokemon actually *do* succeed somewhat, albeit by virtue of a trait that really sticks out. By making this idea one half of a duality, we have a solid comparison framework to work with. This is especially relevant because we tend to overestimate the abilities of a Pokemon when we see that it has some trait that seems too good to be true.
This concept is largely meant as a deeper look into the perception of power versus balance, and focus versus versatility. One of the closest, most recognizable examples of this concept in action is in the relationship between Ferrothorn and Forretress. Ferrothorn outclasses Forretress in almost every aspect, but the niche-defining Rapid Spin nonetheless grants Forretress a place in OU. Another example is the comparison between Black Kyurem and, well, any of the other Dragon-types, the former having terrible physical coverage in exchange for a ridiculously high Attack stat. Chansey and Blissey is another excellent example, considering Chansey gets the Eviolite-boosted super-bulk but Blissey has Leftovers recovery and usable Special Attack.
Questions To Be Answered:
- When choosing between two similar Pokemon, how much is a team builder willing to give up for a single defining trait? Conversely, how powerful or defining does *that one thing* have to be to be worth giving up other traits?
- To what extent is the comparison Pokemon defined by its *one thing*? To what extent can we even talk about the power of a single trait?
- What weaknesses does the comparison Pokemon have that might force it to rely on its *one thing*?
- What other possible defining traits are there? How do we make a rival that is similar to the comparison Pokemon, without using the big trait that seems to define it?
- At the end of the day, can focus and power win out over balance and versatility, or vice versa?
From what I see, a look at the current OU threat list provides a decent pool of potential Pokemon to compare to the one we create. Scizor has STAB U-turn and Bullet Punch... and we already know what would constitute overkill in this area (Genesect). Alakazam and Reuniclus have Magic Guard, an ability that has always been great in a subtle way. Cloyster's Shell Smash, Dugtrio's Arena Trap, Espeon's Magic Bounce... There is a lot more to this than might meet the eye at first.
I think that we should avoid weather starters and Dragon-types for this. My reason for the former is probably apparent: weather is about global, lasting team support, which really goes beyond the summoner. The summoner would be completely different without its summoning ability. With the latter, well, Dragon-types are largely a conglomerate of similar Pokemon that need a "trick" to stand out from each other. Because of this, I don't think that it would be fruitful to try to make yet another Dragon.
Hopefully this will be good competition for the tidal wave of weather-related concepts, jeez...