1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!

CAP 15 CAP 4 - Part 1 - Concept Assessment

Discussion in 'CAP Process Archive' started by Birkal, Sep 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. generic name

    generic name

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    To summarize what most ppl are saying (i agree with this stuff) this poke should-
    - Be offensive, because there is more of a risk and a bigger payoff (to what adamnsm said yes kinda, but i think a good ex. of that is chansey, and while it works, you don't see it sweeping)
    - Not involve luck, because how well this poke does should reflect how well the user analyzes risk/reward and not hax
    - have some sort of set-up move that allows it to sweep, but some sort of weakness that makes it risky (glass cannon, weak to certain moves, has a counter. Belly drum seems to fit both :D)
  2. CiteAndPrune

    CiteAndPrune

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    203
    Scoopapa above makes a great point. He has my support - I think that it does the concept justice.

    It brings to my mind one idea in particular: Baton Pass chain teams. With the change in mechanics that prevents trapping effects from being Baton Passed, the BW metagame once again raises the skill cap for using those. There's any number of things that can go wrong when you run a Baton Pass chain team: your key members might die too soon, or the enemy might pack a phazer, or Haze/Clear Smog, or Perish Song, or might counter-trap you or pull off their own kind of strategy, setting up a quick sweep before you can set up your big chain. Baton Pass chain teams are inherently risky because you have a plan that takes several steps to put into effect right, and at the same time you must survive everything the enemy is doing. Stall teams, offensive teams, balanced teams, EVERY style of play threatens Baton Pass to some extent.

    I'm not sure if CAP4 should have Baton Pass or not based on the merits of Baton Pass chains; maybe, as a setup sweeper is the trend so far, the risk-mon could just be the ideal final recipient. Entering just once, fully set up, to take hazard damage only once and then sweep onwards to victory.


    Belly Drum is likewise inherently risky with a huge payoff - once the sweeper sets up, it's at half HP or less, and probably had to tank a hit to get that far even - it's left vulnerable to priority users and/or faster revengers, or something with Choice Scarf that can tank the hit and KO back.

    ....... on another note, there's Counter, MirrorCoat, DestinyBond. Those are risky to use - and require skill to be used effectively. But you can Taunt to control the risk.


    I don't think WonderGuard is the answer we are looking for here. Shedinja is risky to use, but taking WonderGuard alone won't let us learn much through the process except it's an extreme defensive ability. Slapping it on and compensating for it elsewhere won't be fun... save it for another occasion guys.
  3. phoopes

    phoopes The Boss
    is a Battle Server Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,039
    Don't forget about Arghonaut. If we end up making a Belly Drum sweeper, it will almost certainly be hard countered by Arghonaut. If Belly Drum is used and Arghonaut comes in on the switch-in, the person using the new CAP has basically done something completely useless, since now their boosts won't have any effect at all and they've wasted 50% of their sweepers HP at the minimum. This is why Belly Drum sweeper is probably the riskiest candidate for this CAP. However, because of all the checks and counters it creates just from using that move, it could become practically useless. And in my opinion, that's the biggest risk of all.
  4. generic name

    generic name

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    That means that if your opponent has an arghounaut, it would be a mistake to set up because while it is as risky as ever, it has 0 reward. Maybe gothitelle could trap arghounaut, i'd like to see that. Anyways if there is an arghounaut on the other team the lack of reward would make it not worthwhile to set up, and thats risk/reward which is the whole point of this poke. It would be the same if they have priority.
    Having something like acrobatics or w/e could make arghounaut less threatening.
    Also imo no one on cap ladder in showdown uses arghounaut.
  5. CiteAndPrune

    CiteAndPrune

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    203
    Arghounaut's whole point is to stop setup sweepers, which means it will be doing its job right. It should be a counter if we decide to add Belly Drum, or any other boosting move really. Depending on the type match up it might be better or worse off at tanking the unboosted STAB hits too.

    He's bound to be a counter (unless we give CAP4 Mold Breaker... or maybe Gastro Acid/Worry Seed). Just like CAP4 will be stopped by priority (unless we give it priority, or...)

    I'm of the opinion priority is one of the safest mechanics currently in Pokemon. It removes the risk of being outsped or losing the Speed tie, in every situation where your Pokemon has priority and the other does not (or you pack Extreme Speed with +2 compared to any other priority moves). The only priority move that suits the concept of high risk and high reward is Sucker Punch - for obvious reasons. Having a low PP and unreliable priority move (and perhaps unSTABed?) as an option wouldn't compromise the risk-mon too much - even after a Belly Drum, it cannot straightforwardly sweep teams unless they have only attacking moves left (and no priority of their own), etc.
  6. phoopes

    phoopes The Boss
    is a Battle Server Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,039
    Yeah well that really doesn't matter if no one uses Arghonaut right now. If this CAP becomes a Belly Drum sweeper like many people are saying it could be, then Arghonaut would certainly be used a lot more, as Unaware makes using Belly Drum pointless, which would be why you'd use the new CAP in the first place. And that would make Arghonaut almost the perfect counter to Belly Drum CAP, with priority users being great as well.

    Also, Belly Drum isn't official yet, it was only an idea posted by someone. So "giving it Acrobatics" at this point is pretty much useless.
  7. bugmaniacbob

    bugmaniacbob Floats like a Butterfree, stings like a Metapod
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,279
    Before the above line of thought goes any further I would just like to say Arghonaut does not exist. At all. Ever. It has absolutely zero bearing on this Project. I don't want to see another mention of it in this thread except in how it relates to the concept, as a concept itself, not in terms of a Pokemon on what we will eventually produce.

    I will respond further to the rest of the comments once I have had a chance to gather my thoughts. Carry on until then.
  8. Birkal

    Birkal Caw.
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    CAP Head Mod

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,706
    Just to clarify what exactly bugmaniacbob is saying, let me lay it out clearly. CAP makes Pokemon for the Overused metagame, NOT the CAP metagame. I know we have some newer users participating this time around, which is great. I am just making sure that this point is absolutely understood before we proceed any further. For those of you who don't know, the CAP4 Process will end with a playtest, which is a custom ladder set up on Pokemon Showdown! that features all of Overused + CAP4. The playtest is our only focus; the CAP metagame is just something fun we do in our free time that has no bearing on the real CAP project.

    You are allowed to reference other CAP processes if it drives a specific point home, but in general, those CAPs are all old news. Focus on this new one. Any future posts that make claims based off of the CAP metagame will be infracted for being off topic. Thanks for reading; if you have more questions, make sure to check out the CAP Main Site, especially the Guide for Newcomers and the Project Mission Statement.
  9. Miggy626

    Miggy626

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Risky often does lead to a poor typing or low defense stats, but what if there were to be a pokemon based upon risky moves, like as how how Deck Knight stated? What if it were given a very good typing (such as a Normal/ghost type), yet had moves such as belly drum or curse? With a Normal/Ghost typing, the risk would not as much be in the typing (only dark would be super effective), but the risk of increasing stats or causing status problems/curse while reducing its own health? So yes, a slight bit of this might be luck, such as guessing if the next move your opponent makes will be enough to make you faint after you have already played a risky move like curse, belly drum, and possibly a signature move that works like belly drum, but increases Sp.Attack! So yes, I very much see risk as a way of luck and strategy combined, in some sorts.
  10. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego The little hand says it's time to rock and roll
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Mentor

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Has anyone considered a pokemon that could utilize Klutz? What if a pokemon was able to cripple something by tricking it a scarf or iron ball, but then its success in the future depended on the item it was given?
  11. capefeather

    capefeather YOU CAN'T STOP ROB
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,812
    One thing that I think isn't being touched on very much is viability. We've mentioned a lot of moves and abilities carried by Pokémon that simply aren't viable, and a natural question that comes out of this is, "Why?" Why is it that some risky tactics work and others fall flat in OU? Is it due to the tactics themselves or is it due to their availability to existing Pokémon? Asking ourselves this should shed some light as to whether it really is a good idea to pursue something like a Belly Drum sweeper or a "wall" with only Rest as a recovery move. Both of these are concepts that are known to be unsuccessful, and I really think it's the moves themselves that are the problem. Setup moves that don't boost Speed or one of the defenses tend to provide relatively low reward for the setup turn in general unless the user has a good priority move. Considering this, Belly Drum strikes me as being overkill without much potential reward in return.

    I'm not sure I'm much of a fan of a Pokémon whose effectiveness is dependent on the team matchup. I find that the effect of such "niche Pokémon" like Gastrodon is that they are only chosen when the team really needs to have that niche on a single slot. Maybe the rest of the team struggles with offensive Water-types and rain stall, so it uses Gastrodon to absorb Scalds while having Steel-types or Poison-types to take Toxic and/or Toxic Spikes. Thus, the question here wouldn't be so much about the risk that the Pokémon poses, but instead about whether the team needs that quick plug, and how much support the Pokémon needs. This is also why I worry about the idea of weather dependence. I additionally worry about suggestions like Normalize for this reason as well.

    Counter / Mirror Coat / Destiny Bond is an interesting suggestion. Wobbuffet immediately comes to mind, though as we all know, Wobbuffet is not OU. The usual thing that happens with Wobbuffet (at least against non-Choice offensive opponents) is that it has to choose between using Encore and risk being 2HKOed, and using Counter or Mirror Coat "naked" and risk whiffing. There's also the aftermath, where it is probably weakened and must face whatever it is the opponent has planned next. It makes me wonder how we could even make Counter or Mirror Coat worth using. Destiny Bond is similar, and I've seen Froslass in particular use it a lot in UU. Again, it can whiff if the opponent doesn't finish the user off, and again, it makes me wonder how we could make Destiny Bond worth using.

    These are some of the roles I can see CAP 4 playing (not necessarily mutually exclusive):

    Fast and powerful, but weak to priority. This would lead to risky situations between priority users like Scizor, Dragonite, Breloom and Mamoswine. More than that, though, it also places risk on the priority users! Latios versus Scizor is a decent example of this, since if it switches out it risks eating a Pursuit or the switch-in eating a U-turn, while if it stays in, it might eat a Bullet Punch and have to struggle on low HP. Conversely, Scizor has to decide whether Latios has (and will use) Hidden Power Fire to brush it off entirely, and if it goes for the Bullet Punch, it has to worry about being locked into that move against a switch that resists it and might set up on it. The decisions, then, depend on what information has been revealed and how much each player can afford to lose Latios/Scizor. This could actually be an offensive or support role, since a similar scenario could be achieved with something like fast Will-O-Wisp with priority weakness.

    Slow priority user. The theme I briefly mentioned before comes into play here, as in this scenario, CAP 4 would take the role that the opponent takes in the previous scenario, and possibly vice versa. Sucker Punch has been mentioned a lot, yet it's going to have a hard time working since the user has to deal with Steel-types in addition to competition with a lot of existing slow priority users. Toxicroak is a good start, but if we're to use Sucker Punch and possibly Pursuit, we'll probably have to do better.

    Rapid Spin. The idea here is to have a spinner that can't beat spinblockers if it tries to spin, but can set something up on them instead of using Rapid Spin. Forretress, for example, does not really like Jellicent at all, but it has Volt Switch, Spikes and Toxic Spikes at its disposal to punish a Jellicent switch-in. A common argument for Excadrill going to Ubers was that it could set up Swords Dance on spinblocker switch-ins and beat them.

    Spinblocker. Obviously the counterpart to Rapid Spin. Blocks spinners like Forretress, Donphan and Starmie, yet if they set up something else on the switch, well...
  12. Rediamond

    Rediamond

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,168
    How do we define risk?

    I see a few definitions coming out of this. The first is that the Pokemon carries certain liabilities that could potentially make it useless or easily dealt with, but can ultimately destroy teams that fail to do this. The second is that the Pokemon plays in such a way that it is frequently forced into situations where there is no "safe" option, but it can destroy teams if it makes the correct choice. A final possibility is that risk is putting the game partially out of the player's control. Baton Pass, luck reliant Pokemon, and moves such as Stone Edge represent this type of risk.

    In terms of Pokemon who define this approach, Volcarona is basically the definition of the first. While Stealth Rocks or Rain Support will kill its most common sets, it can be an absolute monster provided that it can keep these away. Pokemon that are dependent upon the weather (Toxicroak, Venusaur) and Pokemon that are critically weak to Pursuit Trapping or Dugtrio also fit this bill to a certain extent.

    The second approach tends to apply more to frail sweepers than anything, like the Latios example mentioned earlier in the thread. Zoroark also fits in here, as every turn it is in (or could be in) presents a new mindgame. This category tends to represent frail sweepers more than anything.

    The third category tends to be seeing little discussion. Baton Pass is an amusing example of this, as it basically puts a lot of the game up to luck (crits) and team matchup. If the opponent has a way to get around it, they probably will. If they don't, they probably won't. While this is often discouraged as "mindless," it represents the high risk-high reward strategy on a team matchup level. Jirachi and SV Gliscor also represent the luck based side of things. SV Gliscor is usually outclassed, but if it does work it can be a rather nice reward. Luck management and Team matchups are parts of the game that present a risk-reward scenario, even if this is often viewed as a negative influence.

    To an extent, the option of making a Pokemon that needs to bypass a certain hindrance to be effective seems the most challenging and possibly the most rewarding, as not only would it teach us about matchup and ways to balance out a Pokemon wiht a crippling weakness while still making it viable, but it would also fall into the secondary category. Any Pokemon held back by one or two factors will almost automatically make those factors a matter of constant concern for both players, effectively making both sides think every turn- and not just when the Pokemon is on the field.
  13. nyttyn

    nyttyn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    914
    All I know is that at the end of the day this pokemon is going to need a huge payoff. Things like Volcarona and Gyarados have crippling, huge weaknesses - but you bring them onto your team because the payoff is just that good. But at the same time, a pokemon does not have to win you the game in order to give a huge payoff.

    For example, take Trick Room. It gives you a huge advantage - but not enough to win the game by itself. In addition, it is a highly risky move due to the fact that not only can it be played around, but you have to basically telegraph the fact that you are using a Trick Room team, as well as the move taking one turn for four turns of effect.
  14. DougJustDoug

    DougJustDoug Knows the great enthusiasms
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Programmeris a CAP Contributoris an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Leader

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,045
    For some of you newer CAP participants, I want to remind you that CAP threads are not like most threads in Smogon, in that we generally don't encourage back-and-forth conversations between participants. Yes, we are having a "discussion" and we are debating the topic at hand -- but in most cases you should not write posts to specifically refute or otherwise engage specific previous posts as if you are having a public conversation with that person.

    CAP posts should be made to state your position on the topic, and in most cases you should do that in the form of a single, well-thought-out, well-written post. If you find yourself making multiple posts in a thread, despite the best of intentions, you are not really helping the project proceed. You are thread-hogging. If you don't know what thread hogging is, here's an excerpt from the CAP forum rules:


    If you are addressing any single person, it should be the Topic Leader (aka "the TL", which is BugManiacBob on CAP4). Because in most cases, the TL is the only single person that really needs to be convinced of anything, since they control slates, voting styles, and everything else. Also, be aware that the TL is the only person where thread-hogging rules do not apply. Quite the opposite, in fact. TL's are supposed to post frequently throughout every thread, letting everyone know what they think every step of the way.

    If the TL responds specifically to your post, in general, do not reply. For one, when TL's call out specific posts they are not usually engaging in debate with you -- they are letting the rest of the project know their reaction to the points you made. Second, if your first post stating your position did not clearly convince the TL, then it is highly unlikely your rebuttal will do anything to change the TL's opinion. Your rebuttal is usually just a repeat of points already made in your first post, and the TL and the rest of us really don't need to hear it again.

    Yes, as the discussion progresses, it sometimes makes sense for people to weigh in on newer points raised, even if they stated a position earlier. In these cases, go ahead and make a new post and present your new or additional positions. But this is not an invitation to spam the thread every time you have a reaction to what has been said. The TL can do that -- you can't.

    So, to summarize:
    • Participation is a very good thing.
    • Logical, well-written posts are encouraged in every thread.
    • Strong opinions written to convince others is the life blood of CAP.
    • Thread-hogging is bad, and it will get you infracted or possibly banned.

    This is a great discussion, and I personally have already learned a lot from what everyone has presented so far. I think we have a very interesting CAP project ahead of us. But only if we all know how to play nice together and give everyone an opportunity to weigh in on the discussions.
  15. bugmaniacbob

    bugmaniacbob Floats like a Butterfree, stings like a Metapod
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,279
    Sorry I took my computer apart this morning so this reply is a bit late in coming, apologies all round

    Right then, I knew that there were a lot of different angles from which we could approach this, and I must say, you haven't disappointed me. That's not to say that everything that has been said is a legitimate interpretation or even worth pursuing, but I am glad that almost everyone who has come into this thread has something worth saying. That said, everyone does seem to have a different idea of what direction they want this Project to go in, so there's a lot of work in that area to be done yet. There is a lot to go through, so I will only be replying directly (or even indirectly) to your posts if something you had to say was necessarily good or bad, or rather, if it is extremely pertinent to the topic at hand.

    As far as defining Risk is concerned, we certainly have a lot to sift through:

    And I should like to add on to the end of this: "Any change to be made that increases the magnitude of the consequence of its use", regardless of whether it is positive or negative.

    Now, as to where I stand on this matter – at the moment, I am most convinced by the arguments put forward by Scoopapa and those similar arguments circulating – We do want a Pokemon who is risky to use. My vision for the end point of this CAP would be something that has, perhaps, a "safer" counterpart, but in itself is a risk to use by comparison – possibly it is less likely to be able to set up, but far more capable of performing the same function once set up. I use the term "set up" very loosely here, as per "execute strategy" – I very much doubt that we can succeed in making a Pokemon that conforms to Risk unless it has some specific function. As has been said before, walls, or defensive Pokemon in general are less useful if there is a Risk attached to their use, as they really have to work a majority of the time to be successful. Of course, that's not to say a risky defensive Pokemon couldn't work – I might envision it to be something that walls a large number of prominent Pokemon, unless they happen to be carrying some specific move. The difficulty here is that, were our CAP to have any significant metagame impact, such a thing would indeed become more common, and our CAP lose effectiveness because of it. Hence, this is why no similar Pokemon really exist in OU (the only exception I can think of is Gliscor, who is used for other reasons besides). As such, I would prefer to shy away from any primarily defensive interpretation of this concept, in favour of a support or offensive leaning. Feel free to disagree with me if you wish.

    In other areas, I find myself agreeing with capefeather about the viability of certain moves and strategies that have been bandied about here and there, in terms of their being almost impossible to use in the current climate. Belly Drum provides an unnecessarily large power boost with too much risk behind it, and walls with Rest are generally far worse now than they ever have been thanks to new sleep mechanics and a generally faster, more offensive metagame. Some of the previously successful "high risk/reward" strategies that were prevalent in previous generations, such as Reversal Heracross and Agility SubPetaya Empoleon are no longer viable next to more safe alternatives. The latter of these is something I am interested in particularly, because it provides an example of how an extremely risky strategy became popular only after the immense reward it provided was discovered – significantly enough for Empoleon to jump to OU, even.

    I am also not entirely certain about the Gastrodon example that has been brought up from time to time. Gastrodon does not only perform well against rain – it also happens to be above average against most sandstorm and Volt-turn teams, and as such is roughly the limit of an anti-metagame Pokemon – and is a vital part of the metagame, as capefeather has said, purely for the role it plays, possibly in the same manner as Celebi or specially defensive Jirachi. As such, I have come down against such opponent-related risk – which would include Colour Change and Illusion, which the CAP community has convinced me are not what we are looking for. At the same time, I am not keen on those strategies that require certain prevailing battle conditions to be successful, such as Chlorophyll Venusaur or Sand Rush Sandslash (only two examples I could think of, unfortunately). So what does this leave us with? Well, there are our classic support options, such as SmashPass and Dual screens + Healing Wish, which I think merit further looking into. However, I think that our focus should be on, as it was put by Scoopapa: "reliance on your own play and your ability to mitigate the potential downfalls of your strategy". If we could keep this in mind from now on, we have a very solid foundation upon which to move forward.

    As far as the rest is concerned, I feel that we now know enough to be able to move on to the next steps – namely, deciding how we are going to implement the Risk element into CAP4 across the entire process. As such, I would like the topic of discussion to now shift to the following questions (I don't have enough time to answer them right now but you probably know what I think on each of them):

    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc)
    2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)
    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)

    Must dash now, will review later. Cheers.

    EDIT: Oh and before I forget, I am particularly attached to definitions 1 and 2 of Rediamond's set, and am wondering how we might combine them in some form. Thoughts pending.
  16. The Reptile

    The Reptile Wonderful Wiggling Wyrms!
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099
    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc) / 2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)

    (I'm answering both as they are both extremely similar questions)

    The way I see it, if we use Scoopapa's definition (which I like a lot btw), is we have three options. Glass Cannon-style pokemon is fairly obvious, so I split it into 2 options, "Wallbreaker" and "Set-up Sweeper"

    - Glass Cannon (Wallbreaker/Hole Puncher)
    This fits the bill for Scoopapa's definition , as the risk of using a glass cannon is that if you misplay, you risk loosing your pokemon because it can't take a hit. By "Wallbreaker" I simply mean something that has massive power from the start and cannot/doesn't need to set-up to hurt things. This would be an example of risk vs reward where the reward isn't winning, rather, it's the opportunity to sweep with something else by punching holes. The reward for this play-style would be killing a major wall to open up a sweep with something else. This could be considered a hybrid of Offense and Support.
    - Glass Cannon (Set-up Sweeper)
    Similar to the above, this is also a response for Scoopapa's definition for similar reason. However, unlike the above, rather than breaking walls down to help the rest of the team by punching holes, The Set-Up Glass Cannon plans on sweeping. Here, the risk would theoretically be larger than that of the Wallbreaker, as loosing the wallbreaker isn't as bad as loosing your main sweeper. However, the reward is also larger, as it will ultimately win you the game by sweeping.
    - Support
    This one is the least obvious of the three, but we can potentially apply risk to this as well. An example of risky support is SmashPass. There are a lot of risks in SmashPassing, however, if you do end up Passing the Smash, the rewards are huge, and can possibly win you the game. I sadly cannot speak much more of support, but I'm pretty sure there are other risky support options outside of Baton Pass. However, I will say that we should avoid a risky hazard/screen supporter, as there are already tons of safe and efficient options to use already, so making one that's risky is pointless unless we make it as good as Deo-S with more risk (which I personally would avoid).

    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)

    The risk of this pokemon should be (imo) that even one small slip-up can cause the failure of that pokemon's goal, whether it be sweeping, punching holes, or supporting another teammate. During the CaP process, Risk should be the main focus during Typing, while Reward should be the main focus during the Movepool. Stats require us to finely balance risk vs reward, as stats arguably determine if something is risky and not worth it or rewarding with little to no risk.
  17. DEMo_Gorgon47

    DEMo_Gorgon47

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,128
    Well, so much for my Haxorus example of being a Risky Pokemon to use. Moving on though to answer the questions bugmaniacbob has placed:

    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc)

    I believe we should focus our pokemon to be leaning more offensively. Of course, it could have a defensive set as well (much like Salamence/Dragonite can be a threatening Set-up sweeper, Choice abuser, or defensive threat), but on the whole offensive is far more Risky than defensive simply by its nature. Dual Screens + Healing Wish may be interesting, but in all honesty, if a Pokemon had to take a risk to set those up it wouldn't be effective. Players use screens and other such strategies on Pokemon to have a reliable way to set up, not struggle.

    2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)

    I dont think Risk should be limited to any one type of strategy or type of team. This Pokemon should be able to function well on nearly all variations of playstyle: namely Balanced, Bulky, and Hyper. Pure stall and Semi-Stall are too focused on risk minimalization, which is why I excluded it from the list. By focusing on only one playstyle for this Pokemon, it could severly limit its viability in OU.

    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)

    Typing and a reliance on set-up moves/choice items would be my first targets to introduce risk into this Pokemon. Typing is obvious: In an extreme case, if you were to have a Pokemon weak to Ground, Ice, Water, Fighting, and Rock the risks of using it would be huge. Meanwhile, a reliance on set-up moves makes it taunt/phazing/excessive switching vunerable, while Choice reliance makes it easier to wall. If we focused on those aspects, while giving it the stats, movepool, and specific enough resistances to still be viable, I believe it would be an effective high risk/ high reward Pokemon.
  18. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego The little hand says it's time to rock and roll
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Mentor

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc)

    Whatever is designed I think should definitely follow an offensive track, not only because of the pokemon itself, but there are other risky offensive styles out there, and if it is made defensive then the pokemon itself could be risky, but put it on any defensive team and all of your risk is gone.

    2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)

    While the tactic has come a long way since generation 4, I think that hiding the pokemon's set should be a part of the strategy, as it requires you to use the right plays and keep your moveset as secret as you can until you are ready to abuse it. I'd say that an "offensive support/wallbreaker" set would be the best for this, in a pokemon that can check a variety of threats with some of its moves and threaten a large portion with others. A good example of this would be taunt gyarados; it can either set up against an offensive team and attempt a sweep or shut down bulkier pokemon with taunt and/or substitute. I'd kind of imagine something like Landorus-T or gen 4 swampert meets Hydreigon.

    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)

    By having a movepool just viable enough to check both offensive and defensive threats, not as well as dedicated other pokemon, but viable because it can do both at the same time. It could have the movepool with lots of coverage options for breaking walls, but would be outclassed as a pure wallbreaker by other pokemon. Likewise, it could have a plethora of support moves, but would be outclassed in this role by pure defensive pokes. Mixing the two together and becoming unique would be the only way to excel, and by doing that you would have to chose carefully from the moves you have available what to check and what not to. For example, you have a move that beats the opponent's pokemon X flawlessly, but you can't beat it because you chose the move that beats pokemon Y.
  19. CiteAndPrune

    CiteAndPrune

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    203
    *heeds the warnings issued* Thread-hogging I never suspected. I'll keep this in mind from now on for sure... CAP is so different taking part in compared to what it looks like just casually following it.

    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc)
    I think a good rule of thumb is to give it inherent weaknesses that on the one hand, can be expoited by the enemy, and on the other hand, can be compensated for if the player puts effort and skill into CAP4. In general frailer Pokemon can't afford to make mistakes because they risk getting KOed, so a fast and frail risk-mon would work. On the other hand, low Speed introduces inherent risk also, and relying on moves like Sucker Punch or even Trick Room to be effective is risky but the payoff is good. There's a risk to using a Pokemon with no real offenses too (Chansey is a good example) because a Taunter can practically shut you down.

    In short we have a lot of options, but whatever route we take, the build should have exploitable holes in it that EVing can't fully patch up. But EVs and Nature should be part of the risk management part of the project, so players must strategically decide whether to enhance CAP4's already strong sides or to offset the weaknesses a little bit.

    2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)

    I still think that a setup sweeper is a good fit for the concept we're working with... however some arguments presented above make me think other routes are possible. Risky support is definitely viable (Prankster and Magic Bounce users are risky but rewarding when played right) or a blend of these two.

    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)


    I thought about this before the question was raised, so I'll try to be brief here while giving reasons also:

    Base Stats - These should be mostly focused on risk, leaving an exploitable weakness, but some reward should be allowed here too (such as frail but strong risk-mon). Base Stats will always be the same for CAP4 so players can't really do much in this area (aside from choosing EVs and Nature meaningfully, especially if Speed is placed at an interesting break point). By making the Base Stats risky we will make CAP4 itself naturally risky to use.

    Typing - It should lean towards risk, leaving many weaknesses to common attacking types, but with a handful of useful resistances that can be used right too. An example of the level of risk I'm looking for is Mamoswine's Ice/Ground typing: weaknesses to Water, Fire, Grass, Fighting and Metal are major setbacks, yet the handy Electric immunity and (Stealth) Rock neutrality come in handy and give it some switch in opportunities allowing it to perform throughout the match, with the fringe benefit of being immune to weather damage. This is because the typing, like the stats, is set for CAP4 from the start and players can't really do anything to change it (maybe compensate for it through Air Balloon or something?) so focusing on risk here will keep CAP4 naturally risky.

    Ability - Here I believe we could shift the focus more to reward, and/or risk management. If CAP4 gets more than one ability, the choice of its ability will have a strategic purpose behind it, reflect the player's decision. In fact, I would support giving CAP4 2 abilities that represent risky rewards (say Hustle and Unburden) and a Dream World ability that's entirely concerned with risk management (say, Anticipation to alert it to super-effective coverage that could spell its doom when it would otherwise be safe to use it). More freedom here will give more opportunities for players to tailor CAP4 to their own style and make meaningful decisions about what kind of risk they want to take and how exactly to manage it.

    Movepool - This is the area where we could most compensate for all the previous weaknesses. Giving CAP4 a lot of moves to choose from, including pairs of safe + risky moves to let players decide what they adopt, will make it unpredictable. Some risky moves in particular rely on being options in a mon's arsenal that are good enough to use but not 'standard' because they have competition: coverage options could be given up in place of Counter/MirrorCoat+FocusSash, or Trick, or Perish Song + trapping move (which is risky to use, as opposed to the safe option of a trapping ability) or SubTorment (relying on the fact the enemy only packs one key move to hit it with)... there's so much room for variety and for player skill to show in selecting just the right moves to carry out a winning strategy. With this in mind, I will be supporting a broader movepool if possible.
  20. jas61292

    jas61292 used substitute
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,885
    Well, to your first question, I think it should be painfully obvious that bulky offense is not an option we should be taking. Look at the vast majority of OU. Look at the vast majority of CAPs we have made. There is so much bulky offense out there, and none of it is at all what you would call risky. Not dying to a singe hit and being able hit back is a staple of being a risk free pokemon, and thus is not what we should be trying to emulate. I believe that we need something very focused on one thing, such that the rest help contribute to the fallback that makes it risky. Pure offense probably the easiest way to go, but sturdy wall with not much ability to hit back is just as if not more risky. Either way though, I think we need extremes, as having a little of everything just gets rid of the risk for going one way or another.

    As for strategy, it simply depends on which extreme we choose. Hyper Offense would be a fine rout if we chose an offensive extreme, and Stall is fine for the defensive extreme. However, I really like the idea of a support style Pokemon. Support could actually work for either of the extremes, and still be risky. A fast, frail Pokemon who's power you have to be wary of will help force the switches necessary to get in support moves. But, if it is limited to support by something like a shallow offensive movepool, then it becomes risky, as it will only have a single turn to get that move it, and if it chooses that support move, any time the opponent fails to get that switch could spell its doom. Defensive support is also viable, as long as it lacks offensive prowess making it risky to use against any potential set up sweeper.

    And finally, I think all parts need to focus on both risk and reward. A Pokemon with amazing stats but bad movepool isn't risky. Its just mediocre. Same thing in reverse. We need both to just be focused toward what we want it to do. Ability is really the only place where we can truly go one way or another. And what we do here really depends on what we want to do overall for the rest. If we want to do a hindering ability, then we need to compensate elsewhere to make the risk worth it. But if we want some ability that promotes a risky play-style, such as Gluttony then we simply need to make sure the rest is focused towards what we want to do. Honesty, I don't think it is possible to really decide where the risk and reward need to be built in until we have definite answers to the first two questions.
  21. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight Well-shuffled and flush
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,503
    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc)

    My preference for this is actually closer to the Rhyperior model I alluded to earlier, where the Pokemon combines a specific offensive and defensive strength with some other weakness or set of weaknesses that set it apart. A good OU example I think would be Magnezone, which has an incredible niche for itself as well as an inherently dangerous offense and serviceable defense.

    2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)

    I think a hybrid of set-up sweeper and support would provide the best elements of risk, since the two strategies would be mutually exclusive on the same set but would be able to test not only the effects of high risk, but the value of a set dedicated to reducing it. I'm thinking a combination of setup sweeper with dual screens capacity, kind of like Metagross if it had a more offensively oriented typing.

    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)


    I'm going to borrow the breakdown from some other users.

    Base Stats: Obviously these are important. Based on my own posts I feel like having a dedicated 130+ Offensive Stat and some combination of a single useful defense would be the best way to go.

    Typing: Here I would actually try to avoid things like 4x weaknesses and instead go for a suite that mixes common and uncommon 2x weaknesses with a decent offensive typing. Electric/Psychic would be an example of this risk level of typing where it combines a U-turn, Pursuit, and an Earthquake weakness with a STAB combination that lends itself well to taking common priority attacks like Mach Punch and Bullet Punch while resisting Tornadus-T's Focus Blast/Hurricane combination.

    Ability: Ability is integral in risk management and I would prefer one that interacts with the Pokemon's diverging movesets differently. Analytic immediately comes to mind as it increases the risk of a slower dual Screen type set while it becomes somewhat of a liability on a speed-boosting set, except when opponents are switching or using priority.

    Movepool: A Decent support and setup movepool are the ways I would want to go in managing risk so as to get a bigger picture of what is needed. With the proper STAB attacks I don't think CAP4 would need to focus as much on coverage and just stick to brute force execution.
  22. Heroes and Cons

    Heroes and Cons

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    161
    Getting rid of 'Safe' Options:

    While I pointed to typing being a vital part of the "riskiness" of a Pokemon, I didn;t touch on the movepool. One very important example of "risk vs safety" here is the accuracy and necessity of certain moves. for example, were we to give it a special movepool including moves such as Thunder, Hurricane, Aura Sphere or Earthquake, then it would have an array of highly-accurate (in certain conditions at least) and adequately powerful moves to choose from. However, if we were to force CAP4 to utilise notiriously unreliable moves such as Focus Blast Stone Edge or, to a lesser extent, Fire Blast, then the risk of using such a Pokemon becomes much more prominent, as to mount any meaningful offensive the Pokemon in question must rely heavily on moves which miss at an level considered inadequate for many OU Pokemon. If we want to remove the majority of "safe options" from this Pokemon, then I feel we must steer away from highly accurate and powerful moves (Earthquake, Close-Combat and Aura Sphere being the most prominent ones), in addition to the aforementioned priority (especially Extremespeed) and volt-turn moves.
  23. bugmaniacbob

    bugmaniacbob Floats like a Butterfree, stings like a Metapod
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,279
    Quickly before I go to bed, here's a log from #cap for the benefit of those who missed it which contains some interesting discussion (well, it was interesting at the time), so I'd like to see what other people have to say about the issues raised.

    Code:
    <bugmaniacbob> so
    <bugmaniacbob> if anyone wishes to lobby me on any important issue
    <bugmaniacbob> speak now or forever hold your peace
    <Pwnemon> i think that the pokemon should be more offensive
    <Pwnemon> a good way i think to create risk is to have a lot of power but a shitty speed tier
    <Pwnemon> or else a lot of speed, but meh power and STABs
    <Pwnemon> more the former though
    <jas61292> Depends on what you mean by shitty
    <Pwnemon> genesect
    <Pwnemon> all the things that either can ohko the other, it's slower than
    *** EspyOwner [EspyOwner@Kid.Icarus.Uprising] has joined #cap
    *** mode/#cap [+h EspyOwner] by ChanServ
    *** EspyOwner [EspyOwner@Kid.Icarus.Uprising] has quit [Client exited]
    <jas61292> Honestly, Genesect has good speed. Its a troll speed, sure, but still good.
    *** EspyOwner [EspyOwner@Kid.Icarus.Uprising] has joined #cap
    *** mode/#cap [+h EspyOwner] by ChanServ
    <Pwnemon> jas you make an intriguing point
    <Pwnemon> in your post
    <Pwnemon> being able to threaten the opponent OR help your team but not both
    <Pwnemon> is a very good risk factor
    <Pwnemon> but again cape said he didn't want it to be about prediction
    <Pwnemon> now don't ask me how you have risk, but no prediction
    <bugmaniacbob> easy
    <bugmaniacbob> you develop a strategy that is more complicated than the nearest equivalent
    <Pwnemon> how is that "risky" though
    <Pwnemon> at the end of the day, risk either comes down to probability or prediction
    <bugmaniacbob> well, purely on the basis that it takes more thought to execute
    <bugmaniacbob> certainly it's dependent on the use
    <bugmaniacbob> *user
    <Pwnemon> other than that, you may have a difficult to execute strategy but if you know you can do it, then you're not risking shit
    <bugmaniacbob> but that's true of all risk
    <Pwnemon> actually i take that back
    <Pwnemon> maybe that is what cape meant
    <Pwnemon> having a difficult to execute strategy that you can only pull off if you're really smart
    <Pwnemon> i just don't like that direction personally :L
    <bugmaniacbob> that's what my interpretation of it was
    <Pwnemon> people will always go to the lowest common denominator
    <bugmaniacbob> how does yours differ?
    <Pwnemon> my definition of risk is doing something that you don't know will pay off but is the best viable option at the time
    <bugmaniacbob> isn't that how all Pokemon is played
    <bugmaniacbob> I don't see what that interpretation tells us, honestly
    <Pwnemon> well, you'd have to maximize risk
    <Pwnemon> make something that is less likely to pay off
    *** SgtWoodsy [~SgtWoodsy@over.the.hills.and.far.away] has joined #cap
    *** mode/#cap [+h SgtWoodsy] by ChanServ
    <Pwnemon> but has a bigger payoff if it does
    <Pwnemon> in all honesty i'm probably a terrible person for this concept in general because i'm a conservative player
    <Pwnemon> :L
    <bugmaniacbob> but if there's always a most viable option
    <bugmaniacbob> how is that any more a risk than, say, Blissey using Wish?
    <Pwnemon> because when blissey uses wish, it is typically the "safer" option
    <Pwnemon> while cape seems to think you can have a risky mon that still uses safe options
    <bugmaniacbob> most viable = safer generally
    <Pwnemon> that doesn't make any sense to me
    <Pwnemon> no, bmb, not really
    <bugmaniacbob> in terms of strict definitions, that's how most people would view it
    <bugmaniacbob> relatively speaking
    <Pwnemon> more viable = most likely to pay off
    <SgtWoodsy> it's possible to make a viable risky pokémon
    <SgtWoodsy> staraptor
    <SgtWoodsy> i've been talking about him the enti
    <Pwnemon> i guess i shouldnt use the term viable actually
    <SgtWoodsy> re time
    <bugmaniacbob> which is safer, relatively, than the closest alternative
    <Pwnemon> let's say you have out a blissey at 40%
    <bugmaniacbob> right
    <Pwnemon> your opponent has a rotomw out and a scizor in the wings
    *** mode/#cap [+ao Birkal Birkal] by ChanServ
    <bugmaniacbob> ohey
    <bugmaniacbob> *okey
    <Pwnemon> the safe option would be to wish, then protect and scout the scizor
    <Pwnemon> however, the BEST option would be to use flamethrower, koing the scizor on the switch
    <Pwnemon> that's how i view risk
    <Pwnemon> it's not going to be the safest option but it pays off the best, and is thus the most viable
    <bugmaniacbob> but in that case the most viable is also the safest
    <Pwnemon> no
    <bugmaniacbob> where most viable is the one most likely to generate a positive outcome
    <Pwnemon> because the scizor remains, threatening your blissey with an ohko indefinitely
    <Pwnemon> i guess i should not use "viable" if it's proving to be the stumbling block for my argument
    <bugmaniacbob> yeah I'd advocate a change of words
    <bugmaniacbob> something like... most rewarding?
    *** Birkal is now known as Bblkal
    <Pwnemon> most rewarding, yeah that works
    <bugmaniacbob> if you chose that, your argument makes more sense
    <bugmaniacbob> although
    <Pwnemon> typically, risk management is the art of balancing the most rewarding alternative with the one most liable to have a positive outcome
    <Pwnemon> so, you'd have to weigh the advantages of wishing vs flamethrowering
    <bugmaniacbob> right
    <Pwnemon> i'd think a "risky business" mon would reward the people who would predict the opponent's moves and respond with the more rewarding alternative
    <bugmaniacbob> but then, that's just risk inherent to every Pokemon as per user indecision
    <Pwnemon> and punish those people who would opt for the safer option
    <Pwnemon> the challenge lies in ensuring that we don't punish to the point that the safer option is no longer safer
    <Pwnemon> which is why i don't think HO is the way to go
    <bugmaniacbob> the safe option is no longer safer?
    <bugmaniacbob> could you elaborate please? not sure I get it
    <SgtWoodsy> a glass cannon maybe?
    <bugmaniacbob> I am adamantly against glass cannons
    <bugmaniacbob> that is, in my view, the easy way out
    <Pwnemon> i just said "ho is not the way to go"
    <Pwnemon> so i'm with bob here
    <jas61292> I have no problem with Hyper Offense, but it is certainly not the only way to do this
    <Pwnemon> bmb what i mean here is
    <Pwnemon> if you have a blissey, with wish/protect, then obviously in that scenario, using flamethrower is the risky option
    <bugmaniacbob> ok
    <Pwnemon> but let's say that instead of a blissey with wish/protect, you've got a mence
    <Pwnemon> and this mence happens to be a fatmence?
    <bugmaniacbob> ok...
    <bugmaniacbob> dunno why you'd use fatmence but sure why not
    <Pwnemon> then there is no real downside to using flamethrower over wish/protect
    <bugmaniacbob> unless said 40% fatmence is on the receiving end of a Thunderbolt
    <bugmaniacbob> but I digress
    <Pwnemon> okay yeah that was a bad example
    <Pwnemon> screw it, no examples for me, i can't think of a good one
    <bugmaniacbob> I would agree the happy medium we should be shooting for is between safer options being less used and their being unusable
    <Pwnemon> yes, that's what i meant
    <Pwnemon> when a safe option becomes so shitty that it's literally not even viable
    <Pwnemon> we've fucked up
    <SgtWoodsy> this sounds like a very fine line
    <bugmaniacbob> well, to revisit your staraptor example
    <bugmaniacbob> staraptor seems to hit the nail just fine
    <Pwnemon> actually any subroost mon
    <Pwnemon> with two attacks
    <bugmaniacbob> true actually
    <Pwnemon> is a great example of the risk/reward thing
    <SgtWoodsy> i didn't even think of subroost
    <SgtWoodsy> i just thought he was a good example because he's really strong but really suicidal
    <bugmaniacbob> well, that is a valid way to look at it
    <Pwnemon> sgtwoodsy were you talking about scarf set?
    <bugmaniacbob> subroost is just a useful comparison because it incorporates both safe and risky options on the same set
    <SgtWoodsy> any set really
    <SgtWoodsy> yeahg
    <SgtWoodsy> -g
    <Pwnemon> i don't really see scarf set as risky
    <Pwnemon> i mean, it is
    <Pwnemon> any scarf is
    <bugmaniacbob> LO and CB are definitely risky
    <bugmaniacbob> largely because they're both on a timer
    <Pwnemon> but it doesn't incorporate "safe options" to choose from also
    <Pwnemon> it's straight prediction
    <jas61292> I don't see why we want safe actions, honestly
    <bugmaniacbob> yes but the point is the user made the conscious decision to use said suicidal maniac
    <bugmaniacbob> over any safer wallbreaker
    <Pwnemon> jas i'll take an example of fidgit
    <jas61292> ^
    <Pwnemon> you have a fidgit with ep/sr/wish/u-turn
    <Pwnemon> it's a great example of having a wide gamut of safe to risky options on one set
    <Pwnemon> your opponent has a xatu
    <bugmaniacbob> then you had best hope you remembered to bring a Ttar
    <Pwnemon> the obvious safe option is u-turn, but that's gonna do approximately nothing to better yourself
    <Pwnemon> on the other hand, you could use Earth Power to try and smack the heatran he currently has in, in the hope he overpredicts, which is the riskiest option, but also the most rewarding
    <jas61292> See, I agree that is a risky choice, but I any Pokemon can make a risky choice. That is what prediction is. That doesn't make Fidgit a risky Pokemon
    <Pwnemon> but you could use wish as well, which, while heatran could take a chunk out if you stay in, is neither super risky nor super rewarding
    <Pwnemon> i disagree
    <Pwnemon> it's a great example of being risky, because it tends to punish the safe options, and reward the riskier options
    <Pwnemon> we'd just have to take this to the extreme with cap4
    *** Oglemi [~Oglemi@synIRC-B05B306B.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
    <bugmaniacbob> both interpretations are valid
    <jas61292> Honestly though, anyone who has a check that outspeeds it but it can beat with prediction would be considered risky by that definition
    <Pwnemon> not necessarily
    <Pwnemon> now let's say you have a check, that outspeeds you and can beat you with prediction
    <Pwnemon> but if you have scarf, you can outspeed them
    <Pwnemon> also you resist their main STAB but are weak to their secondary STAB
    *** Bblkal [Mibbit@SIT.DOWN] has quit [Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client]
    <Pwnemon> you can switch in and thus, bluffing a scarf, scare them out, and proceed to set up rocks
    <Pwnemon> OR
    <bugmaniacbob> I think the onus is now to provide an example where such a thing is not a risk
    <Pwnemon> or set up QD or Gear Shift or any other greatly rewarding thingamajig
    <bugmaniacbob> rather than more risky
    <jas61292> I just personally see that as a risky strategy, not a risky Pokemon.
    <Pwnemon> yes, but the goal would be to create a pokemon that maximizes such examples for risk
    <bugmaniacbob> but that is dependent on the user, not the Pokemon
    <Pwnemon> so that they are a common occurence: greatly rewarding when done right, and "well shit" when done wrong
    <bugmaniacbob> any Pokemon can create a risky situation for itself
    <Pwnemon> but you can't argue that some pokemon are more prone to risky play than others
    <Pwnemon> arent*
    <bugmaniacbob> possibly
    <bugmaniacbob> but then that comes back to the same argument
    <jas61292> Personally I think that is should be less of a case that it gets into a lot of risky situations, and more that the very nature of using it should be risky, which cannon be achieved by risky situations unless it gets into the 100% of the time.
    <jas61292> *cannot
    <bugmaniacbob> about how a Pokemon that gets itself into more risky situations is by definition more risky
    <Pwnemon> but then you're basically either dependent upon team matchups to create the risk, jas
    <Pwnemon> or else you're making a choice item user
    <bugmaniacbob> and hence it is the user taking the risk by using the Pokemon in the first place
    <Pwnemon> bmb, that's basically what i'm saying
    <Pwnemon> a pokemon that only works well when the user takes risks
    <jas61292> Not necessarily. Once again, I think Cloyster is the best example. 
    <bugmaniacbob> well, so long as we're on the same page about that
    <bugmaniacbob> it's more that the use of the Pokemon IS the risk, rather than the Pokemon being risky to use
    <bugmaniacbob> if you see the difference
    <Pwnemon> okay now we're back off the same page
    <bugmaniacbob> ok let me see if I can find an example
    <bugmaniacbob> ok take Volcarona and er CM Keldeo, say
    <bugmaniacbob> CM Keldeo is easier to set up but stopped by a large number of common threats
    <bugmaniacbob> QD Volcarona takes half a team to give it the support it needs to set up
    <bugmaniacbob> but by comparison, is checked by far fewer things
    <Pwnemon> so would we be creating the pokemon analogous to the volc or the keldeo?
    <bugmaniacbob> hence in this instance, Keldeo is the "safer and less rewarding" option
    <Pwnemon> volc ok
    <bugmaniacbob> and Volcarona is the "riskier but more rewarding" option
    <bugmaniacbob> this is just one other way of looking at it, though
    <Pwnemon> that's where our opinions differ, then
    <Pwnemon> i feel that volc is no riskier than keldeo
    <Pwnemon> in that once you get it in, you're basically on autopilot
    <bugmaniacbob> that's the thing though
    <Pwnemon> "qd > which of my moves is SE?"
    *** DarkSlay [Mibbit@synIRC-65C7C633.cc.gettysburg.edu] has joined #cap
    <bugmaniacbob> if we assume that this Pokemon doesn't exist in a vacuum
    <Pwnemon> i feel like the "risky" mon should make you think about what button you hit, EVERY turn
    <DarkSlay> Hi CAP.
    <Pwnemon> for example, toxicroak
    <bugmaniacbob> well
    <bugmaniacbob> our two ideas don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive
    <Pwnemon> using that mon is the highest level of mental fortitude
    *** macle [macle@If.youll.be.my.Louisiana.Ill.be.your.Mississippi] has quit [Quit: ]
    <Pwnemon> but if you can get a couple of BUs, then TOXICROAAAAAAAAAK
    <bugmaniacbob> see the thing is, prediction is just glorified guesswork
    <Pwnemon> i'd have to disagree there
    <bugmaniacbob> I think it was Scoopapa who said, this should be the work of the entire match
    <Pwnemon> actually no i wouldn't
    <bugmaniacbob> not in terms of single turns
    <Pwnemon> prediction is glorified guesswork in the same thing scientific hypothesis is glorified guesswork
    <bugmaniacbob> which I would personally agree with
    <Pwnemon> hence me using the example of toxicroak
    <Pwnemon> i think it embodies both types of prediction
    <Pwnemon> or not prediction, risk even
    <bugmaniacbob> well, toxicroak is a risky Pokemon to use, I'd agree
    <bugmaniacbob> that doesn't necessarily make it interesting, but still
    <Pwnemon> you have to win the weather war first, or at least play to the point that losing the weather war won't end your sweep
    <Pwnemon> then, after you've solidified that gain, you have to get him in safely
    <bugmaniacbob> Toxicroak is a bit of an odd case though
    <Pwnemon> if he's in safely, with room to set up, now you have to use your moveset of sub/bu/drain punch/sucker punch at absolute peak performance in order to effectively sweep
    <Pwnemon> but if you can get to a certain point, the game is YOURS
    <bugmaniacbob> it basically solely exists in OU because it's very good against most of the stuff rain teams typically struggle against
    <bugmaniacbob> the fact that it in itself is risky to use in OU notwithstanding
    <bugmaniacbob> anyway
    <bugmaniacbob> I am of the opinion that we should encompass as much as possible with CAP4
    <Pwnemon> you're right there
    <bugmaniacbob> in terms of risk
    <bugmaniacbob> while excluding the uninteresting bits
    <bugmaniacbob> if that means we can fuse two separate philosophies, I'm willing to try it
    <Pwnemon> what exactly does "uninteresting bits" mean
    <bugmaniacbob> mainly "oh noes stone edge hax"
    <Pwnemon> oh yeah
    <DarkSlay> "I know what's risky! Let's force it to use Focus Blast!"
    <Pwnemon> probability has no bearing on this discussion
    <bugmaniacbob> preciseky
    <bugmaniacbob> *precisely
    <Pwnemon> if we can fuse intensive team support risk with prediction once in risk
    <Pwnemon> i will consider this project a 10/10
    <Pwnemon> let's do it
    <bugmaniacbob> hoorah for meaningful resolutions past midnight
    <bugmaniacbob> the difficulty with the above, of course
    <bugmaniacbob> is that ever-present "how"
    <bugmaniacbob> or, more accurately, "how without resorting to defeatist"
    *** D4RR3N [D4RR3N@A4B5E159.4DF04D4F.C25C3CF6.IP] has joined #cap
    <Pwnemon> i almost want to say substitute abuse is a must
    <bugmaniacbob> funny, I really like those two categories
    <Pwnemon> but that's pigeonholing
    <Pwnemon> there are other ways to do it
    <Pwnemon> naked punching, for example
    <bugmaniacbob> "intensive team risk" and "prediction once in risk"
    <bugmaniacbob> naked punching?
    <uwnim> Focus Punch with no sub?
    <bugmaniacbob> oh right
    <bugmaniacbob> well there are plenty of niche little risky moves if it comes down to that
    <bugmaniacbob> there's um
    <bugmaniacbob> Final Gambit
    <bugmaniacbob> Stored Power
    <bugmaniacbob> any others I can think of
    <Pwnemon> those aren't really risky in the prediction sense
    <bugmaniacbob> well, they're more risky in the team sense
    <Pwnemon> in fact, final gambit is as far from prediction as you can get
    <Pwnemon> yeah
    <bugmaniacbob> although Final Gambit is a bit of a duff one in either case
    <DarkSlay> What about something like a Cro- Pokemon?
    <Pwnemon> final gambit just isn't something you build a team around though
    <DarkSlay> Like CroCune?
    <Pwnemon> a cro-mon is also risky in the intensive team care
    <bugmaniacbob> Cro- pokemon don't really work any more
    <DarkSlay> I consider that something that's very risky.
    <Pwnemon> but yeah they kinda suck :L
    <Pwnemon> new rest mechanics
    *** RBG [smogon@every.cave.in.kanto] has joined #cap
    <Pwnemon> "new" as in two years old
    <DarkSlay> Right, right.
    <bugmaniacbob> wow was it that long ago
    <bugmaniacbob> time flies
    <bugmaniacbob> in the prediction sense, well
    <bugmaniacbob> I suppose we've really just got FP, DM, and all the recoil moves
    <bugmaniacbob> basically anything with a negative side-effect
    <Pwnemon> sucker punch
    <bugmaniacbob> and that
    <Pwnemon> substitute
    <bugmaniacbob> ...substitute?
    <bugmaniacbob> isn't that the classic safe move?
    <Pwnemon> it sounds counterintuitive
    <bugmaniacbob> oh no wait
    <Pwnemon> but substitute is one of the most prediction-riddled moves ever
    <bugmaniacbob> protect is the classic safe move
    <Pwnemon> yeah
    *** D4RR3N [D4RR3N@Open.Condom.Style] has quit [Ping timeout]
    <bugmaniacbob> yeah especially if this thing has a large passive damage weakness
    <bugmaniacbob> Substitute becomes much more risky
    <bugmaniacbob> looking at stuff like DPP alakazam and what not
    <Pwnemon> breloom is another mon that comes up that's prediction-heavy
    <Pwnemon> doesn't have the team support aspect that i liked about toxicroak though
    <bugmaniacbob> well, it needs the Celebi removed and so on
    <bugmaniacbob> not quite so obviously, though, which is a shame
    <Pwnemon> gen iv breloom was quite easy to slap on a team
    <Pwnemon> in gen v, you're right, it's a bit better of an example
    <bugmaniacbob> even in DPP it was quite prediction heavy
    <Pwnemon> not until you'd dropped your Spore
    <bugmaniacbob> the difference was it was more a team supporter itself than anything else
    <Pwnemon> yeah
    <bugmaniacbob> right, now I need to be going in a minute
    <bugmaniacbob> so one last topic, for anyone who's interested
    <bugmaniacbob> support.
    *** D4RR3N [D4RR3N@A4B5E159.4DF04D4F.C25C3CF6.IP] has joined #cap
    <Pwnemon> support was certainly an interesting pitch by jas
    <Pwnemon> it sounds like it could definitely work
    <bugmaniacbob> How many people would support a support-orientated riskmon?
    <jas61292> me!
    <Pwnemon> heh
    <bugmaniacbob> agh no pun int. sorry agh
    <Pwnemon> i'd prefer an offence-oriented mon
    <Pwnemon> but i'd be happy with support too
    <bugmaniacbob> good, good, apathy is always good
    <bugmaniacbob> new question
    <Pwnemon> we'd have to be careful not to let it slip away
    <bugmaniacbob> how would people react to a Pokemon that had both Support and Offensive qualities
    <Pwnemon> that's the only way to do a risky support
    <jas61292> I think that could work well
    <bugmaniacbob> by this I mean it could do either but not both
    <Pwnemon> if we do defensive support i'm flipping a table
    <bugmaniacbob> in the sense of Latios
    <Pwnemon> no, it should be able to do both
    <Pwnemon> to varying degrees
    <bugmaniacbob> you have your Choice Specs and you have your DS + Memento
    <Pwnemon> force switches with its offensive presence, in which time it's able to throw out rocks or screens or something
    <Pwnemon> but if the opponent predicts the rocks or screens, then it can ko
    <bugmaniacbob> that's a bit frail for my taste
    <bugmaniacbob> I'm trying to think of other ways we could accomplish that
    <Pwnemon> well i think cap could use a dosage of frail
    <Pwnemon> after our first 3
    <bugmaniacbob> well, we aren't giving this one a recovery move
    <bugmaniacbob> bar rest
    <Pwnemon> that's not entirely necessary
    <Pwnemon> there's plenty of risky pokemon that use recovery
    <bugmaniacbob> well, we'll see
    <Pwnemon> for example, honchkrow in lower tiers
    <Pwnemon> it just has to not have BULK + RECOVERY
    <bugmaniacbob> zzz honchkrow
    <Pwnemon> one or the other
    <bugmaniacbob> In any case, I was wondering how frailty in the sense of "severe passive damage weak" might work
    <Pwnemon> i really don't know
    <Pwnemon> passive damage is one of the most reliable things in pokemon
    <bugmaniacbob> because I want this to be able to switch in
    <bugmaniacbob> if only once or twice
    <Pwnemon> it certainly isn't about to catch you by surprise "oh shit i got stealth rocked where did that come from"
    <Pwnemon> so basically, you better be damn sure you are switching in at the best possible time?
    <Pwnemon> that could work
    <bugmaniacbob> that's the idea
    <Pwnemon> that could definitely work
    <Pwnemon> http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4396944&postcount=47
    <Pwnemon> lol just exactly what we're not doing
    <bugmaniacbob> nice to know people read others' posts
    <Pwnemon> to be fair you didn't really stress that probability was not the direction this concept would take
    <Pwnemon> i didn't pick that up until we talked about it in chat
    <bugmaniacbob> I am pretty sure I did
    <bugmaniacbob> [but I will check just in case]
    <bugmaniacbob> well I definitely said "we are focusing on X" where X was not "luck-management"
    <bugmaniacbob> really it would only take a small amount of argument retrosynthesis to know what I meant
    <bugmaniacbob> anyway, on frailty....
    <bugmaniacbob> I really don't like the idea of it, if only because "Glass cannon lolol"
    <bugmaniacbob> I feel like we could get away with something that has both a huge passive damage weakness
    <bugmaniacbob> as well as a ton of common weaknesses
    <Pwnemon> i'm not so averse to a glass cannon
    <bugmaniacbob> well, that would mitigate any above-average defensive stats, perhaps
    <Pwnemon> as long as the glass cannon isn't LO + 4 attacks
    <Pwnemon> or Setup + LO + 3 Attacks
    <bugmaniacbob> that is what the glass cannon would likely be though
    <Pwnemon> not if it's too slow
    <bugmaniacbob> I mean, if it's going to be KOed by a wrong prediction
    <bugmaniacbob> Recover isn't exactly the move most conducive to survival
    <bugmaniacbob> I mean, look at Alakazam
    <Pwnemon> that's what i was saying
    <bugmaniacbob> wouldn't a slow glass cannon be kind of um
    <bugmaniacbob> horribly bad
    <Pwnemon> it takes a lot of balls, and risk, to run recover on zam, and in the end it won't be worth it
    <Pwnemon> slow glass cannons do work, actually
    <Pwnemon> they're the most mindgamey of all pokemon
    <DarkSlay> Unless it runs STAB priority.
    <bugmaniacbob> such as what
    <Pwnemon> yes, most do
    <DarkSlay> Or Sub-based predictions on switches.
    <Pwnemon> Technician Breloom, Honchkrow of all stripes, Toxicroak
    <bugmaniacbob> I suppose there's Breloom
    <SgtWoodsy> breloom
    <bugmaniacbob> well, Breloom and Toxicroak both have significant passive recovery
    <SgtWoodsy> has a 100% acc sleep move
    <bugmaniacbob> oh wait Technician
    <SgtWoodsy> and has really good priority
    *** V4 is now known as coolbiz
    <bugmaniacbob> I dunno if I'd classify Breloom as a glass cannon, honestly
    *** coolbiz is now known as V4
    <Pwnemon> what is it then
    <Pwnemon> it's definitely not bulky
    <bugmaniacbob> it's not that frail and to be frank it isn't that strong either
    <Pwnemon> pstats, breloom
    -apathy.mi.us.synirc.net:@#cap- capefeather invited pstats into the channel.
    *** pstats [~LuaIRC@my.pokemans.let.me.show.you.their.stats] has joined #cap
    <Pwnemon> oh it wasn't in here?
    <Pwnemon> pstats, breloom
    <pstats> Breloom [Grass/Fighting] Effect Spore/Poison Heal/Technician (DW) | 60/130/80/60/60/70 | OU | GK/LK: 60 BP
    <Pwnemon> 60/80/60 is pretty unbulky
    *** D4RR3N_ [D4RR3N@A4B5E159.4DF04D4F.C25C3CF6.IP] has joined #cap
    <bugmaniacbob> Breloom's typing gives it a good amount to switch in on
    <DarkSlay> It's about the resistances.
    *** D4RR3N [D4RR3N@Open.Condom.Style] has quit [NickServ (GHOST command used by D4RR3N_)]
    <DarkSlay> Waters fear it.
    *** D4RR3N_ is now known as D4RR3N
    <bugmaniacbob> I'd classify it as a supporting wallbreaker, personally
    <Pwnemon> poison heal is, but not techloom
    <bugmaniacbob> but regardless this is sort of departing from the point
    <Pwnemon> yeah kinda
    <bugmaniacbob> although
    <bugmaniacbob> the point is raised that something with frail defensive stats can work if it has resistances to switch in on
    <bugmaniacbob> conversely, something with higher defensive stats may not work as well if it finds it more difficult to switch in
    <bugmaniacbob> be it through SR weak, few meaningful resistances, etc
    <Pwnemon> cough rhyperior
    <Pwnemon> cough
    <DarkSlay> Typing is crucial.
    <bugmaniacbob> well Rhyperior... yeah
    <DarkSlay> I'm actually liking Rock typing for this, but that's just me.
    <Pwnemon> it depends heavily on what role we choose for our mon
    <jas61292> Rock/Ice. Lets do it. What is more risky than the most awful typing ever?
    <bugmaniacbob> careful
    <bugmaniacbob> you might resurrect RD
    <jas61292> ahaha
    <Pwnemon> i wish.. :(
    <DarkSlay> Rock/Electric would be a very interesting typing if we're going to go offensive. It has some key weaknesses that need to be addressed by the team, namely Ground types, but that's more of the Breloom route.
    <bugmaniacbob> thing is
    <DarkSlay> Although, not sure if CAP wants another 4x Ground weak Pokemon.
    *** D4RR3N [D4RR3N@Open.Condom.Style] has quit [Ping timeout]
    <bugmaniacbob> I kind of want this to be SR weak, if it isn't "defensively frail" as most would see it
    <bugmaniacbob> in terms of the whole "one switch, make it count" thing
    <uwnim> How SR weak?
    <bugmaniacbob> so... Fire/Ice, anyone?
    <jas61292> YES!!!!!!
    <uwnim> That would be rather interesting
    <bugmaniacbob> honestly I would love to make a 4x SR weak mon that didn't shamelessly try to cover it up
    <DarkSlay> Well, if that's the case...
    <bugmaniacbob> like Syclant
    <DarkSlay> Bug might be the best way to go about that.
    <bugmaniacbob> but Volcarona has sort of done that whole thing already
    <DarkSlay> Bug/Electric would be decent typing to suggest.
    <bugmaniacbob> in all seriousness, it probably shouldn't be more than a 2x weak if even that
    <DarkSlay> Electric just seems to work so well so far.
    <DarkSlay> lol
    <bugmaniacbob> why Electric, out of curiosity?
    <DarkSlay> It's a great second typing, since it only has one weakness and a few resistances. In the case of Bug/Electric, it negates the Ground. However, Bug's already weak to quite a bit on its own.
    <DarkSlay> Fire, Rock, Flying, etc.
    <bugmaniacbob> I guess
    <DarkSlay> Plus, resisting some priority usually helps offensive Pokemon in general, which leans towards "medium defenses with key resistances".
    <DarkSlay> Namely Bullet Punch.
    <bugmaniacbob> hmm
    <DarkSlay> Although Mach Punch/VWave is also resisted.
    <bugmaniacbob> personally I liked the idea of Bug/Psychic
    <bugmaniacbob> if only for six weaknesses
    <bugmaniacbob> + SR/Pursuit/U-turn weak
    <DarkSlay> Ugh. Get raped by TTar. :(
    <bugmaniacbob> on top of a very good offensive STAB combo
    <bugmaniacbob> Ttar doesn't want a Megahorn to the face
    <jas61292> Not if it OHKOs TTar
    <jas61292> yeah
    *** Birkal [Mibbit@synIRC-FA63D73A.nat.luther.edu] has joined #cap
    <DarkSlay> If it's faster.
    <Pwnemon> hi birkal
    <bugmaniacbob> how can anything not be faster than Ttar
    <Birkal> hi
    <bugmaniacbob> unless it's Scarf
    <jas61292> Tyranitar is not exactly setting the bar high for speed
    <bugmaniacbob> nobody likes Scarf
    <jas61292> I do
    *** mode/#cap [+ao Birkal Birkal] by ChanServ
    <DarkSlay> Well, we were discussing the possibility of making it slow.
    <jas61292> I'll choice anything
    <DarkSlay> :P
    <DarkSlay> Also, how can it touch Steels with that STAB combo?
    <DarkSlay> Just coverage.
    <bugmaniacbob> Fire Blast
    <DarkSlay> Not saying it's a bad thing.
    <DarkSlay> o_o
    <jas61292> Earth Power
    <bugmaniacbob> or something idk
    <bugmaniacbob> Hi Jump Kick
    <uwnim> Heh
    <jas61292> yes
    <uwnim> No, no
    <jas61292> I like it
    *** GeneralSpoon [~chatzilla@5BC57EFA.9C1809B.5D70303C.IP] has quit [Ping timeout]
    <Pwnemon> risk lol
    <bugmaniacbob> that's a risk and a half
    <Pwnemon> dontswitchtoghostdontswitchtoghost
    <DarkSlay> "Hey let's force it to use Focus Blast! RISK!!!!!"
    <jas61292> I just like the idea of a bug using HJK
    <Pwnemon> lol
    <bugmaniacbob> well to be fair HJK is sort of different since you will die if it misses without question
    <bugmaniacbob> but yeah still hax
    Will comment on above posts in the morning. Cheerio.
  24. MCBarrett

    MCBarrett i love it when you call me big hoppa
    Mentor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    544
    1. What should the build of our Pokemon be? (eg. Bulky offensive, hyper defensive, etc)
    The seemingly obvious choice here would be a glass cannon as this could be revenge killed by a priority move easily and doesn't survive very long during the match. however, this isn't the purpose of a glass cannon. it's supposed to either revenge kill or put a very large dent in the opposition which isn't very hard to do, simply clicking the right move reaps the user the reward of a kill or opening up a wall to be removed more easily by the rest of the team. That really seems like a low risk situation to me. maybe not always a high reward but not too risky. on the other hand something like what Deck proposed with rhyperior would be riskier as it is vulnerable to a good amount of super effective attacks, and doesn't outspeed much of anything. However, with proper support and strategy rhyperior can tear holes into teams with its monster attack and good offensive typing.

    2. What facet of strategy should this Pokemon's focus be on? (eg. Support, hyper offence, etc)

    I believe this is where there is still a lot of room for discussion. Offense has obviously been the focus thus far but support can be just as, if not more risky, than an offensive poke. A support mon can provide a key sweeper what it needs to clean up the opposition through hazards, screen support, status support and hp support. This can be monumentally rewarding to the user and can make a victory much easier to come by. However support mons can usually be dealt with very easily and the support they provide can be taken away just as easily if proper strategy isn't used. not having a reliable spin blocker for a hazard setter is one example. And in the case that the support fails, that team slot was essentially put to waste AND the rest of the team, which normally relies on that support, is put into a position where it must function without it. So with that i think we have some very interesting possibilities and strong arguments could be made for both. i think i would like to see more discussion on that before i decide though.

    3. In which parts of the process should we focus on Reward, and in which should we focus on Risk? (eg. Low Speed so reliance on set-up moves, etc)

    Here i'm pretty strongly opposed to having this cap rely on a setup move as there is setup moves are low risk high reward moves. For example a mon with great stats but a hindering speed stat that is given a move such as rock polish is fixed nearly immediately and with little skill involved. Thats a major focus that i think should be put into account, the skill involved in pulling off the risk involved with using cap4 on your team. there should be some notable and somewhat debilitating weaknesses in the form of low stats in certain areas that make it more difficult to use, as well as typing weaknesses. however with proper support and team building the low stats can be made less of a factor and the typing weaknesses can be mostly covered to allow cap4 to use the strengths of its typing to succeed.
  25. Scoopapa

    Scoopapa
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    972
    My post got eaten. I don't want to retype the whole thing, so I will try to summarize with bullet points.

    - Extreme bias in the build-type (particularly stat distribution) is a good thing. CAP4 should have very clear advantages and disadvantages against certain enemies. Adding too much versatility to CAP4 will make it more likely to have an answer for every counter, and thus not risky. For example, if it CAP4 could sweep with great coverage, but when presented with something that walls it, set up entry hazards or screens or U-turn etc., it would cease to be risky. A pokemon with average speed and good bulk that can sweep slower mons and tank faster ones is also not risky (unless there is some exception such as an extreme special/physical bias). As such, we should try to make strong choices between offense or defense, direct damage or support, and possibly physical or special.

    - we could use stats to provide a "reward" flipside to our risk. For instance, a 4x SR weak mon could have good bulk since it will still behave as a Glass Cannon whenever SR is present. Good bulk (and not as a tradeoff for other good stats) is the "reward" for mitigating your disadvantages.

    - We aren't limited in our builds to a fast, frail attacker or a slow, tanky supporter. We could easily do fast support or slow direct damage. Take coverage away from the Glass Cannon and add a support movepool and you have a fast, frail, supporter (think Espeon). Sure, it's not as flashy as a glass cannon, but you could have some seriously sweet support options. As for slow direct damage, you could have a wall that focuses on slowly steamrolling the enemy through steady damage and negation of recovery, rather than focusing on all the passive support things that walls normally do. This would essentially be a stallbreaker/utility counter. The risk wouldn't be becoming setup fodder as much as other wall concept, but rather the fact that it takes a lot of time to do what it wants to (which is easily compounded by other risk factors).

    - DK's Rhyperior-esque idea isn't that far off from Glass Cannon or Harmless Super-Wall ideas. While the latter are extreme biases towards offense or defense, something like Rhyperior is an extreme bias towards physical. I think this type of idea would be really interesting, since rather than associating risk and reward with playstyles, we are associating it with the more arbitrarily distributed physical and special pokemon. We could also swap an attack or defense stat for its special counterpart. One strong attacking and one strong defending stat, just not on the same side. This would accomplish a similar thing but would shuffle our threat list around significantly.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)