Reliability

[jake]

I'm currently on a quest to make the most reliable NU team, one that can be consistent and perform to a high level no matter what it faces. But I was thinking about what exactly I need to do to make a team reliable - what kind of Pokemon are considered reliable, anyway? What sort of strategy can be said to be reliable? I thought it could be something fun to discuss, anyway. :>

These are the things I thought about:

1. What is reliability?
2. What kind of Pokemon can be considered reliable?

- How much does accuracy of their best moves come into play when calling something "reliable"?
- Which Pokemon are the most reliable in NU? Is it more common for offensive or defensive Pokemon to be "reliable"?​

3. Should you use a team composed of only "reliable" Pokemon?

- Certainly, you don't want to use only unreliable Pokemon - when is it good to use something that's not necessarily reliable?​

4. When does "reliable" become predictable?

- Is it possible to be reliable but not predictable? Do you have to constantly be on the edge of innovation to be both at the same time?
​

So, I suppose you can answer whichever questions you fancy, but in order to keep discussions focused as far as this goes I'd like to lead this off with really only delving into questions 1 and 2 so we can try to extend this thread for a little while. Talking about reliability in general and which Pokemon are most reliable should be plenty for a bit, then we can get into the more open, thoughtful questions too.

 

[watashi]

the problem with using "reliable" pokemon such as musharna is that they generally induce a methodical and predictable style of play where you're prone to being outplayed. i have found that the more "reliable" pokemon i slap on a team, the more i'm prone to losing to something that's gimmicky. it's also really hard to overcome a bad team match up with these pokemon since the opponent generally knows what your pokemon does. if you try to surprise them, you're probably going to have to take away some of that reliability. in my opinion, unless you're using stall, you should always carry something that has a certain degree of risk to it but will reward you when you make smart, risky plays. a good example of a high risk, high reward pokemon is charizard. it certainly is not the most reliable pokemon since in some matches it may end up dying to stealth rock damage or end up as death fodder if you predict incorrectly, but when played right, it can grab massive amounts of momentum and kills for you. i'm not saying everyone should slap a charizard on their team, but it's always good to have something around to use in case you decide to go into beast mode with predicts

 

[WhiteDMist]

When I hear "reliable", I think of a Pokemon that can consistently perform their main job. Whether it is walling, supporting, or attacking, a reliable Pokemon should do its job well barring bad playing or misfortune. Accuracy is a bit harder to talk about, but most of the time the results justify the risk. I do admit that risk and reliability are contradictory.

FLCL is correct that the more reliable the Pokemon it is, the more predictable it is. Does that mean that reliable Pokemon are Pokemon with no surprises? Not necessarily. A Pokemon with a single set is quite limited, and however "reliable" it is at doing its job, it is undeniably predictable. However, there exists Pokemon with several viable sets, and they have the ability to perform them well. Perhaps the best description of a "reliable" Pokemon would one who can perform their main role well without being typecast into a single role. But that begs the question, "is a Pokemon reliable when it has to perform more than 1 role at once?" It isn't easy for a Pokemon to perform several roles at once without becoming stretched too thin. In this regard, offensive Pokemon have an edge because they typically are focused on either attacking hard immediately or setting up (fast or slow). Wall/support Pokemon have a bit of a harder time because they are generally asked to perform a number of roles at once, but these roles tend to revolve around taking hits and actually supporting the team (whether by helping the team or hindering the opponent). Unfortunately, these Pokemon are the ones who tend to be stretched too thin. A good example of such a problem is defensive Torkoal. It tries to be a physical tank, Rapid Spinner, and Stealth Rock setter all at the same time. Setting up Stealth Rock gives your opponent time to set up their own hazard or simply start attacking. If Torkoal tries to Rapid Spin, it opens itself to taking more damage (which is even worse if it has to switch into hazards, a common scenario) and may not even get to Spin. It just lacks the tools it needs to perform all of these roles at once in a consistent manner (mainly reliable recovery and a proper defensive typing). In comparison, Alomomola is probably one of the most "reliable" physical walls in the tier due to its reliable recovery and Regenerator. Yet it also fulfills the role of support its teammates through its monstrous Wishes, and has enough mixed bulk to act as a pivot.

I think that a good candidate for a reliable Pokemon would be Samurott. It only has 2 sets, but each of these sets have different counters. The Swords Dance set has the benefit of being an excellent late-game sweeper with its priority and other powerful moves. Megahorn isn't the most accurate move, but it allows Samurott to bypass a considerable number of Pokemon that would otherwise threaten it (Grass-types, Water-types, Jynx, etc.). Samurott also isn't the fastest Pokemon, but Aqua Jet does have surprising power, especially if Samurott is in Torrent range (it even allows it to defeat would-be revenge killers once they take enough damage). The special offensive set is also quite potent, as Samurott takes advantage of its higher offensive stat and base power STAB move. Hydro Pump has the risk of missing, but its sheer power makes the risk worth it as it can easily wear down special walls. It also has great coverage, and has the option of Megahorn or Taunt to allow it to wallbreak more effectively (taking out Jynx/Ludicolo, or stopping walls from recovering their HP). While it isn't difficult to counter these sets individually, one must figure out which set they are facing (thus maintaining the element of surprise without compromising reliability).

 

[Lolk]

I wouldn't necessary call Samurott reliable because of the fact that its main STAB move has a 20% chance of missing. I see accuracy having a major part of reliability, and the Pokemon who has the most accuracy combined with the most power is the most reliable. This is why fighting is so good in BW. Their main Stab has 100% accuracy and 120 Base Power. The defense drops are rarely hindrances since they can switch out anyway. Scarf Jynx is also good as it can use its semi-powerful STABs with it's already high special attack combined with great coverage. The SubNastyPlot set, though, is not reliable as it relies on the 75% chance of sleeping the foe.

On the defensive spectrum, reliable walls are basically walls that can take hits in their desired spectrum and survive the whole match. This limits walls to pokemon with a great typing, high base stats (in defenses), and recovery. Alomomola and Mandibuzz are reliable because they can shrug off most attacks, Toxic their opponent, and heal themselves until the opponent's death.

I don't think that predictability is a bad thing when used at the expense of reliability. All of the common Pokemon are used a lot because of their reliability. I guess that makes all of my teams predictable, since I rarely venture off of common sets for the surprise factor (which is the least reliable tactic). Sure people can guess what sets i am running, but I win battles because I play with my team well, not because I needed to trick the opponent.

I hope this makes sense at all; i just woke up :p

 

[Yeah Galo Sengan]

In my my personal experience, bulky lumrest harvest eggy has been my most reliable pokémon in NU. It has exceptional bulk, power and longevity, can sleep opponents to gain harvest turns and is nigh-immune to status.

Reliable, to me, means something you can fall back on, a dependable backbone that supports your team.

 

[bobbyvaporeon]

I feel that what reliable means is something that always does the job it is meant to do, and does that good. Something like swagger Liepard or harvest Eggy is luck based, and doesn't always work.
What is reliable?
I feel that Banded Sawk is reliable. It's job is to stop Hazards, hit stuff hard, and wall break for sweepers late game. And it does that damn well.
Another definition of reliable is something we can always count on, and the same holds true in NU. Sometimes you'll have built a team around Coil Arbok or ScarfApe and realize you need Those ghosts gone. I always turn to old reliable Liepard (or Skuntank on PO) because it gets the job done and i know it will. That is what is reliable.

 

[Lasagne]

I think that what bobbyvaporeon touched on briefly is one of the key things about reliability. He mentioned that the most reliable Pokemon are the ones that will get their job done almost 100% of the time. These are the Pokemon you look for when you need a Pokemon to fill that role. The example of Skuntank and Liepard is a good one. If you have problems with Pokemon such as Musharna, Jynx and Haunter, then you can choose to turn to a pivot Liepard, or a Lum Skuntank. These are both Pokemon that will reliably do the job you want them to do. They also act as good pivots and checks to multiple other Pokemon in the tier. Most often, the reliable Pokemon are not the ones you teambuild around. They are the ones you use to cover weaknesses and beat otherwise troublesome threats. You will often be teambuilding around, say, an underrated threat, or a Pokemon that is good with the right support such as Linoone. These Pokemon are NOT reliable, as they require that support to function efficiently, and if they don't have it, they won't do well at all. A Pokemon has to be able to do well consistently throughout almost every match if it is to be thought of as reliable. Another example is if your team is weak to opposing rain offence, you can choose to add a specially defensive Ludicolo or Roselia if you wish. These are both reliable Pokemon that will get done the job you want them to, and often more along with it.

 

[jake]

Some really good posts so far! I'm going to talk about a few posts and ask some more questions about what you guys mentioned; even if the questions I ask aren't directed at your post, feel free to answer them anyway! Any new ideas are welcomed. :>

edit: putting all of my responses to each individual person in hide tags, then placing all new questions at the bottom

WhiteDMist response

When I hear "reliable", I think of a Pokemon that can consistently perform their main job. Whether it is walling, supporting, or attacking, a reliable Pokemon should do its job well barring bad playing or misfortune. Accuracy is a bit harder to talk about, but most of the time the results justify the risk. I do admit that risk and reliability are contradictory.

That's actually a really good definition, honestly. At what point do you think accuracy comes into play in calling something reliable or not? I mean, as an example: Jynx has two accurate STAB moves, and then a 75% move in Lovely Kiss (which is an excellent move). Does the inaccuracy of LK make Jynx an unreliable Pokemon? It has a lot of good qualities still (Speed, Dry Skin, general coverage and power) but one of its defining characteristics only has a 3/4 chance to work when you try to use it.

Likewise, I'm curious if you think it makes a difference whether or not it's the Pokemon's primary attacking moves or coverage moves that are inaccurate. For example, let's use Jynx again. Jynx can carry a 70% accurate coverage move in Focus Blast; does the inaccuracy of Focus Blast make it any less reliable overall? Of course it would prefer to have something like Aura Sphere, but does it have any impact on judging whether or not Jynx is reliable? How much? For the reverse: Charizard is a Pokemon with inaccurate STABs but a couple of accurate coverage moves (and an accurate, but weaker version of one of it's STABs). Does the fact that Charizard has inaccurate primary attacks make it less reliable than Jynx, whose inaccurate moves are not its primary weapons?

Perhaps the best description of a "reliable" Pokemon would one who can perform their main role well without being typecast into a single role.

I don't think I really agree with this - a Pokemon can surely be reliable without having to perform extra roles to be more unpredictable, like Samurott. I'd argue that even if Samurott were restricted to just the special set, it'd be just as reliable as it is right now, just not as versatile (and thus not as useful, but not less reliable). Having more than one utility makes a Pokemon a lot more favorable, but I think it doesn't change whether or not it's worth using and depending on. A couple of examples of what I think are reliable Pokemon that do not perform multiple roles or are generally not very versatile: Golem, Sawk, Regirock, Skuntank, Gothorita. You can trust all of those mons to consistently perform their main job, barring bad play or misfortune. They aren't always useful in every match, but I think we're going to be looking for a super-Pokemon rather than just a reliable one if we add that as a necessary qualification for being reliable (same with being versatile).

But I guess that begs the question: for predictable mons (think Sawk, Alomomola, etc) what effect does an exploitable weakness have? If I can always bring in my Musharna on your Sawk, is that detrimental enough to consider it unreliable? Also, my own inclusion of Gothorita made me think: if a Pokemon is very reliable in certain situations (defensive teams with Alomomola, etc) but often useless in others (offensive teams with nothing to trap), is it still reliable?

Lasagne21 response

Most often, the reliable Pokemon are not the ones you teambuild around.

This is an awesome point. Nearly every Pokemon that we really focus on building around has some element of unreliability - whether or not we can set up with this Pokemon (Linoone is a very drastic example, but even some more reliable set-up sweepers like Carracosta carry an element of unreliability through either their moves or difficulty in setting up). There are a few counter-examples, like CM Musharna, but more often than not these Pokemon become staples that you add to your team because they are self-supporting and perform their job with no needed outside assistance. Reliable Pokemon often are staples, things you can easily throw into a team and not have to worry about needing a ton of support for it.

bobbyvaporeon response

I feel that what reliable means is something that always does the job it is meant to do, and does that good. Something like swagger Liepard or harvest Eggy is luck based, and doesn't always work.

This is a pretty interesting thing to discuss. At what point does something luck-based become "reliable"? Is the fact that it doesn't always work as planned outright mean that it's unreliable (is Jynx's Lovely Kiss unreliable?) or is there a point where it's close enough that you can usually count it as reliable? Example: Air Slash has 95% accuracy. Yes, it misses 5% of the time and occasionally at very obnoxious times, but do you think that's reliable?

I think a Pokemon that can set itself up to get its luck is much more likely to get the nod than something that can't. Harvest Exeggutor can use Substitute until it gets its Berry, and Liepard needs only a single instance of luck (50%) to be able to build off its own luck by setting up Substitutes or paralyzing stuff. Does that make them more reliable because they can raise their chances of getting lucky to very high levels, or are they still unreliable because they need to get a little lucky to start up?

FLCL response

it's also really hard to overcome a bad team match up with these pokemon since the opponent generally knows what your pokemon does. if you try to surprise them, you're probably going to have to take away some of that reliability. in my opinion, unless you're using stall, you should always carry something that has a certain degree of risk to it but will reward you when you make smart, risky plays.

I find it pretty hard to disagree with this. Over time, these reliable Pokemon tend to come to the forefront of a metagame (a quick glance over the stats should show this very clearly), so most people are prepared for them. This makes it difficult to outright win when you have nothing intimidating, nothing different, nothing rare or particularly unique. Sure, you can very well win consistently with a very standard and reliable team, but it becomes harder than it seems. If you pick the six most reliable Pokemon you can think of and make a team around them with no unique sets or other risky decisions, you'll probably find it harder than you imagined to pick up wins simply because people know what your Pokemon do.

It feels to me that having an unreliable Pokemon or two is almost a necessity for non-stall teams - what does everyone else think?

Questions for anyone who would like to answer any of them, with their location in brackets if you want more context:

- At what point do you think accuracy comes into play in calling something reliable or not? [WDM]

- Extension from bobbyvaporeon's post: Can Pokemon that rely on some luck (Swagger Liepard being the primary topic, but also like SubHarvest Eggy, etc) to create more opportunities for themselves be considered reliable? Are they still unreliable because they need luck in the first place, or does their ability to "capitalize" on luck and then create more of it change that? [bv]​

- Does it make a difference whether or not it's a Pokemon's primary moves or coverage moves that are inaccurate? [WDM]
- Thinking about Gothorita, but applies to other Pokemon: if a Pokemon is very reliable in certain situations (defensive teams with Alomomola, etc) but often useless in others (offensive teams with nothing to trap), is it still reliable? [WDM]
- On non-stall teams, is having an "unreliable" Pokemon necessary to consistently win? What do you think? [FLCL]
​

Of course, you are also perfectly free to answer any questions in the OP (especially the latter two, now that the first two have sort of been talked out).

​

 

[WhiteDMist]

Some really good posts so far! I'm going to talk about a few posts and ask some more questions about what you guys mentioned; even if the questions I ask aren't directed at your post, feel free to answer them anyway! Any new ideas are welcomed. :>

edit: putting all of my responses to each individual person in hide tags, then placing all new questions at the bottom

WhiteDMist response

I don't think I really agree with this - a Pokemon can surely be reliable without having to perform extra roles to be more unpredictable, like Samurott. I'd argue that even if Samurott were restricted to just the special set, it'd be just as reliable as it is right now, just not as versatile (and thus not as useful, but not less reliable). Having more than one utility makes a Pokemon a lot more favorable, but I think it doesn't change whether or not it's worth using and depending on. A couple of examples of what I think are reliable Pokemon that do not perform multiple roles or are generally not very versatile: Golem, Sawk, Regirock, Skuntank, Gothorita. You can trust all of those mons to consistently perform their main job, barring bad play or misfortune. They aren't always useful in every match, but I think we're going to be looking for a super-Pokemon rather than just a reliable one if we add that as a necessary qualification for being reliable (same with being versatile).

But I guess that begs the question: for predictable mons (think Sawk, Alomomola, etc) what effect does an exploitable weakness have? If I can always bring in my Musharna on your Sawk, is that detrimental enough to consider it unreliable? Also, my own inclusion of Gothorita made me think: if a Pokemon is very reliable in certain situations (defensive teams with Alomomola, etc) but often useless in others (offensive teams with nothing to trap), is it still reliable?

You know, something in FLCL's (and now in your response to his post) actually made me think of a Pokemon performing extra roles as an important factor in the first place. When a Pokemon only has one set that people consider "reliable", such as Choice Band Sawk, they are pretty much predictable. Having a team full of these Pokemon makes it difficult to win because your opponent basically has an idea of what everything on your team does, and is much more likely to counter you because of it (though the opposite is also true, you can predict their counter moves). That is why I feel that the most "reliable" Pokemon that has a few "reliable" sets is more reliable overall, because it acts as your "reliable" Pokemon yet still has the air of unpredictability. Of course I am not saying that Pokemon that have only a single role are unreliable, especially if they perform that role extremely well. But what is the difference between a reliable moveset and a reliable Pokemon? That was the question I asked myself that brought this answer about; whether it is a step too far into the realm of "most reliable of the reliable" is the problem I guess.

As for Samurott not being reliable because its special set runs Hydro Pump, I don't know what the answer to that question is right now. Accuracy will always be a factor, but the higher the accuracy the more reliable. For this particular example, I feel that the 20% chance of missing is a small price to pay for the power Hydro Pump brings, which make sit more effective at its job of wallbreaking. You can also use Surf, which boasts less power for perfect accuracy. Megahorn is also inaccurate (though more so than Hydro Pump), but it almost always sheers through Grass-types after a SD boost (or is meant to hit Ludicolo and Jynx on the switch, which means no harm, less foul). Sure, in comparison, Pokemon with perfectly accurate moves have the advantage in "reliability", but even they have their drawbacks (Close Combat and Earthquake have common Pokemon that are immune to them, while most other accurate moves I can think of are weaker or have negative side effects). So the real question is: if it does the job reliably, does not being able to HIT reliably significantly lower a Pokemon's "reliability"?

 

[Punchshroom]

Here's the thing that bugs me about the reliability of a Pokemon as a whole: does its versatility equate as a factor?

Take for example the comparison between Gardevoir and Jynx in both their respective Stages as well as the current Stage. Gardevoir is known as one of the most versatile Pokemon in NU at her prime, its wide movepool allowing her to toy with a lot of Pokemon. Its '3 Attacks' set alone could very well devastate you despite its straight-forwardness, because that last slot could be easily teched with Destiny Bond, Will-O-Wisp, Healing Wish, Memento, I don't even know. And then there's sets like SubCM, Scarf, Dual Screens.......Point is, Gardevoir was an excellent glue option for most teams and its slew of moves allowed her to support and function in almost any kind of team, meaning it is technically the one of most reliable Pokemon one can find in NU, and it pulls it off while being relatively unpredictable.

Jynx on the other hand was a pretty different kind of beast. She outclassed Gardevoir for the most part in offensive roles due to her sleep move and better STAB, but she still lacked the vast array of possible support options Gardevoir could run. Jynx also doesn't really have a place on defensive teams either. However, Gardevoir's weak Defense became much more easy to exploit due to its lower speed when compared to the even frailer but faster Jynx.

Both Pokemon are very reliable at their jobs, but unfortunately for Gardevoir, she fell to the wayside due to the meta's changes despite still being a solid Pokemon overall. It's one thing to be effective at your niches, but would the metagame heavily impact a Pokemon's reliability despite how good it could be at performing its job(s) and outweigh its versatility?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If you define reliability as being able to win the most games on the long run, I'd consider ditto. Ditto is in my opinion a very underestimated mon and fills thousands of niches no other pokemon can but it also brings a small hax protection in the way that if you miss a move, get full para or w/e well your opponent can't take advantage of that to set up a sweeper unless it's a bulky sweeper or unless it's under a sub. One might say it's only effective against offensive teams, but I'd disagree with that. Ditto also takes advantage of the fact NU spiners suck and can very well transform into roselia against stall teams to set up just as much spikes on your opponent's side than on yours.

I have built a team I consider very reliable myself and will probably RMT it as soon as I have the time (which should be sometime next week).

 

[Cherub Agent]

This is a very interesting discussion, and one that I wish I'd seen earlier.

I for one have always considered Scolipede to be the most reliable Pokemon in the tier, and not in the offensive/defensive characteristic mentioned in the OP, but rather in a supporting role. This is simply because there are very, very few ways to prevent Scolipede from doing its job, and even these are unreliable (Scarf Jynx attempting to Sleep it, counting on Rock Blast to hit enough to kill it, Swellow Brave Birding from turn one Fake Out Kangaskhan, Magic Coat, Prankster Taunt etc (note I'm talking mainly about Sashpede here). Also note that of these examples, very few can actually prevent Scolipede from laying down at least one layer of hazards (Prankster Taunt and Scarf Jynx; the former is very rare and the latter is quite risky, not to mention predictable). Due to amazing Speed and dual hazards, Scolipede will practically always pull its weight in a battle, and the metagame is very kind to it due to having pretty shoddy ways of getting rid of hazards in the first place. Scollipede can of course always deviate from its (imo) most reliable role in hazard platform to all out attacker, SubSalac sweeper, Baton Passer, or a role that mixes these sets up. It is thus unpredictable, as it has a great deal of sets that can keep your opponent on its toes, and excels in laying down hazards, pretty much guaranteeing at least a layer. And of course, when knocked down to its Focus Sash, it can happily abuse its great Speed and Swarm boosted Megahorn to give opponents a very satisfying thwack.

Thinking about it, my personal opinion on reliability in battle is defined more by a Pokemons defensive or supporting capabilities, rather than their offensive ones. Alomomola and Mandibuzz are two such examples: the former walls such a large variety of Pokemon and is extremely reliable at keeping your team healthy thanks to the Wish + Regenerator combo. It beats Golem and Kangaskhan that give Scolipede issues, and forces tons of switches so that the Spikes Scolipede sets up can do their job. Mandibuzz on the other hand is extremely reliable due to its excellent matchup against pretty much every team: it's the ultimate stallbreaker, and has the bulk and movepool to hold its own against most offensive Pokemon as well.

 

[azureleaf17]

- At what point do you think accuracy comes into play in calling something reliable or not? [WDM]
Accuracy matter incredibly in terms of reliability, but I think the extent to exactly how important it is varies from person to person. To one, Focus Blast missing 30% of the time is a good trade-off for the amount of power it puts out the 70% of the time it does hit. But for others (like myself, using mostly stall, semi-stall, and balance), every chip of damage is so necessary that the 30% is absolutely unacceptable. Even something like Fire Blast is scary for me despite it having better than five-to-one odds of hitting. It depends on the individual's preference of how much they are willing to gamble, whether it be to err on the safe side (like me, where anything less than 95% is pushing it) or to play a little more recklessly (to where risking a 30% chance of losing a game because of a missed Focus Blast is worth the chance).

- Can Pokemon that rely on some luck (Swagger Liepard being the primary topic, but also like SubHarvest Eggy, etc) to create more opportunities for themselves be considered reliable? Are they still unreliable because they need luck in the first place, or does their ability to "capitalize" on luck and then create more of it change that? [bv]
I think when luck begins to play into the equation, the amount of luck needed to be considered "reliable" has an inverse relationship with the defensive capabilities of the Pokemon. For example, bulky 'mons like Alomomola need little luck to fulfill their job on a team. The only luck that really matters is the chance of a crit from the opponent or the 15% of the time that Toxic misses, and in fact, Alomolmola has the potential to shake off this sort of unfortunate luck and continue to perform its job, making it even more "reliable." Something like Liepard, on the other hand, folds like a wet tissue when hit. The trade-off is this: you pull it off, you piss off your opponent while paralyzing everything in sight and chipping away in the process. You fail, and you're one Pokemon short, without having pulled off its job at all. And if its job was to soften things and spread paralysis, then it has failed. Can it be called "reliable" if it "only" has a 50% chance of fufilling its (potentially important) role on a team through confusion or a 37.5% chance of succeeding through parafusion?

- Does it make a difference whether or not it's a Pokemon's primary moves or coverage moves that are inaccurate? [WDM]
If you're using an offensive 'mon with a very powerful primary attack that you'll be spamming 75% of the time (in OU, Terrakion's monstrous double-STABs come quickly to mind), accuracy matters much more to a Pokemon's reliability and its worth on a team than if you're using something where the primary attack is used only marginally more than coverage moves.

- Thinking about Gothorita, but applies to other Pokemon: if a Pokemon is very reliable in certain situations (defensive teams with Alomomola, etc) but often useless in others (offensive teams with nothing to trap), is it still reliable? [WDM]
The reliability of the Pokemon in such a situation actually depends less on itself, but much more on the rest of the team and the capabilities of the player as a teambuilder. If it is possible to construct a team that is more than capable of handling between themselves all the Pokemon except the ones that the one in question, then I'd say that not only can the Pokemon be considered reliable, but the very definition of reliability: the ability to consistently fulfill its given role on a team. In fact, I've read numerous successful RMTs where four Pokemon cover most things in the metagame and two entire teamslots are dedicated to covering the small number of things that the four do not. They will not be the most used Pokemon in every game, but they will give the player a good shot at winning should such a situation occur.

- On non-stall teams, is having an "unreliable" Pokemon necessary to consistently win? What do you think? [FLCL]
Tiering and viability rankings are actually a reflection of this. If a Pokemon has a combination of power, speed, and accuracy, it will invariably be ranked higher because it can do its job on a team without needing support from other (lower ranked, which may mean less reliable) Pokemon. The more you take away from any one of the three attributes to offense, you increase its risk of being taken advantage of by other Pokemon, whether that be through status, set-up, or a strong retaliatory attack. I think the words "unreliable" and "constistently" are polar opposites, to the point when I think it's not only unnecessary for having such a Pokemon to win consistently but that it's almost a detriment to having one on your team despite the benefits that it MAY provide.

I think that in the end, reliability is entirely down to personal preference. For someone like myself, who thinks in everything in terms of numbers and percentages and weighing the risks versus the benefits of everything, defining such a thing is impossible due to the necessity of facts and numbers. But put simply, a Pokemon is reliable to the individual player when the potential benefits of using a Pokemon outweigh the risks taken should the Pokemon become crippled in any way on a team.

 

[atomicllamas]

Hmm, well I may not do a super long post, but I do have some ideas about what makes something reliable vs. unreliable. The first thing that I think determines whether or not something is reliable is, can it perform its role, regardless of team match up. So in this case I actually disagree with Sweet Jesus, I find Ditto to be rather unreliable, because it is almost completely dependent on the other team having something that it can exploit to perform to its maximum capability. For example, vs. a stall team it will be almost pretty much dead weight as stall teams don't really have moves that Ditto can exploit. Other things that are dependent on team match up, like assist cat, are also unreliable (ie a team with no rocks, or magic coat bastiodon or w/e), in spite of how successful they tend to be.

Accuracy is a huge factor for me in terms of reliability, I find a mon that relies on an inaccurate STAB or coverage move (fuck focus blast) to be extremely off putting, and because of this I will often run dual STAB (on zard I run Fire Blast + Flamethrower over focus blast). Because of this accuracy thing, physical attackers tend to be more reliable than special attackers as they usually have reliable STAB plus coverage with more predictable draw backs (you know CC causes a defense drop, you never know if hydro pump will hit or not).

As for "Is it necessary to have unreliable mons to win outside of stall?" I think I would answer no, but it would really restrict team building to not allow for any unreliability, as some good mons are unreliable.

However, I don't think unpredictable=unreliable, I have used choice specs Probopass before, which is definitely not a predictable set, but it performed its role of trapping and killing steel types. I also find certain things like expert belt lure sets to be even more reliable than regular sets, while also being unpredictable. Bottom line, if you define a role for a mon to perform on your team and it does so consistently it is definitely reliable, but if this role isn't a role that someone would usually expect from a mon it is definitely unpredictable, and neither of these things are mutually exclusive.

 

[The Quasar]

I read this topic with great interest (I have missed it before!). I have to be honest, by a person like me who plays for less time than you, I expand this concept to "reliability pokemon set". A pokemon could have a/more reliability and a/more unreliable set.
I think reliability is also linked to ease of use; IMHO this factor is complementary to what you say. So much so that use of a given set is linear and so "simple to use", in fact the pokemon will be (along with focal points you mentioned) reliability.