Probably time to post my thoughts again. Do note that I won't be around for much time tomorrow, if at all, so don't expect many updates then. Still, keep posting. I'll read everything eventually.
I suppose I should address a concern that has been giving me some not inconsiderable trouble, reading the last few posts and even those before - the issue that some people seem to think that selecting a certain ability automatically mandates a certain playstyle in any and all circumstances. Quite apart from the view that I personally take that concentrating upon one particular playstyle is something not to be encouraged, there are also those who are poll-jumping quite considerably in labelling roles for a potential Pokemon with this ability - for example, Magnet Pull as a Steel trapper. To be honest, I can't see why you would bother to use Magnet Pull CAP4 as a dedicated trapper at all - Magnezone, at least, has its resistances, and Dugtrio has super effective STAB moves. What is to stop you from simply playing CAP4 as you would any other bulky threat, and only occasionally deviating to get a guaranteed revenge kill on a Steel-type? In that situation, Risk appears reduced - the kill is all but guaranteed. Just because something can be played riskily, does not mean it will be, or even that it is the most effective way of playing it. Another that I have seen thrown around quite a lot is one concerning Analytic. People seem to be under the impression that to use it well, you would have to forcibly make CAP4 slow; why should this be the case? If CAP4 was faster than the opponent instead, it could simply hit them twice and still do more damage overall - CAP4 is being hit once in either case, but if it goes first, it at least has a chance to not take a hit at all. The optimum will always be to make it fast, not slow. That's not a criticism of Analytic, but of the way people seem to have been interpreting it.
Still, I suppose I should make my position on Analytic as clear as possible, since it doesn't seem that most people can quite understand it, or if they do, they are ignoring it. I consider it to be essentially the same deal as Tinted Lens or Adaptability in that it is perpetually rewarding, and does not have any other redeeming qualities. What does it do? If you move second in a turn, you get a power boost. That's nice. The difficulty here is that there is no change, in either the set specifications of the teambuilding stage or the actions taken in battle, between having Analytic and not having Analytic. You merely receive an incidental power boost on certain occasions - that is to say that any incorrect predictions are mitigated, and any correct predictions are boosted further - thus, the whole movement is overall positive. On that note, I can't see Analytic is being risky - the risk taken with it tends to be as a result of the Pokemon itself, upon which Analytic merely serves as an ornament.
The one reasonable argument in favour of Analytic that I have heard - and I concede that this is convincing in support of it - is that it rewards risky play by increasing damage on a switch-in, and thus rewards a ballsy prediction made at the right time. And I can see that argument, certainly. There is something to be said for adding a little bonus to the "risky" option that is not carried over to the "safe" option - although I do not find this entirely convincing, as Analytic adds a power boost to any switch, irrespective of whether the switch-in is caught by a predicted attack or not. The boost for Analytic could, indeed, be construed as forcing safe plays on the part of the opponent, as if CAP4 is on the rampage, it is not unlikely that situations where there is one undoubtedly superior "safe" option - ie. where one move will kill the Pokemon currently in play or, thanks to Analytic, will kill any Pokemon that switches in, so your opponent is in a lose/lose situation where previously there was some risk - will occur directly as a result of Analytic. It supports safe options quite as much as it supports risky options. Furthermore, what Analytic attempts is, to be honest, already a given from the decisions we have already made - a Bug/Psychic with coverage for Steel-types - which are all types that have so many resistances to their attacks that there is already a significant reward to be had from making a risky play, and a significant risk involved in that decision, irrespective of Analytic. As such, I cannot bring myself to support Analytic. That's my ultimate position, without some
very good arguments to the contrary.
Now, I expect the response to the above to be a form of tu quoque - why am I not applying the above to, say, No Guard, Illusion, or Moxie? Well, Illusion certainly does change the way one plays, such that almost every play made is made more risky - there seems to be a very definite, but in my view erroneous, consensus that the opponent will never call your bluff, and as such, that Illusion can never be negative. I feel I should address this. While it is a fair assumption that your opponent will fall for the bluff at least once (though a ballsy interpretation of Team Preview could mean otherwise), but that does not necessarily mean that the opponent will act in the way you expect them to. Illusion also casts a veil of certainty that can affect your actions, in such a way that yes, it can be a negative, especially if you fail to notice that the opponent has spotted a discrepancy between your HP stat and that of the Pokemon you were disguised as, and play accordingly. So is Illusion rewarding of good play and judgement? I think it's fair to say so. As for No Guard, I have made this point too many times now. There is a distinct positive and negative to No Guard as a direct consequence of deciding to use No Guard in the first place, and it also gets the positive of being an interesting way of removing luck, which we want to avoid. As for Moxie? I'll admit, I'm not as fond of it now as I was in the primary ability poll, and that's largely for the same reasons that I dislike Analytic. However, I'm still willing to consider it because the boost is not guaranteed by any means and requires a specific deviation from typical play in order to gain it, which makes it more interesting from a build perspective.
Now, I should probably address some of the other abilities that have popped up since my last post. Surprisingly, I find I rather like the idea of Mummy, if only for the way it is possible to be played in OU, as being a risky move to switch CAP4 in in order to stop Breloom/Scizor/Salamence/Gyarados/Conkeldurr/whatever else it might be from embarking on a sweep, in terms of sacrificing a member of the team in order to put yourself in a position from which you can recover, in a similar way to that of double-Intimidate, which was used a fair amount in DPP. The only thing stopping me from really liking it is that it is, well... a bit limited.
On the other side, Contrary and Simple still severely limit our movepool options, and as I am counting on the movepool to be one of those areas where we polish off this CAP with a resounding finish, I don't want there to be those sorts of issues (or at any rate, more of those sorts of issues). I don't quite see the appeal behind Defiant - its only real application is through switching into Intimidate. Everything else is entirely at random. I don't see how that helps us at all. Klutz is similarly limited, unless somebody can suggest a positive application for it that doesn't involve Trick or Switcheroo.
On the subject of No Guard as being either inferior or superior to Weak Armour irrespective of what we give this Pokemon, I think you are being a bit overly dramatic if you think that is what is going to happen - and you also don't seem to think much of what a potential +1 in Speed can do. For example, take a hypothetical set of CM / Bug Buzz / Psyshock / coverage. If said "coverage move" is Focus Blast or Hydro Pump, it makes sense to use No Guard. If, on the other hand, it is Fire Blast or Earth Power, there is something to be said for Weak Armour as an alternative. Just because it receives inaccurate moves does not make them automatically superior - particularly if that Speed boost is valuable.
Finally, to address some other questions:
A_R said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't not changing playstyle compared to Weak Armor exactly what bmb just said that he wants?
That's correct, more or less, but as I have to accept that any change in ability is going to change playstyle in some manner, I'd prefer that the effect on playstyle is minimised while at the same time providing different advantages such that the choice risk element is maximised, which was the point I was trying to make.
Now a few more things:
- Do not even consider mentioning the word "flavour" in here again. I thought this was obvious but apparently it isn't. Firstly, flavour has no bearing on competitive portions of the CAP and as such is entirely off-topic. Second, we are able to change the names of abilities to better suit the flavour if we wish, such as is the case with Arghonaut, and I think was discussed for Necturna (before NCA was decided).
- No custom abilities. Seriously, there's no need for that.
- Try to keep both practical and idealogical considerations in mind, not just one or the other. This should, I hope, be obvious.