Past Generations C&C Discussion Thread

The issue is that when an analysis is quality checked, grammar checked and the like by someone, the analysis isn't your own work. Once edited, it's not just your work, it's now a collaborative work. Republishing the content on another site, as a result, isn't fair to other collaborators.
I see. That's a stupid technicality. I'll go ahead and delete all of my analyses then
 

vapicuno

你的价值比自己想象中的所有还要低。我却早已解脱,享受幸福
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Past WCoP Champion
Moderator
I have updated the skeleton with the suggested improvements on the Checks and Counters section, and if anyone wants to further improve the format in other sections, we can discuss here.

Hmmm, well the intro already has a little piece clarifying how best to complete it, so that's covered. That only leaves set details (the subcategories of which vary between generations), and OO.

Regarding OO, how viable does an option have to be for it to come up in OO? Could it also be used to discourage people from using moves/sets that could be considered "noob-traps" or that are totally unviable but see a strange amount of usage anyway? The example I have in mind for this is Confuse Ray Gengar in RBY, which is both absolute garbage and bizarrely common on ladder below 1500 (ie. almost all of the ladder). Additionally, the OO mentions the options it contains as being not recommended due to being inconsistent or outclassed. I feel like that's not really an exhaustive list as to why something might be in OO which could theoretically throw someone off- I think it's analogous to my criticisms of the C&C section of the skeleton. Off the top of my head, opportunity cost is a big factor that I think is a little awkward to match to those terms, and if something is consistently mediocre, it may not fit either description as well. That said, I personally am not put off by it, but I think I have my own idea as to what belongs in OO, which may not align with the skeleton
If you are still interested, we can continue to discuss this.

I was thinking that rather than having specific X as an option and then a category of X as a separate option, there should be a way to word it so that you can combine those points while still making it clear that you can talk about either something specific or a category
I gave a small bolded header saying it can be either categorized or specific. Still laid out examples of both in any case since it's a reference - better to be detailed than not and if people want to skim over it they can.

Hmm fair enough, though I would say that if it's a combination of things then maybe it would be more correct to say broadly "passive damage" or something
It is stated as indirect damage right now.
 
If you are still interested, we can continue to discuss this.
Hmm, would it maybe help to compile a list of all the reasons a move might be in OO, and then we can discuss from there? I was thinking of ways to categorise moves based on their viability anyway.

  • Struggles to overcome 4mss and/or significant opportunity cost. This would mean the move is good and usable, but too specific to be worth using over the standard moves.
  • Outclassed. The move itself might be good, but there's another move that performs similarly but better. Obviously, to be even worth mentioning there must still be some niche that the move occupies though
  • Inconsistent. I guess this would be for moves that simply aren't that good, or that fail to fulfill their purpose. Or they're literally unreliable.
I think that covers most things? That said, there are also some super edge cases
  • Technically viable. Such a move is a shit option, but there's still technically something that it can do that's useful that nothing comparable can do. I recall having a substantial discussion on PP about some esoteric kicking moves for Hitmonlee in this vein- you would never actually pick them, but they did actually do things nothing else in Hitmonlee's movepool did
  • Usable but lacks a purpose. This is kinda a weird one and I'm not actually sure if it's a thing. It stems from the time I used Flash Chansey in RBY- despite being a trash move, I found myself clicking it fairly often, since lowering accuracy will never not be of use, whereas something like TWave isn't necessarily useful if say, the pokemon switching in is already paralysed. That said, it didn't fulfill the role I originally intended for it, and I can't see myself ever running the move again, despite it being surprisingly usable.
The latter point I think is interesting, because when determining a move's viability, it's not just fitting it onto a moveset, but also spending a turn using the move. Flash probably has no business being added to Chansey's moveset, but if you do it's not worthless. An opposite case would be Mimic for say, RBY Articuno. Articuno can afford to run Mimic because it barely has a movepool outside Blizzard, but you will never ever click Mimic because it's highly unreliable and there is always a far better way to use a turn

-

Also I just assumed everything in OO is a move, which definitely isn't the case. OO sets are something else I guess
 
I'm a huge fan of Pyukumuku. I recommend an addition to the gen 7 Unaware set with Leppa berry and Recycle replacing Rocky Helmet and Spite. My experience is limited to OU, but it should apply to all tiers.

Pyukumuku (F) @ Leppa Berry
Ability: Unaware
EVs: 252 HP / 252 SpD / 4 Def
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Block
- Recycle
- Rest
- Recover

With this combo, Pyuku can pp-stall more than one mon, and potentially all the opponent's walls.

Pyuku must look out for Knock-Off, especially from Gliscor, which would out-stall it otherwise.

A max HP and Sp.Def spread can infinitely recover on Keldeo, Amoongus, M. Venu, and Blacephalon, but full defense is still an option.

If you need replays or more info, please contact me. I'm keeping the description short but willing to write a full submission.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the legality of this set, but after my post on the simple-questions-simple-answers-thread, here is what they had to say:

"Eventually the battle will end due to PP stall. The endless battle applies to battles that would actually never end, it's an algorithm that would pop up automatically if it actually occurs. The 1000 turn policy was a result of stall v stall fests in Gen6 primarily that would never end due to Regen vs Regen mons."

I have been using the Block, Recycle, Recover, Rest Pyukumuku set for about a month. I have not received an endless-battle-clause message and no one has reported me. I spoke to a mod from the Help room and, according to them, the set is legal.
 
Last edited:
I'm a huge fan of Pyukumuku. I recommend an addition to the gen 7 Unaware set with Leppa berry and Recycle replacing Rocky Helmet and Spite. My experience is limited to OU, but it should apply to all tiers.

Pyukumuku (F) @ Leppa Berry
Ability: Unaware
EVs: 252 HP / 252 SpD / 4 Def
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Block
- Recycle
- Rest
- Recover

With this combo, Pyuku can pp-stall more than one mon, and potentially all the opponent's walls.

Pyuku must look out for Knock-Off, especially from Gliscor, which would out-stall it otherwise.

A max HP and Sp.Def spread can infinitely recover on Keldeo, Amoongus, M. Venu, and Blacephalon, but full defense is still an option.

If you need replays or more info, please contact me. I'm keeping the description short but willing to write a full submission.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the legality of this set, but after my post on the simple-questions-simple-answers-thread, here is what they had to say:

"Eventually the battle will end due to PP stall. The endless battle applies to battles that would actually never end, it's an algorithm that would pop up automatically if it actually occurs. The 1000 turn policy was a result of stall v stall fests in Gen6 primarily that would never end due to Regen vs Regen mons."

I have been using the Block, Recycle, Recover, Rest Pyukumuku set for about a month. I have not received an endless-battle-clause message and no one has reported me. I spoke to a mod from the Help room and, according to them, the set is legal.

Actually, Knock Off isn't as bad of an issue as I thought. I figured out if you pp drain your own recover, you can activate your leppa. Thus, it is safe inside the cucumber's belly and can't be Knocked Off. Then you're free to spam block indiscriminately, even if it's Magic Bounced back onto you, you can heal until Recover reaches zero again and, as long as you're slower, you can use Leppa and eat in the same turn. Rinse and repeat and this Pyuku can destroy all of stall except maybe Zapdos and Tangrowth, but if it isn't critted it can survive Tangrowth a large portion of the time:

0 SpA Tangrowth Giga Drain vs. 246 HP / 50 SpD Pyukumuku through Light Screen: 67-81 (21.4 - 25.9%) -- 1.9% chance to 4HKO

Here is a replay of the set

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7ou-1294803747-rz9rjr94u0u5whtvq1vp3f2r6v7rvn7pw
 

Wild Eep

pet pet pet
is a Forum Moderatoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnus
The Gen 7 PU and ZU analyses for Kadabra suggest in some capacity using Counter and Hidden Power Fighting on the same set with Magic Guard as the ability. However, it's impossible in-game to obtain a Kadabra with all three attributes.

The only way to obtain a Kadabra with Counter and Magic Guard together in Gen 7 is to get an Abra or Kadabra in the RBY Virtual Console games, teach it Counter via TM, and transfer it with Poké Transporter to Bank and consequently SM or USUM. However, the conversion from the RBY/GSC data structure to the SM/USUM one assigns no fewer than three 31 IVs to the Pokémon's Gen 7 IVs. Hidden Power Fighting requires having two or fewer odd IVs in the right places, but a Virtual Console-imported Pokémon will always have at least three odd IVs, too many for Hidden Power Fighting.
 

vapicuno

你的价值比自己想象中的所有还要低。我却早已解脱,享受幸福
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Past WCoP Champion
Moderator
Hmm, would it maybe help to compile a list of all the reasons a move might be in OO, and then we can discuss from there? I was thinking of ways to categorise moves based on their viability anyway.

  • Struggles to overcome 4mss and/or significant opportunity cost. This would mean the move is good and usable, but too specific to be worth using over the standard moves.
  • Outclassed. The move itself might be good, but there's another move that performs similarly but better. Obviously, to be even worth mentioning there must still be some niche that the move occupies though
  • Inconsistent. I guess this would be for moves that simply aren't that good, or that fail to fulfill their purpose. Or they're literally unreliable.
I think that covers most things? That said, there are also some super edge cases
  • Technically viable. Such a move is a shit option, but there's still technically something that it can do that's useful that nothing comparable can do. I recall having a substantial discussion on PP about some esoteric kicking moves for Hitmonlee in this vein- you would never actually pick them, but they did actually do things nothing else in Hitmonlee's movepool did
  • Usable but lacks a purpose. This is kinda a weird one and I'm not actually sure if it's a thing. It stems from the time I used Flash Chansey in RBY- despite being a trash move, I found myself clicking it fairly often, since lowering accuracy will never not be of use, whereas something like TWave isn't necessarily useful if say, the pokemon switching in is already paralysed. That said, it didn't fulfill the role I originally intended for it, and I can't see myself ever running the move again, despite it being surprisingly usable.
The latter point I think is interesting, because when determining a move's viability, it's not just fitting it onto a moveset, but also spending a turn using the move. Flash probably has no business being added to Chansey's moveset, but if you do it's not worthless. An opposite case would be Mimic for say, RBY Articuno. Articuno can afford to run Mimic because it barely has a movepool outside Blizzard, but you will never ever click Mimic because it's highly unreliable and there is always a far better way to use a turn

-

Also I just assumed everything in OO is a move, which definitely isn't the case. OO sets are something else I guess
Hello, sorry I've been a bit too busy to follow up on this, but I was looking through some OO stuff in ADV analyses and agree with you that outclassed / inconsistent is insufficient as a descriptor, or at the very least, it's not entirely clear what those descriptors mean.

I realize there are actually two questions to address.
1. What moves / set should even make it to the analysis (whether in OO or in set description is a question to be answered later)
2. What moves belong in set description, not in OO?

I realized that I don't have strong opinions on what should be in OO, but instead I feel more strongly about what should not be in OO but in the set description;

My principles of what should be in set description and not OO
- Analyses in old gens rarely get updated and should stand the test of time.
- If you need a piece of knowledge to win a serious game against a good player when you face this set, this knowledge should be available in the set description.

Hence, some examples of what I think should not be in OO, goes into set description:
- Moves/sets that were once used but are off-season due to reversible metagame changes should still remain in the set description, even if they're not explicitly slashed. This gives the player a view of the metagame regardless of when they read the analysis, and makes future updating easy when these moves / sets become popular again because it doesn't involve moving around content.
- Niche moves that fit well on a rare archetype; this should go into set description because the archetype provides context - a good player has a decent probability of bringing said archetype where you have to consider what every mon does on such an archetype (for example, in ADV, Sub/Roar/CM/Surf Suicune on Rain. There is much less reason to think someone would need to understand a niche set that has no context and needs a specifically crafted team, like randomly putting Icy Wind on a Pokemon instead of Ice Beam. I think this ties in to your "usable but lacks a purpose" point, but in a more specific manner, because there are some moves like Thief in ADV that are usable and definitely help one to make progress, but has unclear context because without any archetypal framework, justification has be made on a team-by-team basis.

Some gray area stuff
- What about a set that is unique and reasonably consistent at what it does (thinking defensive Wish Salamence in ADV) so that terms like "outclassed" or "inconsistent" don't apply, but are rarely seen because they open up gaping holes in other aspects (getting Baton Passed on in this example)? In this case, it's kind of a matchup fish. So it's not so much the Pokemon that is inconsistent but the resulting team. Maybe this is a refinement of your point about opportunity cost?

As for whether or not something makes it to OO from nothing, my gut feel is that anything that I've seen remotely work in a game should qualify. Not clear to me how to articulate that though.

I'll post more thoughts when they come to my mind. Feel free to dispute/add on.
 
Hello, sorry I've been a bit too busy to follow up on this, but I was looking through some OO stuff in ADV analyses and agree with you that outclassed / inconsistent is insufficient as a descriptor, or at the very least, it's not entirely clear what those descriptors mean.

I realize there are actually two questions to address.
1. What moves / set should even make it to the analysis (whether in OO or in set description is a question to be answered later)
2. What moves belong in set description, not in OO?

I realized that I don't have strong opinions on what should be in OO, but instead I feel more strongly about what should not be in OO but in the set description;

My principles of what should be in set description and not OO
- Analyses in old gens rarely get updated and should stand the test of time.
- If you need a piece of knowledge to win a serious game against a good player when you face this set, this knowledge should be available in the set description.

Hence, some examples of what I think should not be in OO, goes into set description:
- Moves/sets that were once used but are off-season due to reversible metagame changes should still remain in the set description, even if they're not explicitly slashed. This gives the player a view of the metagame regardless of when they read the analysis, and makes future updating easy when these moves / sets become popular again because it doesn't involve moving around content.
- Niche moves that fit well on a rare archetype; this should go into set description because the archetype provides context - a good player has a decent probability of bringing said archetype where you have to consider what every mon does on such an archetype (for example, in ADV, Sub/Roar/CM/Surf Suicune on Rain. There is much less reason to think someone would need to understand a niche set that has no context and needs a specifically crafted team, like randomly putting Icy Wind on a Pokemon instead of Ice Beam. I think this ties in to your "usable but lacks a purpose" point, but in a more specific manner, because there are some moves like Thief in ADV that are usable and definitely help one to make progress, but has unclear context because without any archetypal framework, justification has be made on a team-by-team basis.

Some gray area stuff
- What about a set that is unique and reasonably consistent at what it does (thinking defensive Wish Salamence in ADV) so that terms like "outclassed" or "inconsistent" don't apply, but are rarely seen because they open up gaping holes in other aspects (getting Baton Passed on in this example)? In this case, it's kind of a matchup fish. So it's not so much the Pokemon that is inconsistent but the resulting team. Maybe this is a refinement of your point about opportunity cost?

As for whether or not something makes it to OO from nothing, my gut feel is that anything that I've seen remotely work in a game should qualify. Not clear to me how to articulate that though.

I'll post more thoughts when they come to my mind. Feel free to dispute/add on.
In all honesty I don't think I remembered to consider Set Description vs OO, since normally I stick to what's slashed in the set description, but I guess that's an error on my part and something that's inconsistent with others. Anyway, I actually like your criteria for distinguishing between SD and OO. My post was trying to catalogue a variety of different dynamics, which is generally not the best approach since it's hard to be comprehensive and it focuses on the different ways something might jump from nothing to OO or OO to SD without really identifying a boundary. Your definition I think more clearly identifies a boundary while also being more general purpose, and thus not prone to unanticipated dynamics. It's also a good deal simpler, which is nice.

Because I'm not sure how clearly I worded that, perhaps an analogy would be if you decided to walk to the next suburb over. My approach was plotting a range of potential routes- I tried to get most of them, but there are probably others that I missed, and it may not always be certain when you transition into the next suburb. Your approach was to simply identify a boundary where one suburb crosses into the next, that way you know which suburb something's in, regardless of what route you're on.

Regarding the grey area thing, I see 2 issues at hand with the example you describe of WishMence. The first is that it's an entirely distinct set, rather than an alternate option for an existing one, which means it cannot go in SD, and must go in OO, or be its own set. The simplest solution is to put it in OO, but I guess then it might be inconsistent with the standard you describe. Otherwise, I think it could be listed as its own set, provided the corresponding description clearly states the flaws and issues of the set- I think this would be a reasonable compromise. Not sure how you'd incorporate that into a skeleton though

The second issue is that it's heavily matchup oriented, which makes it difficult to gauge its viability. Personally, I think a match-up oriented set is still worth treating as viable, unless it's impossible to build a team that includes that set that doesn't have a fighting chance in an unfavourable matchup. Personally, I'm not a fan of matchup fishing. It's obviously nonsense to expect a team to have no unfavourable matchups, but even if I'm not favoured, I still expect a given team to give me a decent chance to win a bad matchup. If a team has genuinely unwinnable matchups, I don't consider that team viable, even if it's really strong otherwise. If using a specific set would mean that any team it is facing unwinnable matchups, then I think that set belongs in OO.

I guess an example of this would be dual electric teams in gen 1, which I've historically used a fair bit. I think they're usable in RBY despite the existence of Rhydon making them heavily matchup dependent, because I still think it's possible to beat Don teams with a dual electric team, it's just a good deal harder. I tried it ages ago in Stadium, and in that meta I consider the matchup unwinnable, and thus the team to be unviable (team preview cripples it)

Regarding the distinction between OO/nothing, I think that's a good general threshold, but you're right in that it probably is worth defining more. I guess my take on it might be "anything that could be even slightly effective against competent players", which isn't really much of an improvement tbh. One flaw sticks out to me in that luck-based strategies might inherently be favoured by such a definition, since almost anything can be effective with the right amount of luck. It may also be worth explicitly noting that OO is differentiated from SD in that moves in SD are relevant enough that they might need to accounted for against good players, whereas OO is theoretically usable, but you probably don't really have to worry about it

*This is potentially inconsistent with me arguing that Flash Chansey is merely not good, rather than being trash. I'd argue that Flash Chansey gets far more value out of fishing for hax since it finds itself in low risk low reward situations far more often than Gengar, which is why I view them differently
 

TailGlowVM

Now 100% more demonic
In Snorlax's Gen 7 RU Analysis, it says in the Choice Band set details that the remaining EVs after investing in Attack and Speed are placed into Special Defense... But the set has them in HP. Which one is optimal? And if it is HP the explanation about what Special Defence EVs do in set details may have to be changed.
 

Oglemi

Borf
is a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
In Snorlax's Gen 7 RU Analysis, it says in the Choice Band set details that the remaining EVs after investing in Attack and Speed are placed into Special Defense... But the set has them in HP. Which one is optimal? And if it is HP the explanation about what Special Defence EVs do in set details may have to be changed.
The original thread had it in SpD and the last edit on the dex was almost 2 years ago and just a typo fix so hard to tell when or why it was changed. Tagging phantom and EviGaro , the standard spread may have changed at some point.
 
I've noticed there are some DP analysis that still mention dugtrio as a trapper, and ideas that are focused around that, which is no longer the case, since arena trap has been banned. The Zapdos analysis is the one I saw most recently; but i'm pretty sure i saw a few more not long ago. It would be great if it gets corrected. I will edit this if I find the other analysis that mention dugtrio as a trapper.
 

Brambane

protect the wetlands
is a Contributor Alumnus
I really enjoyed the recent RBY UU Venusaur analysis. I am not an RBY player, but the analysis was great at introducing RBY mechanics and important metagame knowledge to new players, such as how Dodrio is immune to Venusaur's Body Slam and why it is running triple status moves. The historical context in overviews of the older gens is also fantastic; I love the preservation of competitive Pokemon history and incorporating it into the analyses themselves is a great place for it. I also think the section about how to get Venusaur in safely to use Sleep Powder, and when to do so, was well written for a new player to understand and execute in a game. Kudos to Volk and the QC/GP team; this is the kind of content I wish I produced when I was doing C&C. These RBY analysis updates/revamps/etc are great and I am looking forward to reading more.
 

Colteor

Free old gens in WCOP
is a Pre-Contributor
RoAPL Champion
Jynx's ADV analysis is so old that one of it's sets just isn't talking about OU. The JAA Jynx set is clearly talking about a doubles format, and also one with legendaries allowed since it mentions Rayquaza. While this is hilarious, it probably shouldn't be listed as one of the main options that Jynx uses in ADV OU. Could someone add a disclaimer like the one in the RBY Sandslash article that says the article is outdated and all the sets except the first one are pretty bad?
 

vapicuno

你的价值比自己想象中的所有还要低。我却早已解脱,享受幸福
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Past WCoP Champion
Moderator
Actually, the other sets are pretty usable with a bit of modifications. I'll just delete JAA Jynx and add a disclaimer.
 

SBPC

stranded on an island
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
This has been commented on a few times by other BW contributors a couple times but can we work getting rid of usage tips as a section in BW analyses? It's much easier to work these tips into set details and moves as a paragraph since most of the better bw players can do things off of genuine intuition instead of a paragraph saying "your ground type beats the electric man" then johns when they get lured by a random hp ice. Many other gens have adopted getting rid of this sections and I see no reason to be a holdout on something that makes the writing process genuinely painful.

for a suggestion as to what i personally think would work, the paragraph 1/2 format used in the bw minis seems fine to me but I'd be willing to talk about other formatting as long as it makes writing cleaner
 

Plague von Karma

Banned deucer.
This has been commented on a few times by other BW contributors a couple times but can we work getting rid of usage tips as a section in BW analyses? It's much easier to work these tips into set details and moves as a paragraph since most of the better bw players can do things off of genuine intuition instead of a paragraph saying "your ground type beats the electric man" then johns when they get lured by a random hp ice. Many other gens have adopted getting rid of this sections and I see no reason to be a holdout on something that makes the writing process genuinely painful.

for a suggestion as to what i personally think would work, the paragraph 1/2 format used in the bw minis seems fine to me but I'd be willing to talk about other formatting as long as it makes writing cleaner
Discussed among staff and we'll chuck it out going forward. Thanks for bringing this up!

Those who currently have Usage Tips sections can either keep what they have or merge it into set details or something.

While DPP will be the only one with the Usage Tips now, those guys will naturally have to ask for that amendment.
 

5Dots

Chairs
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
Don’t know if this is still relevant, but do are the fully-evolved Pokemon unranked in ADV NU (or in general, Pokemon in the lowest tiers for past gens) planning to get mini analyses developed? Numerous Pokemon since the last VR update have not been seen then and have not been discussed. Such Pokemon include:

  • :Aipom: Aipom
  • :Ariados: Ariados
  • :Beautifly: Beautifly
  • :Beedrill: Beedrill
  • :Butterfree: Butterfree
  • :Castform: Castform
  • :Corsola: Corsola
  • :Delibird: Delibird
  • :Ditto: Ditto
  • :Dustox: Dustox
  • :Farfetch’d: Farfetch’d
  • :Furret: Furret
  • :Illumise: Illumise
  • :Luvdisc: Luvdisc
  • :Masquerain: Masquerain
  • :Parasect: Parasect
  • :Seaking: Seaking
  • :Shedinja: Shedinja
  • :Shuckle: Shuckle
  • :Spinda: Spinda
  • :Sunflora: Sunflora
  • :Tropius: Tropius

Also, there are not fully-evolved Pokemon that still have analyses being written in progress but they have been unranked since the last VR update as well. For example, Drowzee and Duskull don’t have see much use and they still have analyses still being written, as well as for many others:
  • :Anorith: Anorith
  • :Clamperl: Clamperl
  • :Drowzee: Drowzee
  • :Duskull: Duskull
  • :Houndour: Houndour
  • :Lileep: Lileep
  • :Lombre: Lombre
  • :Magby: Magby
  • :Omanyte: Omanyte
  • :Pineco: Pineco
  • :Ponyta: Ponyta
  • :Porygon: Porygon
  • :Quilava: Quilava
  • :Sealeo: Sealeo
  • :Staryu: Staryu
 

watermess

What? Never seen an idiot before?
is a Tutoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
While I think the sets in ADV Donphan's analysis are probably still fine, the analysis is so old it opens with the following sentence:



so maybe it could be worth taking a look at?
Yep as vapicuno said above, most sets are alright with a tweak or 2 to them, this donphan set is pretty close still to what you would use in OU today. As for the opening sentence, yes it's dated, and probably marginally inaccurate, as I think most advers recognize that donphan's main advantage over those other two is countering ddtar reliably. However, being able to break past clops is still something of note compared to the other two, so it's not entirely useless information. I think this analysis is just a low priority small tweak one, thanks for flagging It up, were a slow working team but we work to a high standard, dw we will get round to it one day lol.
 
Shinx's analysis for DPP LC has Thunder Fang listed on both sets as Shinx's primary STAB move, while mentioning that "Although Thunder Fang has only 65 Base Power, it is Shinx's strongest physical STAB outside of Spark.".

Spark is the exact same BP as Thunder Fang, has superior accuracy (95 vs 100), has higher PP (15 vs 20), and sports a not-insignificant 30% chance to paralyze. You could maybe argue that Spark is less desirable on TR since the higher chance to proc paralysis could actually make some things outspeed min speed Shinx in TR, but the Thunder Wave set which runs max speed and functions outside of TR really should be running Spark instead. The analysis doesn't do a good job of explaining exactly why Thunder Fang is a preferable option over Spark other than briefly mentioning it and then not elaborating on it at the beginning, and Spark just seems like an objectively better option for Shinx in most cases.

EDIT: also, the Trick Room set has this sentence:
"While Intimidate is an equally effective ability, most players do not switch the genders of their Pokemon. It should be noted that this is for simulator play only, as it would not apply on Wi-Fi, since on Wi-Fi, genders aren't automatically set to male. Since the default is male, Shinx will be getting a Rivalry boost quite often."
i'm pretty sure this is a PO thing since Showdown now randomizes gender by default lol, shinx should always be running intimidate instead
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pac

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top