CAP 38 - Part 6 - Defining Moves

[Spammernoob]

CAP 38 So Far

-----

In this stage, we will develop a list of moves that will meaningfully affect future stages of the process for this CAP. These moves will need to be addressed in the stat limits and stat submission stages in order to contextualize submitted spreads. For example, a stat submission that elects to choose stronger Defining Moves from the "Choose At Least One" or "Optional" lists will be put under heavier scrutiny than those without them. The Movepool SL will organize these moves into the following lists, as needed:

1. Required: Stat spreads (or other future stages) must account for this move / these moves.
2. Choose At Least One: Stat spreads (or other future stages) must account for at least one of these moves.
3. Optional: Stat spreads (or other future stages) can elect to use these moves or not.

Moves that can be chosen as Defining Moves should be in the following categories:

• Boosting Moves
• Recovery Moves
• High Base-Power Moves
• Strong Utility Moves (self-switching moves, hazards, etc.)

Controversial moves or placements in lists can be sent to poll if the Movepool SL deems it necessary.

Please do not polljump by talking about specific stat spreads or suggesting specific abilities (outside of those already voted for by the community).

With that, I hand this over to Zetalz and expect ample discussion to be done!

 

[Zetalz]

Before getting into my post proper, here's a link to the Universal Assumed Moves list for quick reference, as it will be quite important for this stage.


Alright gang, we've had our threats list loosely plotted out, so it's time to sort out CAP 38's Defining Moves. Before we can do that however, we do have a bit of housekeeping to catch up on. We've had a fair bit of umming and ahhing with regard to CAP 38's structure and direction due to the lack of confirmed coverage or offensive bias, some of which I hope we can narrow down in this stage. Before opening up discussion on non-assumed moves, I'd first like to spend some time ruminating on a couple pressing issues we've yet to fully address.


[Concerning Coverage]
So far we have assumed a handful of coverage types for CAP 38, with Ground and Fire being the pre-dominantly discussed options as far back as Typing. In this stage I would like to see us firmly nail down which coverage type (or possibly types) CAP 38 will have going forward.

1) What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38? No matter which singular option we choose, 38 will still have a handful of hard matchups it will struggle into, which is to be expected. Which of the hard matchups that 38 currently faces are most important to be addressed mainly or entirely through coverage options, and which are lower or higher priority to give a definitive answer for? Ground and Fire as mentioned are the frontrunners here, so I expect discussion will revolve mainly around them, but other typings may be valuable to look into here as well.

2) Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much? This is unlikely to be a popular option, but it's one that needs to be answered nonetheless, as discussion around sub-optimal coverage options like Water or Ice that do not necessarily restrict having additional coverage in addition to themselves have been circulating somewhat in discord discussion, so I'd like a firm yes or no answer to this question.


[Building a Bias]
While discussion around 38 has largely revolved around the mon being specially offensive like Eternatus, there has been a growing interest in going down a physical route, pushed a bit further with our Primary Ability giving us a Burn and stat reduction immunity. There is a case to be made that locking in our offensive bias should wait until stats, but in an effort to not make our Stats SL rip their hair out and to give us further direction, I'd like to thoroughly discuss the merits of locking it in here to give us more solid direction going into stat limits.

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats? As per our concept assessment we've laid out a bevy of different sets we'd like our Mini-Etern to run, 3A Offensive, 2A Defensive/Wall, Meteor Beam etc., and some of these will likely prefer one bias over the other.

4) Mixed attacking stats are pretty much off the table for CAP 38 due it's already towering stat requirements. This does not however preclude allowing a slightly higher off-attacking stat for the use of stronger coverage moves into specific hard matchups (EQ for Mollux, just as an example). Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias? Again I don't expect this to be a very popular option, but it's something I'd like a clear answer on regardless.


As a reminder, move discussion beyond the assumed moves list is not open at this time. I'll leave discussion open for a few days for everyone to get their take in, before we move into discussing further move specifics and things such as setup and utility options.

 

[Spammernoob]

Pokemon	Fire	Dark	Ground
Cawmodore	2x	1x	0x
Ceruledge	0.5x	2x	2x
Chuggalong	0.5x	1x	2x
Corviknight	2x	1x	0x
Dragapult	0.5x	2x	1x
Gholdengo	2x	2x	2x
Iron Moth	0.5x	1x	4x
Kingambit	2x	0.5x	2x
Kitsunoh	2x	2x	2x
Mollux	0.5x	1x	4x
Pajantom	0.5x	2x	1x
Pecharunt	1x	2x	2x
Plasmanta	1x	1x	4x
Ramnarok	1x	1x	4x
Slowking-Galar	1x	2x	2x
Venomicon	1x	1x	0x
Tera Steel	2x	1x	2x
Tera Poison	1x	1x	2x

Here's a table of coverage vs. Pokemon that resist both STABs. I assume Dark coverage is not really relevant anymore, but other 2 columns should be useful.

I'll give thoughts on the questions, etc. later.

 

[Koleda]

I need to think more about the other questions, but question 2 has an answer that I am certain on, and that is I am extremely against the idea of us running dual coverage.

First of all, it's anti-concept. It is an unnecessary path away from Eternatus that we do not need to take. Running 4a sets ruins the spirit of Eternatus, as not only does Eternatus not really do 4a sets (Meteor Beam sets don't count), but it makes us less likely that we will be running other sets. That set variety is important to the identity of Eternatus imo.

The other reason is that it just makes counterplay too limited. Having counters is not the end of the world, in fact it's actively good for us. Look at Chuggalong, a mon that got all the coverage it could ever want, and ended up being bonkers (funny enough, 1.0 Chuggalong had the same type and coverage as Eternatus). There needs to be mons that can handle us.

But yeah. I see no good reason to run dual coverage and plenty of bad reasons.

 

[Ayecrusher King]

I'm just going to answer the questions I can back up somewhat:

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats? As per our concept assessment we've laid out a bevy of different sets we'd like our Mini-Etern to run, 3A Offensive, 2A Defensive/Wall, Meteor Beam etc., and some of these will likely prefer one bias over the other.

Looking at just the assumed moves, Physically speaking we have a more reliable power level. On Grass, the physical options like Leaf Blade or, if you want to risk accuracy, Power Whip, range from persistent 90 BP if we never crit to a more risky 120 BP. On the special side, we have Giga Drain which restores HP but is the relatively weakest option, Energy Ball which has less PP than Leaf Blade while potentially dropping SpD, while Leaf Storm drops your own SpA by two stages every hit. It's even more skewed on Poison, where Gunk Shot shares the same flaws as Power Whip, while Sludge Wave has less immediate power at 95. So, essentially, we're juggling between more raw power that we can spam over time versus a somewhat techie, but still usable list with the proper set up.

4) Mixed attacking stats are pretty much off the table for CAP 38 due it's already towering stat requirements. This does not however preclude allowing a slightly higher off-attacking stat for the use of stronger coverage moves into specific hard matchups (EQ for Mollux, just as an example). Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias? Again I don't expect this to be a very popular option, but it's something I'd like a clear answer on regardless.

This I think depends on our chosen bias, because at the moment, Fire and Ground have two different categories you want to spam them reliably: again by looking at assumed moves for those types, Fire coverage with Flamethrower and Fire Blast that poses little to no penalty to us for spamming it unlike say, Flare Blitz's recoil, and for Ground-type EQ has higher BP than EP, and our coverage should be covering whatever our bias can't do.

 

[fayestra]

4) [...] Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias?

I'm expecting that EVs will be an important commitment for different sets, so mixed coverage would be one more thing that takes investment to make full use of. This wouldn't be an auto-include on offensive sets, since investment in the main attack would make coverage on that side more useful. Defensive sets, on the other hand, could get a boost to their consistency. It could also allow for extra coverage to be included without it becoming overbearing, as most sets wouldn't have the power to completely blow past their checks and instead use the moves for steady, consistent progress. The literal mechanics deviate from Eternatus, but it's a really interesting way to fit the theme.

 

[bumboclaat]

1) What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38? No matter which singular option we choose, 38 will still have a handful of hard matchups it will struggle into, which is to be expected. Which of the hard matchups that 38 currently faces are most important to be addressed mainly or entirely through coverage options, and which are lower or higher priority to give a definitive answer for? Ground and Fire as mentioned are the frontrunners here, so I expect discussion will revolve mainly around them, but other typings may be valuable to look into here as well.

Ground and Fire have been the two main types discussed and yeah it isn't hard to disern why... CAP 38 has two holes in STABs in Poison- and Steel-types and well...yeah. A caveat here is that this is with the assumption that CAP 38 will end up as a special attacker and it is pretty easy to fill that out offensively in a way that clearly makes CAP 38 a 'mini Eternatus.' Making things work on the physical side is undoubtedly a little more complicated.

Anyways, I've always been a big proponent of Fire-type coverage instead of Ground. Regardless of the direction CAP 38 takes, it will be heavily reliant on coverage to check a whole suite of `. I've advocated for Fire-type coverage due to providing a more balanced matchup spread rather than a polarized one with Ground. Additionally, the diversity of Fire-type coverage enables various sets to engage in a manner reminiscent of Eternatus itself. For example, Eternatus has access to both Fire Blast and Flamethrower, but isn't locked into one or the other. Offensive sets tend to run Fire Blast over Flamethrower since the BP difference is what enables Eternatus to OHKO Zacian-C. This extends mildly to defensive sets where Flamethrower still requires modest investment to 2HKO Zacian-C. Even then, sure you have 'steel' coverage, but Eternatus isn't exactly threatening Necrozma-DM, the premier defensive Steel.

This is a dynamic that easily translates to OU environment. It is one that I quite like and gives Eternatus a lot of its flavour. Sure, it is 'just Fire-type coverage,' but its depth enables Eternatus to flexibly utilize it in a fair way. Furthermore, for a more CAP specific thing, it is quite likely that we will see CAP 38 utilize tera to boost the power of its coverage and Tera Fire retains a PixieSpeed resist which would be a boon for offensive sets relative to Ground.

So yeah... Ground coverage. I definitely get at least some the appeal. Perhaps a bit too much as I see Ground-type coverage as a bit too strong. I don't think it is anti-concept, but Ground-type coverage does remove a lot of Eternatus's texture due to the extent it polarizes many matchups. It simultaneously reduces and expands CAP 38's counterplay in a way that doesn't seem particularly healthy. The big appeal to me is diminishing teras efficacy as counterplay due to hitting both Poison- and Steel. Past that though, I don't like how it turns Mollux from a strong check at worst to living in eternal fear, but am more mixed about Ram.

I think Ground is a bit too strong in general, but would heavily advocate against going in this direction if Glowking is a significant consideration given CAP 38 would need an unreasonably high Special Attack stat (~160) for Earth Power to outpace Regenerator. Sure the hit on Pecharunt is nice, but the tools CAP 38 already has will handle it long term with just neutral coverage. Fire just generally gives the vibe of doing enough when the Pokémon that do resist the combo are mostly frailer offensive threats compared to being stonewalled by more defensive ones with Ground coverage.

2) Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much? This is unlikely to be a popular option, but it's one that needs to be answered nonetheless, as discussion around sub-optimal coverage options like Water or Ice that do not necessarily restrict having additional coverage in addition to themselves have been circulating somewhat in discord discussion, so I'd like a firm yes or no answer to this question.

A key part of Eternatus's identity is that it really doesn't get more than what it 'needs.' Hell, it is probably one of the only Dragons that doesn't get the typical 'elemental' coverage. This is something that CAP 38 should adhere to unless necessary and I don't see a world where it is on a physical set. I can see a justification for a physical set, but not really with the moves we are able to discuss at the moment outside of maybe Taunt which isn't relevant to this question. Unless it clogs up the process I don't see a harm in allowing more than one coverage type if it is quite justified. Ice definitely shouldn't be one of them though when it could be very impactful for & .

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats? As per our concept assessment we've laid out a bevy of different sets we'd like our Mini-Etern to run, 3A Offensive, 2A Defensive/Wall, Meteor Beam etc., and some of these will likely prefer one bias over the other.

I don't think I'm allowed to discuss Meteor Beam since it isn't on the list, but it is difficult to decouple it with special sets at the moment. The benefit of a physical set is mostly higher potential power. Power Whip and Gunk Shot are notably stronger than their special counterparts, but accuracy is a big thing that we can't address atm. As things stand, knowing that your offensive CAP 38 having a non negligible chance to lose games despite playing properly because it is clicking the moves it is supposed to is not a great feeling. The defensive set will likely fall back on Leaf Blade and Poison Jab, but these are far weaker than their physical counterparts and have contact drawbacks (|).

Personally, I think it is worthwhile locking in whether or not CAP 38 will be physically or specially based now. This is getting into Q4, but given mixed attacking stats are off the table for good reasons, nailing down what direction CAP 38 is going to go makes the discussion around moves so much easier to have without tip-toeing around certain things and having a clear direction.

4) Mixed attacking stats are pretty much off the table for CAP 38 due it's already towering stat requirements. This does not however preclude allowing a slightly higher off-attacking stat for the use of stronger coverage moves into specific hard matchups (EQ for Mollux, just as an example). Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias? Again I don't expect this to be a very popular option, but it's something I'd like a clear answer on regardless.

This is not a good idea imo. If somebody has a good idea then that is great, but let it happen naturally instead of forcing it.

 

[viol and bass]

What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38?

In my opinion, Ground. I was more in favor of Fire initially but Spammernoob's list convinced me, it just hits a lot more of our checks than Fire does and is the best way to emulate Eternatus' Dragon / Poison / Fire coverage. Fire has some significant whiffs among mons that are difficult to wear down, which makes the 3-move coverage feel worse. Ground whiffs into a couple of mons, but overall they're not horrific mons to whiff into. I don't see a reason to deny Ground on the basis of it being too good; it still has answers, and if Eternatus is our model, the answers to our STABs + coverage shouldn't be plentiful. Our STABs are also less potent in general, so I think it's important for our 3-move coverage to be quite threatening if we make correct predictions etc.

Fire does have somewhat better 2-move coverage which is worth noting. Dark is more focused on hitting everything but Kingambit at least neutrally, but I think if we're capturing Eternatus, super effective hits should be the focus for the coverage move.

Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much?

Technically this gets away from Eternatus slightly but I wouldn't be that opposed to it if there's a convincing argument for it and the moves are primarily finding themselves on different types of sets. If we're likely to be running [STAB]/Fire/Ground or something, that's different and not something I'd be in favor of. I do think it'd be hard to avoid this, so I'm probably not in favor overall.

Edit: After hearing Quz's arguments, with a sufficient penalty I'm cool with 2 coverage options. Quz is right that that can emulate Eternatus if viewed in a certain way.

What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats?

I don't have a strong opinion on which bias is better yet, but I do think we should lock in the bias now for clarity's sake. I just want to mention, our ability has a lot of specific and interesting synergies with physical sets, but it's quite possible that the correct bias is less synergistic with the ability but better for the mon overall (I'm personally not sure yet).

I think aiming for Gunk shot which is on the assumed moves list (or one of the high-powered physical Grass STABs, which are not) isn't the right move. Low accuracy or other elements that cut into clickability or increase risk feel pretty different from Eternatus' primary STABs, which are very consistent, and that consistency feels like a somewhat core aspect of the mon. I guess I'd currently lean a bit toward special (at least without looking at non-assumed moves).

Physical is worse into mons like Zama and Obliteryx and Pecharunt, while special is worse into mons like Equilibra and Glowking and Shox. Ground coverage does likely prefer physical, although I think special does enough. Fire probably prefers special just on the basis of the physical options being weird. I don't really know how to parse all of this yet.

Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias?

I don't think it's inherently a problem, but it's hard for me to see many routes where this is optimal. We do have a number of hard checks with lopsided defenses, but if the mon is just hitting pretty hard with its primary stat bias, I believe that'd be sufficient in most cases. If somebody has a good use case for going mixed I'm open to it.

 

[Spammernoob]

1) What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38? No matter which singular option we choose, 38 will still have a handful of hard matchups it will struggle into, which is to be expected. Which of the hard matchups that 38 currently faces are most important to be addressed mainly or entirely through coverage options, and which are lower or higher priority to give a definitive answer for? Ground and Fire as mentioned are the frontrunners here, so I expect discussion will revolve mainly around them, but other typings may be valuable to look into here as well.

Let's look at the relevant matchups for Ground vs. Fire. I'll include all OU / CAP Pokemon that resist both STABs, and Equilibra (which has gotten some discussion)

Fire has better matchups into:
Ground has better matchups into:
They have equal matchup into:

It looks like Ground has many more relevant matchups than Fire, though Grass / Poison / Ground leads to getting hard-walled by a few Pokemon. I feel like it's easy enough to cover for Corviknight / Venomicon / Cawmodore in other slots though, as they are relatively passive Pokemon compared to the Pokemon that Ground is better into (a variety of HO staples and my worst enemy, Slowking-G). More discussion on this in the physical / special bias section.

As a sidenote, Fire coverage works better with Meteor Beam, which may or may not sway decisions here.

2) Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much? This is unlikely to be a popular option, but it's one that needs to be answered nonetheless, as discussion around sub-optimal coverage options like Water or Ice that do not necessarily restrict having additional coverage in addition to themselves have been circulating somewhat in discord discussion, so I'd like a firm yes or no answer to this question.

One interesting tradeoff is that Ground is better for 3a coverage, while Fire is better for 2a coverage (Poison / Ground and Grass / Ground are both pretty janky, while Poison / Fire and Grass / Fire are both somewhat competent). I personally think we should get both Ground and Fire coverage; Ground seems very important for 3a sets, as described above, and Fire for 2a sets that use either Leech Seed or Toxic (although there is certain utility that would make Fire coverage less valuable...).

The downside I suppose is the fear of double coverage sets. There is precedent with Sun sweeper Venusaur, which sometimes runs Ground coverage in lieu of Poison STAB (though it gets pseudo-STAB on Weather Ball). I think this is less of a concern than actually making both defensive and offensive sets viable though. There are some workarounds that involve discussing specific moves that I am not supposed to do.

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats? As per our concept assessment we've laid out a bevy of different sets we'd like our Mini-Etern to run, 3A Offensive, 2A Defensive/Wall, Meteor Beam etc., and some of these will likely prefer one bias over the other.

Flower Veil actually takes away a lot of the drawbacks of Physical (Intimidate, Burn).

The main draw of going Physical is the Equilibra and Slowking-G matchup. Notably, it frees up our coverage options; breaking Equilibra neutrally with Grass STAB or Slowking-G neutrally with Fire coverage is actually feasible for Physical CAP38. We can see that special CAP38 deals pitiful damage to these, while physical 2HKOs with neutral LO attacks (I used Flamethrower over Fire Blast because realistically 8pp + imperfect accuracy is not beating Slowking-G ever). Finally, our matchup into stall's dedicated PhysDef wall (Dondozo) is better than our matchup into their SpDef wall (Blissey) thanks to our typing.

The main draw of going Special is better matchups into PhysDef skewed Pokemon like Great Tusk, Obliteryx, and Pecharunt. Special is also nice for defense-boosting Pokemon like Hemogoblin, Zamazenta, and Revenankh (we resist their priority, and being able to revenge-kill a boosted Hemogoblin is quite valuable). There's also avoiding contact-punish. Even though we are immune to Static / Flame Body, Rough Skin and Rocky Helmet can still be annoying. Finally, if we only look at UAM, physical Fire is limited to Flare Blitz and Fire Punch, and we don't really like taking recoil here. Of course, this is less of an issue for Ground coverage builds.
Also, there is Meteor Beam, which trivially solves our setup question (possibly the strongest reason to go special).

Calcs (120Atk and SpA)

252 Atk Life Orb Arceus-Grass Flare Blitz vs. 252 HP / 4 Def Slowking-Galar: 192-227 (48.7 - 57.6%) -- 95.3% chance to 2HKO
252 SpA Life Orb Arceus-Grass Flamethrower vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Slowking-Galar: 82-97 (20.8 - 24.6%) -- guaranteed 5HKO
252 Atk Life Orb Arceus-Grass Leaf Blade vs. 252 HP / 4 Def Equilibra: 187-220 (45.8 - 53.9%) -- 2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252 SpA Life Orb Arceus-Grass Energy Ball vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Equilibra: 117-138 (28.6 - 33.8%) -- 97.4% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery

252 Atk Life Orb Arceus-Grass Leaf Blade vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Great Tusk: 283-338 (76.2 - 91.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
252 SpA Life Orb Arceus-Grass Energy Ball vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Great Tusk: 601-710 (161.9 - 191.3%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252 Atk Life Orb Arceus-Grass Poison Jab vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Obliteryx: 133-157 (32.5 - 38.4%) -- 98.5% chance to 3HKO
252 SpA Life Orb Arceus-Grass Sludge Bomb vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Obliteryx: 199-234 (48.7 - 57.3%) -- 92.6% chance to 2HKO

4) Mixed attacking stats are pretty much off the table for CAP 38 due it's already towering stat requirements. This does not however preclude allowing a slightly higher off-attacking stat for the use of stronger coverage moves into specific hard matchups (EQ for Mollux, just as an example). Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias? Again I don't expect this to be a very popular option, but it's something I'd like a clear answer on regardless.

I don't really see a point in this. I know Azoth thought it was a good idea though, so I will summon him to make his case.

 

[SunshineFuture]

What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38?

I’m personally an advocate for coverage. Simply put, compared to Fire, the mons it leaves as our counters/checks feel less significant and more easily dealt with overall (whether it be through our offensive bias, simply dealing chip, or just relying on teammates). The big mons that Grass/Poison/Ground don’t hit are Corviknight (and by extension Cawmodore) and Venomicon, while also leaving Equilibra to only deal with our Grass STAB. Venomicon for its part is not something CAP38 ever really stands a chance against outside of Meteor Beam (which I’m not getting into rn obviously, but that’s the only realistic move proposed in the general process thus far that lets CAP38 get past it); Cawmodore is not the most common of Pokémon and likely can rip through us when setup anyway (I can’t imagine eating a +6 Bullet Punch is ever something we’ll be able to do with consistency, even if we have Fire coverage and outspeed it); Equilibra is chipped throughout the course of a game, meaning there’s technically other paths to get through it in the long run with Grass STAB (even if we can only 4HKO it); and as for Corviknight, while this is more of a hunch than anything else, I think I’d rather get hard walled by it than a combination of Mollux, Glowking/Pecharunt, and Ramnarok all at once.

Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much?

I could see this working as a last resort, because Grass + Fire + Ground is such good coverage, but idk what to say other than “I’m not really feeling it”. Picking either Fire or Ground should be good enough for the 3A set, and I don’t know how much it’d mean for the 2A + utility set. Gonna give this a tentative “no thanks”, though I need to think over what Spammer just said about the idea.

What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats?

First of all, I’m a pretty firm believer that we should resolve our offensive bias here and now as opposed to waiting until stats. I’m a little concerned that should we choose not to, a lot of the stat stage could very easily devolve into a proxy war for physical vs. special. Considering how important our stat spread is to the success of the concept, I’d rather get as much out of the way for that stage to succeed now as opposed to leaving it up in the air until stat limits get decided (or worse, for the polls themselves).

As for which bias I prefer, I’m leaning towards physical myself. Libra and Shox are more weak to physical Grass than special (though I don’t give this as much weight now as I did a few days ago), Flower Veil prevents CAP38 being burned, and between Glowking or Pecharunt, I feel like Glowking is the bulky Poison-type we should be more concerned about in hitting (all else being equal). On that last point: Pivot Pecharunt is already walled by any CAP38 with reasonable bulk, including blocking Parting Shot. Even in the worst case scenario for damaging Pecha — physical with Fire coverage — this is still going to be the case, with NP Pecha being able to set up on us (which, like, if we do physical + Fire that’s something we accept, fine). Glowking, meanwhile, currently either hits us with Psychic STAB or just uses as momentum fodder — the latter being a particular issue CAP38 would face in the metagame. Basically, I think it would be better to shore up our matchup against Glowking as opposed to doubling down against Pecharunt.

The last thing I’ll say regarding us going physical is our moves. Yes, the strongest assumed physical Poison moves are Gunk Shot and Poison Jab. Yes, Poison Jab being 80 power compared to Sludge Bomb’s 90 is kinda lame. But I feel like people in the process have overstated how much of a difference this will make in terms of how our Poison STAB is used; at the end of the day, you’re using it to hit the fairies and to poison neutral hits (mainly the Flying-types lol). I don’t think the difference between PJab and Sludge Bomb is so wide that we couldn’t make up for it in stats.

Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias?

The only way I could see this working is us being special with enough attack to click EQ against 4x weak mons (or physical + Earth Power I guess??). Overall though, I don’t see a major compelling reason to pursue this avenue right now. I feel it’d be a needless overcomplication of our path forward here.

 

[quziel]

I'll be real. Ground+Fire should be an option going forward.I know we are trying to ape Eternatus by only running a single coverage typing + 2 stabs, but equally part of what defines Etern is that it has a "coverage" move to hit both of the major resists to its main click SE. This is the kinda thing defining moves is made for. Its a moveset that's significantly stronger than others that implies a significant hit to stats. Idk, like so many of the decisions made so far are trying to copy the "aesthetic" of etern's sets, and not necessarily the function. Again, its main click is Dynamax Cannon, and 3a sets carry Sludge to hit Fairies and Fire Blast to hit Steels. That's a valid function to copy.

 

[Gekokeso]

1) What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38? No matter which singular option we choose, 38 will still have a handful of hard matchups it will struggle into, which is to be expected. Which of the hard matchups that 38 currently faces are most important to be addressed mainly or entirely through coverage options, and which are lower or higher priority to give a definitive answer for? Ground and Fire as mentioned are the frontrunners here, so I expect discussion will revolve mainly around them, but other typings may be valuable to look into here as well.

2) Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much? This is unlikely to be a popular option, but it's one that needs to be answered nonetheless, as discussion around sub-optimal coverage options like Water or Ice that do not necessarily restrict having additional coverage in addition to themselves have been circulating somewhat in discord discussion, so I'd like a firm yes or no answer to this question.

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats? As per our concept assessment we've laid out a bevy of different sets we'd like our Mini-Etern to run, 3A Offensive, 2A Defensive/Wall, Meteor Beam etc., and some of these will likely prefer one bias over the other.

People been mostly making good points that I agree with and don't feel like I could elaborate better, but I'd like to raise something in particular about our coverage options:

I think certain coverage options will end up locking us on a particular stat bias from the very start, wherever people want it or not. The only coverage option that doesn't really swing either way is , given that it has good moves from either side of the spectrum that hit different relevant targets. However, certain coverage options like and have some very higher limitations.

Lets take fire as an example: if we go special then we get a myriad of great potential moves like Flamethrower, Heat Wave, Fire Blast and more.
If we go physical however, we get a myriad of disappointing options: Temper Flare (weak and situational), Flare Blitz (suicidal for a tanky mon vulnerable to hazards), Fire Punch (the Fujimoto manga is the only relevance this move has had), and Fire Lash / Bitter Blade / Pyro Ball (I LOVE EATING ARTISTS FOR BREAKFAST!)

This is all to say, that choosing certain coverage options will come to a large amount of limitations when it comes to latter stages both in moves and in stats. I will say I do support the option for dual coverage like the proposed Ground + Fire. If concerns of not using one stab because of it arise then I believe some BSR penalties can be applied to ensure this is not the case.

 

[SerperiorGirl]

Here's one better than my previous post.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
While I lean toward a Special offensive bias to best emulate the classic Mini-Eternatus identity, a Fire coverage typing feels like the most natural fit for this role.
Fire coverage allows CAP 38 to cleanly threaten Steel-types that would otherwise completely wall our Grass/Poison STAB combination. This choice is vital because it pairs incredibly well with a Special bias via moves like Flamethrower or Fire Blast. This combination allows us to pressure traditional defensive cores while relying on our STAB moves to fish for strong secondary effects, such as poison or burns, to gradually control the match.

1. Coverage Focus: We should focus heavily on Fire-type coverage. Dealing with Steel-types is a top priority for a Grass/Poison type aiming to break walls. Hard matchups against specific Poison-types can remain low priority or be handled later by teammates.
2. Multiple Coverage Types: We should say No to allowing more than one coverage type. Limiting CAP 38 to just Fire keeps our Checks/Counters list balanced and prevents the project from becoming a "do-it-all" threat.
3. Offensive Bias: We should lock in a Special Bias now. Special attacks align perfectly with our assumed STAB moves and traditional Fire coverage, giving the Stats stage clear, solid direction.
4. Mixed Attacking / Off-Bias: We should remain firmly columned in our chosen bias rather than splitting stats for off-bias coverage. Given our towering defensive stat requirements, we cannot afford to waste stat points on a mixed attacking spread.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ If this post is bad, feel free to delete it. Just one request: Tell me how I can improve so that I will not make such a mistake in the future.-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

[Amamama]

1) What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38? No matter which singular option we choose, 38 will still have a handful of hard matchups it will struggle into, which is to be expected. Which of the hard matchups that 38 currently faces are most important to be addressed mainly or entirely through coverage options, and which are lower or higher priority to give a definitive answer for? Ground and Fire as mentioned are the frontrunners here, so I expect discussion will revolve mainly around them, but other typings may be valuable to look into here as well.

ATM the most valuable matchups that we super hardcore lose just with STABs are Gking and the fire types that resist both.
Fixing this is best done via Ground type coverage and I wanna say it here, physical ground type coverage specifically.
With the exception of Pecharunt all mons we wanna hit with this coverage are stronger Specially and while if we have SE coverage this might not be as much of an issue for offensive sets bulky sets will still have a hard time against a lot of the fatter poison and steel and fire mons.
This is the “meta” argument.
If you look at the concept as well though Grass plus ground comes closer to how Dragon plus fire feels bc similar to that having fairy as still very consistent answer to the coverage Grass/Ground whiffs into flying types. But at the same time our most likely best progress tool for defensive sets (unless we dare give knock off and tbh even then), which is toxic is actually capable of hitting most of those flying types and crippling them in a way that is consistent and sustainable.
The same thing can’t be said about the mons that Fire coverage misses to hit.
We can’t hit any of the poison types with toxic, we can’t hit ram or tran with toxic either, leaving us with weaker utility options like leech seed to make progress on fatter sets.
Overall Grass Ground Coverage just makes our life much more easier going forward, with more straightforward matchups left to deal with for the 2a sets or even the boosting set as well.

Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much? This is unlikely to be a popular option, but it's one that needs to be answered nonetheless, as discussion around sub-optimal coverage options like Water or Ice that do not necessarily restrict having additional coverage in addition to themselves have been circulating somewhat in discord discussion, so I'd like a firm yes or no answer to this question.

id argue yes. Part of what we learned about Eternatus is that its ability to hit everything in the Tier is as much about the Tier as it is about Eternatus.
If there’s only one really viable Fairy in the tier obviously Dragon becomes more spammable. Conversely in a meta full of poison immune and resistant mons and mons that are immune to poison status both Sludge Bomb or any other poison STAB and Toxic become way less strong than in a meta that has 1 Mon that can absorb toxic and sorta deal with the dual coverage Eternatus has.
For that reason I think allowing 3A sets that run dual coverage or 2a sets that don’t run stab should be fine if the result is something that comes close to how Eternatus can make almost unconditional progress with any of its sets.

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats?

As someone already mentioned above this largely comes down to whether we lock into fire coverage or ground.
Fire coverage realistically means we’re going Special, as we’d have a good selection of high power, consistency and utility on that front, whereas physical fire has all kinds of weird interactions from requiring super high weight, dealing with recoil or insane stuff like Butter Blade or Fire lash both of which feel much less Eternatussy as more plain moves.
It’s also notable to consider that most strong physical fire moves are only on actual fire types, whereas Fire Blast or Flamethrower can be found on a variety of other mons. This is a flavor argument mostly but I still think it has some relevance here.

Ground on the other hand has less flexibility wrt what moves we could use (it’s realistically either Earthquake or Earthpower) but it leaves open the offensive bias for now and given the distribution of the moves creates no “aesthetics” issues at all. Even lesser options like drill run, stomping tantrum or headlong rush can be found on none ground mons.

Overall I’m in favor of discussing offensive bias when we go into stats. It leaves more room for discussing the benefits of each bias and makes defining moves more concise as a more or less auxiliary stage.
We’d have more time to discuss the benefits of our coverage and utility option instead of trying to figure out offensive bias at the same time.

For all of the reasons shown above I heavily lean towards defining moves that look like: Grass STAB (1,2,3)/Poison STAB (1,2)/Ground Coverage/Utility/Recovery/(weird set up)/(auxiliary coverage)

4) Mixed attacking stats are pretty much off the table for CAP 38 due it's already towering stat requirements. This does not however preclude allowing a slightly higher off-attacking stat for the use of stronger coverage moves into specific hard matchups (EQ for Mollux, just as an example). Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias? Again I don't expect this to be a very popular option, but it's something I'd like a clear answer on regardless.

we should always favor the minimalist solution for this cap as Eternatus is super min maxed in all its characteristics. It doesn’t deal In shenanigans so we shouldn’t either and going mixed is that.

 

[Rysachi]

1) What coverage typing should we focus on for CAP 38?

Given the list Spammer had provided on the argument for Fire vs Ground, it's quite difficult to argue against Ground providing us overall far better ways to prevent us ending up with an overwhelming list of meta relevant mons that can pose a way to hard wall us if we are attempting to keep the limit to around 2-3 as well as being able to pressure one of our biggest primary concerns right now in ontop of enhancing our MU further if we lean towards special albeit physical will eventually be able to make progress on offensive sets and at worst stalemate on defensive sets.

2) Is there room to allow for more than 1 coverage type without breaking the spirit of our Mini-Etern mon, or adversely affecting our Checks/Counters list too much?

I don't think this would be too problematic as long as we stay away from giving CAP 38 access to both offensive coverage typings currently in the running in both Fire and Ground as this greatly reduces our counters list. The best way to handle it imo would be in a similar way to how Eternatus can use Meteor Beam both as a means of limited setup but also as a way to have a limited coverage option against niche meta relevant Ubers e.g. . I feel like we should try to recreate the feeling of having it as a viable 3/4A set whilst not actively promoting it to be the most common or overbearing set in terms of coverage but rather looks to be a temporary solution to nailing down a select few of our counters with our selected coverage typing.

What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats?

At first I would have been tempted to lean towards a physical bias with access to slightly less drawback higher BP moves in Leaf Blade and Gunk Shot and pro-synergy with Leaf Blade, however without giving fire coverage access to something like Fire Lash which feels anti-concept or Bitter Blade for recovery to keep up with Helmet users then we'll be potentially relying on Flare Blitz as our fire coverage to which having CAP 38 potentially wear itself down to a mixture of recoil + Helmet users such as or feels extremely punishing for us. Whilst EQ on the physical side is slightly more promising to hit : Slowking-Galar: harder, we still struggle to break and make negative progress into without any immediate way to pressure. Special on the otherhand has a far more reliable fire coverage option in Flamethrower (or Fire Blast on more offensive sets) whilst Ground still has Earth Power which isn't hindered by any teams that immediately cut Earthquake's damage with the alternatives being far weaker.

 

[Koleda]

Been seeing more support for dual coverage and I feel the need to address it.

Main thing I want to address is the argument that because Eternatus's 3 hit combo hits everything, running dual coverage helps us emulate the spirit of Eternatus. Here's the problem with that though: This isn't Ubers. In Ubers, you have a bunch of mons that can just kinda hit everything, and there is so much of it that it kinda evens out. That doesn't really apply to CAP. CAP is a more balanced metagame, in part because those "hit everything" mons are banned. Even if "hit everything" is emulating the spirit of Eternatus, is that really an aspect of it that we want to emulate? I don't feel like shrinking down our counterplay to essentially just Venomicon for the sake of "Eternatus lacks switch-ins so should this" is a good idea.

The other thing I want to address is the idea that dual coverage will increase set variety. For instance, running 3a sets with Ground, or 2a sets with Fire. But the thing is... we don't know if that's gonna happen in practice. If we give it the ability to hit everything, then I think it will want to run sets where it hits everything. Why take that risk?

I'm not expecting to change any minds but I thought it was important that I share my two cents regardless. I'm not the kind of person that always sticks to the consensus.

 

[quziel]

Hit everything mons exist in spades in CAP. Enamorus can hit functionally the entire meta for SE if it so-chooses and is bad. Krilowatt has been making ends meet for 5 generations at this point on virtue of Water/Ice/Electric coverage hitting basically everything but fairies for SE. Ramnarok just got released and again makes cash off of hitting so much of the meta SE that people have been running Covert Cloak Revenankh. All of these mons are balanced.

I am not arguing for this mon to get Fire/Ground coverage. I am arguing that a stat spread submitter should be allowed to design their spread around that combo if they so choose, and take a significant stat penalty if they do. Defining moves should be fairly permissive in what it allows, whilst applying BSR penalties to anything that has a significant power hike. This isn't just a preview of the moves stage, and shouldn't be.

 

[a fairy]

Definitely a fan of Ground here. I think leaving such a large list of potential responses (via Fire) feels quite antithetical to what I envision as CAP38's angle here. Yeah, Eternatus can't hit absolutely everything in Ubers, but it also doesn't have an entire category of Pokemon who can shrug off attacks as if they don't matter. Some of that will be stats, yes, but giving it Ground will leave it a much smaller group of much harder-to-overcome checks IMO which feels more to me like "Mini-Uber" as a concept? Bigger picture, the average Uber is an Uber because it does a ton, but there's always a small group of 'mons which totally blank it (much to the consternation of OU metagame discussion thread pro-ban posters who have to bat back arguments like "oh well Annihilape can't do anything against Hisuian Zoroark").

As for the direction we lean for our damage side, I don't actually have much preference here but Rysachi's post makes me want to lean Special. Eternatus is (usually) unbothered by whatever its facing, it simply clicks the Correct move and doesn't really have to consider like, the consequences of its actions? Sure, an opponent can make a good play and quash the amount of progress Eternatus makes, but like, Eternatus rarely faces actual blowback of the moves it clicks. Maybe I've just drank the koolaid or whatever but all other things being equal I like Special more than Physical here.

 

[spoo]

The suggestion of just allowing both Fire + Ground coverage routes is valid, with the idea to let stat submitters pick their preferred coverage in Stats proper and have an appropriate BSR penalty for including both. I think the purpose of the Defining Moves stage is broadly to 1) provide context to the Stats stage (by aligning community goals + letting people calc for moves without polljumping) and 2) to let stat submitters justify weaker spreads by including stronger moves, resulting in more diverse submissions. Allowing both coverage routes is in line with the second point, and I think it'd be a fine outcome of this stage. It'd also be awkward to pick only one if we reach the end of this stage without a clear community consensus on which is better, so leaving the decision open makes some sense on those grounds too.

On the other hand, I think it's exactly because the coverage decision is polarizing that it could be hard to leave for stats. By coupling the coverage decision with the stats poll, I worry that the poll would essentially be a referendum on coverage, and the decision of Fire vs Ground vs both would cloud opinions on what stat spread is best. Leaving such an important decision for submitters to decide on their own is also handing the individual contributor a fair bit of power. This is further compounded by the fact that attacking bias may not be 100% decided until stats either, and we'll surely have other important moves in the mix that we have yet to even discuss; basically, we've already got a lot going on, and perhaps going into the stats stage with more focus could be beneficial. To some degree this is an inevitable consequence of including any optional defining moves, period, and we've run into similar situations in the past. It's never easy to weigh the importance of giving stat submitters additional freedom against the benefits of having a stronger direction and focus going into submissions.

So this post doesn't just end up as nothingburger fence-sitting, perhaps a middle-ground between locking in our sole coverage typing now and allowing both Fire + Ground coverage as individual routes during the Stats stage could be to lock our main coverage typing, and leave the other one optional (stat submitters can choose coverage A, or coverage A+B, but not coverage B). For whatever it's worth, I lean towards Ground.

 

[shnowshner]

3) What are the pros of going for a physical bias over a special one, or vice versa, purely in regards to our assumed STAB moves list and the assumed moves of the most discussed coverage options? Should we lock in our bias now, or wait until Stats? As per our concept assessment we've laid out a bevy of different sets we'd like our Mini-Etern to run, 3A Offensive, 2A Defensive/Wall, Meteor Beam etc., and some of these will likely prefer one bias over the other.

4) Mixed attacking stats are pretty much off the table for CAP 38 due it's already towering stat requirements. This does not however preclude allowing a slightly higher off-attacking stat for the use of stronger coverage moves into specific hard matchups (EQ for Mollux, just as an example). Is there any merit to specifically building 38 in mind with off-bias coverage in mind, or should we focus on remaining columned in our chosen bias? Again I don't expect this to be a very popular option, but it's something I'd like a clear answer on regardless.

Physical has a distinct advantage in bullying our C&C if we allow Ground coverage, because EQ/HH is far more threatening vs specific Pokemon than Earth Power is. I used a 100/100 Venusaur with both EQ and EP set to 100 BP so that the following calcs are competing on equal terms.


vs GKing
252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 16 Def Slowking-Galar: 214-254 (54.3 - 64.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 252 HP / 240+ SpD Slowking-Galar: 124-148 (31.4 - 37.5%) -- 88.4% chance to 3HKO
(AV sets take even less from Earth Power just to drive in the point further.)

vs Mollux
252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Mollux: 428-504 (108.9 - 128.2%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 248 HP / 172+ SpD Mollux: 272-324 (69.2 - 82.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO


252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 248 HP / 212+ Def Mollux: 308-364 (78.3 - 92.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 248 HP / 0 SpD Mollux: 352-416 (89.5 - 105.8%) -- 31.3% chance to OHKO
(PhysDef Mollux is occasionally run to aid in beating Physical Boosters with Clear Smog. Idt anyone is running this much Defense without also running some Special Defense, but there you go. EP overtakes EQ damage when Mollux is at 248/152+/60 for reference.)

vs Ramnarok
252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Ramnarok: 352-416 (97.5 - 115.2%) -- 81.3% chance to OHKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Assault Vest Ramnarok: 188-224 (52 - 62%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Ramnarok: 284-336 (78.6 - 93%) -- guaranteed 2HKO

vs Iron Moth
252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 0 HP / 124 Def Iron Moth: 460-544 (152.8 - 180.7%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Iron Moth: 340-400 (112.9 - 132.8%) -- guaranteed OHKO
(Since Moth just dies either way EQ's higher damage only matters for Veil/Screens.)

vs Pecharunt
252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Pecharunt: 122-144 (32.1 - 37.8%) -- 93.2% chance to 3HKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Pecharunt: 204-240 (53.6 - 63.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO

vs Blissey
252 Atk Venusaur Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Blissey: 165-195 (23.1 - 27.3%) -- 64.3% chance to 4HKO
252 SpA Venusaur Earth Power vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Blissey: 70-83 (9.8 - 11.6%) -- possible 9HKO
(Nobody is running 252+ Def Blissey these days and you're still doing more than double.)

Heatran has equal Def and SpDef so which move is better depends on its set. Tran is at minimum 2HKO'd by either without Tera/Shuca and has no recovery so it's not a huge difference.


Keep in mind, if we're a Special Attacker with access to both biases of Ground coverage, it's likely that Physical will be significantly weaker than it is shown here. I doubt we have the stats to invest in Attack just for one move, and if we do something likely went wrong. In a purely head-to-head scenario at least, physical Ground coverage comes out on top.

There's more to consider, however, since Physical attackers historically have more hurdles to overcome compared to Special attackers. Burn, adverse contact effects, and Intimidate make our attacking options far less safe; IronPress boosters can shut us down quickly whilst threatening a wincon for the opponent; and you run into more niche problems like Grassy Terrain and the EQ vs HH issue, or activating Weak Armor on Ceruledge. The question becomes one of raw damage vs consistency. (This is partially why so many CAPs like to lean Special over Physical, you run into less problems which makes fulfilling concept easier.)

In our case, Flower Veil provides protection against Burn and stat drops, which makes a Physical route much more appealing, but it's something we can lose if we Tera out of Grass or get faced up against Weezing-G.

I think you can easily go either full-Physical or full-Special, both have distinct advantages and disadvantages to consider. Physical is better damage on average for Ground coverage and access to both reliable STABs and stronger, more risky options like Wood Hammer or Gunk Shot. Special is safer and has a slew of useful tools like Giga Drain and the highly-spammable Sludge Bomb, but the ceiling for high-power moves is a lot lower and we thud into a larger proportion of our checks. Off-bias coverage doesn't feel as achievable unfortunately, Physical has little reason to run Earth Power just to snipe one MU (Pecharunt), Special can potentially get away with it thanks to Flower Veil letting us switch-in safely vs Scald but it'll depend heavily on stats and if our moveset isn't already full.

 

[dex]

What coverage CAP 38 has access to must be decided before stat spreads, not as a part of them. I ask the TLT to either run a poll on coverage or just make a flat call on what is to be allowed moving forward. There have been multiple instances where stat spreads live or die because their creators chose to include or exclude particular moves in their “assumed moves” section despite that section not even being binding. Please make a call ahead of stats on whether this CAP will have Fire, Ground, or whatever coverage or both.

For the record, I’m on Quziel’s side. I think that giving it access to both coverage options makes the most sense from a functionality point of view. If we wanted to just aesthetically be Eternatus, then why do we even have an art competition.

 

[Zetalz]

Alright gang, we've had a lot of very varied discussion so far let's quickly summarize the general consensus before we move forward.


Ground has by and large become the stand-out coverage of choice, though Fire and the rapidly growing support for allowing both have received attention. No other typings really received mention of note, so I think it's safe to say we're cooking exclusively with these two going forward. After talking with the TLT and specifically our Stats SL we've come to the conclusion that it's fine for us to allow multiple coverage at significant effect in stats, but that giving a concrete answer to the coverage question is still warranted. spoo's suggested solution is quite elegant in my eyes, and allows us to put the hurdle of coverage indecisiveness behind us without necessarily barring experimentation in Stats. With this in mind, Ground will be locked in as our Primary Coverage Type, and Ground + Fire will be allowed as a secondary option with penalties to be decided on later in Stat Limits.

The discussion around settling our offensive bias has been a bit more contentious. For the most part there is a desire to see our bias locked in before moving to Stat Limits, though many are still undecided as to which bias to actually choose. There is also still notable support for leaving the question of bias entirely up to the Stats Stage. In an effort to un-muddy the waters and give us some concrete direction to work with, the TLT and I have elected to run a poll to help better determine our offensive bias. The structure of the poll will be ranked pairs with 3 options total for physical, special, and leaving open for Stats to decide, and will run for 24hrs after this post goes up. If anyone feels like they'd rather wait to post about specific moves until after the poll concludes that's perfectly valid as well, so don't feel pressured to immediately jump in. Once the poll concludes I'll put up a brief follow-up post to re-focus discussion.


With the housekeeping out of the way, discussion around individual moves is now open! As a brief reminder legendary signature moves (and quirky shit like Torque moves) won't be on the table unless you have one hell of a solid argument for one. We've still got a fair bit to discuss before heading over to Stat Limits though, so here's a couple things for everyone to think on while submitting.


As per our concept assessment, we determined we would like Utility moves to be purposely constrained compared to our normal processes, and thus they will require higher scrutiny. The exact methodology of how to go about this is still however very up in the air. For my personal take, I think it is pretty much a given that most do want to see 38 be overloaded with a vast suite of utility, and so I think it's important that we try to avoid stacking utility moves that will have too much compounding impact on 38's kit. To this end, I'd like input on what limits can, or should, be placed on Utility move selection within this stage.

Boosting moves have also been an awkward topic as most of it has revolved around the vague idea of Meteor Beam, or emulating it, for most of the process. After talking with our Stats SL, I'm inclined to leave Meteor Beam itself as an optional move for Special spreads only and let Stat Limits sort it out, but am welcome to feedback here. There's also still the question to be had whether or not the vibe of M-Beam can be replicated with other moves as it's function is pretty much entirely unique to itself. As such, I want discussion on Boosting moves to focus on options that can either emulate the limited use/power boost that M-Beam provides to Eternatus, or fill a similar enough niche to it for offensive sets. Keep in mind that any boosting that could overlap with M-Beam itself will likely mean they become mutually exclusive to each other.

Furthermore, I don't think it will be contentious to make the call now that all boosting that raises 2 or more of offense, defense and/or speed at once (bulk up, cm, dd, etc.) and 2x or higher offensive boosting (sd, np, etc.) will be prohibited out the gate based on the grounds laid out from concept assessment. We want any boosting to be limited and quirky, and moves such as these certainly don't fit the bill.

While on the topic of boosting, we also still have the notion of emulating Cosmic Power. In concept assessment, this set was deemed a low priority aspect of Eternatus to emulate, and I'm inclined to mirror that lower priority here. Nevertheless I'd like feedback if we should even attempt to pursue emulating this fringe set, and if it is even doable to do so outside of Cosmic Power itself. While this type of set is not as important as our primaries, it's still important to give definition before going into Stat Limits given its potential to affect our bulk limits.


And before signing off just another reminder, moves that have little to no impact on the Stats stage need not be addressed until we get to Movesets proper. We're here to sort out restrictions on Utility/Boosting, and lining up of high-impact moves of any kind that need to be kept in mind for Stats submitters to work around. We can sort out all the other bells and whistles once we've got our spread locked in. I'll chime in a few days after the poll results post tomorrow to start rounding up our final list of Defining Moves.

All that having been said, I look forward to your submissions! Please don't kill me with them...

EDIT: Here's a link to the poll in case anyone misses it.

 

[spoo]

While I certainly don't mind the idea of going into stats with a clearer picture of what this mon looks like, I can't help but feel that it's putting the cart before the horse a bit. It's difficult for me to make an educated decision on which bias is best when we haven't actually had a chance to discuss the individual moves that each bias would receive. The question of setup is especially important; not knowing which setup moves are in play for each bias feels like a major piece of missing information, particularly for physical sets. How do coverage moves like Knock Off also play into the bigger picture? And jumping ahead even further, it's possible that each bias would receive different BSR penalties - another good thing to know before committing to one. Without this kind of information, I fear we'd be jumping the gun on the decision. I personally prefer creating two sets of defining moves during this stage - one for physical and one for special - and leaving the question of stats until the actual Stats stage, as is typical. Creating two lists of moves would mean that we have more work cut out for us now, but the easy solution isn't always the right one. Once we have information about the moves and BSR penalities that each bias would receive, then stat submitters and voters alike should be welcome to pursue what they individually feel is the best choice.

Re: utility and setup, it feels difficult to discuss these options while the poll is ongoing - I would be wasting time discussing options for one bias if we end up with the other - but my initial impression is that Meteor Beam should be required for special sets, and for physical sets we'll have to abstract the vibe of Meteor Beam more broadly into "non-standard setup" options such as Hone Claws or Focus Energy since there is no direct equivalent. Knock Off should probably be optional for special sets, and disallowed for physical sets. Nothing else comes to mind immediately, but I might edit this with more thoughts once the poll concludes.

 

[Docter_Peng99]

I don't really have much to add here due to the fact that we are not really sure what bias we are going for however I do agree with Koleda that we should probably not go the dual coverage route. Dual coverage is not what eternatus does and half of what makes eternatus good in Ubers is the variety of sets it can run. As such dual coverage should not be considered. As for coverage typing I don't really have much to add here as any coverage should help with checks while still leaving us with a few hard counters. For the third question I don't really have an answer for this as again this has been contested between everyone here so I'm not sure if I can answer this question for sure and I feel more discussion will be needed in order to give us a better idea on where we wanna go. And for the 4th and final question, there could be merit in off bias coverage however it feels more likely that whichever bias wins will have its coverage be with that bias in mind however off bias coverage could help in some checks but we should definitely consider still having checks for cap 38 so it won't break the entire tier like chugg did back when it first dropped. I am aware I have rehashed a lot of the arguments here but as it stands I feel that there is much more discussion that can be had in regards to these questions. So while I might lean more to special bias for cap 38 currently it does not mean physical bias has its merits so therefore such a question should definitely be discussed more before we truly get to what moves we want cap 38 to have.

 

[cat111ca]

I know it's a bit late but could I suggest ghost coverage? It's neutral to everything except gambit instead of being inconsistent like fire and ground are. I see potential in it. either that or dark. More relevant resistances but more reliable moves
Edit: nevermind it's too late. Lol