Policy Review Counters Discussion (Discussion)

[Deck Knight]

To be honest, I think the best place for a counters discussion is after the typing poll.

This gives us an idea of what will and will not be a viable check or counter, because the type chart is the primary determinant of that. Moves can shift some of the checks and counters around, but basically if your typing is Ghost, unless we give you Focus Punch or Focus Blast normal and dark types will walk all over you, and you will have some level of difficulty dealing with Steel types that can use special attacks (as Ghosts usually have WoW as a built-in assumption, poll jumping or no.)

Additionally, doing it after typing still gives us time to sort out abilities for Pokemon we do not want to check our Pokemon based on type. The sheer number of immunity abilities in 5th Gen helps facilitate this, and it allows us to operate with a decent level of knowledge without turning into a free-for-all. If we do the counters discussion after type, but before stats and ability (where it currently resides after), we will actually be able to enforce the listing without constraining creativity or flexibility.

 

[tennisace]

Ok so this is copied directly from my thread which is now locked. This is because I feel it deserves a separate discussion.

Basically, I agree with this completely seeing as it allows the project to immediately have more direction instead of it just being kind of a large clusterfuck in the early stages.

 

[capefeather]

I agree with this. The typing shapes so much of a CAP that moving the counters discussion right after typing could help both later events and the counters discussion itself. As it is now, it's kind of just there mostly to state the obvious, and it only really guides the movepool. Ability discussion could benefit greatly from having defined counters, and having some tangible limit to go on can help with stat/movepool limit discussion as well.

(That's largely an elaboration of tennisace's post, but oh, well.)

 

[Stratos]

So hey, it looks pretty clearly unanimous that CD should be after Typing

 

[the dead mans oddysey]

yeah, but there are some down sides to this to. you would be using up more time trying to come up with a threat list, based pureley on typing. this could take a week or 2, and once everything else is done, you have to fuck around with the threat list AGAIN, and analise and RE-analise the threats to the poke. but other than that, i agree. its pretty unanimous.

 

[jumpluff]

Unanimous after a few posts in about 36 hours? ok.

This seems entirely logical to me. Stats and ability are something we can shape to fine-tune the counters list, but counters in great amount and in a general sense derive from typing. In a sense, if we discuss counters before typing, it's almost like poll jumping to me... Like cape said, otherwise counters discussion serves little real purpose.

 

[DougJustDoug]

We should not just hold a counters discussion after typing -- let's make a more clear process for determining and defining counters for the CAP we are building, and do that right after typing.

If we hold a general discussion of counters, the participants may develop a consensus of sorts, but we don't yet have a nice way to define that consensus and make it widely known to the rest of the community. More importantly, we don't have any way to "enforce" the counters through the rest of the process.

Right now, we just toss the whole counters thing into the grab-bag of "TL discretion" -- which means the TL posts some form of conclusion at the end of an unstructured discussion, and then throughout the remaining process, the TL and other people might gripe when some supposedly defined counter is threatened by a decision. That is not a good way to handle this aspect of CAP. It leads to spotty adherence, and if we move it to the front of the process, I suspect people will forget about the "conclusion" posted by the TL pretty quickly.

• Create some clear definitions that will be used to define a counter
• Have the community decide on the counters like any other aspect of CAP (usually we end up voting on stuff in CAP)
• List the defined counters in the OP of every subsequent CAP thread, just like the other aspects like Concept, Typing, Stats, etc.

The hardest thing is coming up with rules for defining a counter. We can't just say "CAP 2 Counters are: Salamence and Tyranitar". There are lots of variables that constitute "countering" something, and pokes like Mence and TTar can be used in many different ways. But perhaps pokemon like Blissey are used narrowly enough that it is sufficient to just use "Blissey" as a description of a defined counter -- which is roughly synonymous with saying the pokemon can't be a big physical hitter or have access to a high-powered Fighting move. So let's come up with some usable definitions to work with in the Counters step of CAP. The definitions can't be super-detailed, or CAP participants probably won't get it. But they can't be too general either, for reasons I just mentioned.

A key thing to remember when making a definition: It must be "enforceable" -- ie. later in the process, if we do something that defies the counter, we should be able to point to the definition and use that as a somewhat objective tool to support or oppose the argument.

And yes, through all this, I am aware of the pedantic "Counter" vs "Check" thing -- and I'm not going to get into that here. If we want to use separate definitions for the two terms, so be it. But be aware that I am using the term "Counter" as a catch-all phrase.

 

[DarkSlay]

I have an idea. Why not have multiple (read: two) stages in the CAP development process dedicated to finding out counters for the project? One would be immediately after the typing discussion/polls, and another one where it currently stands as of today. I feel that having that initial, basic list of counters is essential in putting the project in the correct direction, and would enable us to at least give the project its bearings when it comes to the basic Pokemon of the metagame. However, I also feel that a second discussion is merited after the stats and abilities have been chosen, since they are both crucial in determining counters that are not based solely off of types.

The current process lacks focus, and does not ultimately result in a clear-cut solution in what is and is not a counter to that CAP project. I definitely agree that more emphasis should be placed on the counters discussion, as the past projects have been either forcing some Pokemon to counter the CAP without much reasoning behind it or just lacking in overall counters. If I recall, Tomohawk really only had three or so defined counters by the end of that process, and they were only so simply because of typing. However, just limiting it to after the typing results in focusing too little on counters not revolving around typing. For example, if we create a Pokemon that is, say, a Grass / Ground type, how will we be able to define Blissey as a counter at that early of a stage? The Physical / Special counters will be somewhat vague at this point, which is something that we cannot ignore. Also, as the project progresses, it's entirely possible that a Pokemon that counters the typing may or may not stay as a counter by the end of even just the stat pools and ability selection.

Also, I was thinking that the counters discussion should also feature Pokemon that may or may not be countered by the project. There really isn't a stage in the creation process where we take a hard look at obvious and somewhat not obvious Pokemon that will have trouble with the CAP. I feel that this is actually very important and just as dynamic as the Counters discussion, as there are Pokemon that are handled immediately by the project due to typing, and there are Pokemon that are either degraded to prey or upgraded from trouble as the abilities and (especially) stat pool
are chosen. Was there a reason as to why this really wasn't given its own section in or emphasis in a section of the CAP process? I think now is the time to start looking into this.

So, the process would boil down to two main components. I'll illustrate them below:

Stage One: Threat Discussion

• Going specifically by typing, what Pokemon found in the OU (or relevant) metagame will be able to comfortably give this CAP project trouble?
• What Pokemon will be major threats to this project right off the bat? What Pokemon have the potential to become counters? What Pokemon may end up as threats, but must be contained or dealt with per the concept?
• Will the concept succeed with these set list of threats? Is this list of threats acceptable for the project?
• What Pokemon will be threatened by the CAP based off of typing? Are these Pokemon targets that we want CAP to hit? Will these targets be "unavoidable" to threaten based solely on the typing?
• What direction must the project go in now that a set list of basic threats has been identified? What must be done in order to make these threats "wanted counters" or these threats be eliminated from counter discussion? What Pokemon do we want this project to counter entirely?

Stage Two: Counters Discussion

• With now a combination of typing, ability, and stat pool, which previously defined threats are considered hard counters to the project? Basic counters? Checks?
• Are the Pokemon that are currently able to counter the project the Pokemon we want/need to counter the project? If not, what must be done to handle these Pokemon? Is it unavoidable?
• What Pokemon have arisen in discussions that were not brought up before? As in, are there Pokemon that counter/check this concept on concepts that are not focused around its typing? Where should they be placed in the discussion?
• Which Pokemon have been taken out of the counters discussion due to the stat pool and ability?
• Which Pokemon have moved from threats purely by typing to checks? To neutral match-ups?
• Which Pokemon are now countered by the project fully? Which are checked by the project? Which have become neutral match-ups against the project?
• With this set list of counters and checks, does this fulfill the concept's goal?

Essentially, we're starting with basic information with the project, collecting data that gives us that necessary initial list of Pokemon we are considering threats to the CAP, and vice versa. This is a broad start for the concept that enables us to get a grasp on a potential realistic list of threats that are natural threats, threats that are simply determined by the most basic of concepts, and arguably the most powerful of concepts when it comes to counter/check discussion. This stage isn't necessarily to outline a huge list of actual counters, however, but more of to get a list of Pokemon and focus on them for the remainder of the project. The second leg, we take this discussion and make it more narrow and precise. We use the information gained from stat pools and abilities and define actual counters and checks. Stats, abilities, and typing all combine to give us the correct information to make these kind of calls, and further discussions of that previous list of Pokemon will lead us to what hopefully is a pretty fruitful conclusion that is extensively discussed as a whole.

All in all, I think this is the best direction to go in when it comes to counters discussion. The only drawbacks I see is the need to add that extra step in the creation process and the potential of poll jumping with the concept. The former isn't that big of a deal, especially if we're combining the typing polls, and the latter can simply be solved by strong TL involvement, something that should be done with every step in the process anyway. Hopefully, this way will give us the correct data on counters that we really need to make our project successful.

 

[Monstermongler]

yeah, but there are some down sides to this to. you would be using up more time trying to come up with a threat list, based pureley on typing. this could take a week or 2, and once everything else is done, you have to fuck around with the threat list AGAIN, and analise and RE-analise the threats to the poke. but other than that, i agree. its pretty unanimous.

You make a very good point here. On the other hand, the first thing that gets approved is a concept, you know what kind of a fighter you're all working on. So while you don't know its exact speed yet, you do know that a tank for instance will have more to fear from a fast sweeper that has a STAB attack aimed at its weakness than from a really slow pokémon with the same attack (except if that pokémon has the right defenses etc etc, but anyway). The counter discussion would be longer, but not ridiculously much. And that discussion in turn might help speed up the stat discussion, because you know which stats to improve (or or to lower) to make the ammount of good counters lower (or higher).

And to react to DarkSlays proposition for two discussions: you could revisit it, but I wouldn't expect to find many new counters, it would be more like a short revisitation, checking off which counters have been succesfully countered. Wouldn't it?

 

[Deck Knight]

Still busy, so I'll have more commentary later, but I want to make this essential point to back making the decision after typing:

CAP Projects are by their democratic nature inherently biased towards balanced offense and defense. Even our weakest Pokemon defensively, Syclant, still has 70/70/64 Defenses. Thus, all other things being equal, typing will be the decisive factor.

Pokemon like Sharpedo have such paper defenses that the only thing they can switch in on is things they are immune to. Defensively their type is irrelevant, since even resisted attacks 2HKO. Unless a Pokemon carries no direct attacks, their STABs are always a factor. Skarmory only has 70 Base ATK and is often uninvested, but anything weak to Brave Bird is inherently threatened by it. In other words, the threshold for offensive STAB mattering is very low.

So generally speaking, type is a solid enough foundation for making assumptions about threats and counters. Every Pokemon we've ever made fits the threshold for their offensive STABs mattering, and has sufficient defenses that resisted attacks provide an opening for them to come in on.

 

[capefeather]

Thinking about what Doug said, I agree that the "counters discussion" isn't that helpful largely because we don't have good definitions of "counter". That's exactly why we should hold a discussion of that nature after the typing. Maybe (as DarkSlay said) it could be a "threat discussion" or even just a broad discussion of limitations, which I think is better done early on. As an example, perhaps Krilowatt could have benefited from a decision early on that it would be easy to revenge kill with powerful and/or versatile Pokémon, since it's meant to be a counter and not something that continues to threaten and dominate the opposing team. It's quite possible that the constant threat of overpowering our CAPs comes from the overemphasis on switching to a "counter" to deal with each CAP. Plus, having a general discussion of how a CAP should be dealt with in battle will probably transition well into the stat/movepool limit discussion.

 

[shinyskarmory]

I think that the best place to put the Counters discussion is just before the movepool discussion, as we will already have the pokemon's stats, ability, and typing locked in, allowing us to better discuss what counters the pokemon should have by movepool.

On the other hand, placing it after the Concept poll could work as well, because we will be able to design the rest of the pokemon around what should counter it.

Not experienced enough in CAP to say any more.

 

[macle]

Really digging darkslay's process with capes suggestions . Seems solid as fuck

 

[Deck Knight]

I think we we want to go with a true, enforceable definition of a "Counter," this should be the one we use.

Counter:

A Counter for the purposes of the CAP Project fulfills three of six requirements:

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

Notes: A Reliable STAB attack is one with a stable Base Attack Power that deals consistent damage, meaning the strongest non-signature attack under these categories are for each type:

Bug: Megahorn, Bug Buzz
Dark: Crunch, Dark Pulse
Dragon: Outrage, Dragon Pulse
Electric: Wild Charge, Thunder
Fighting: Hi Jump Kick, Focus Blast
Fire: Flare Blitz, Fire Blast
Flying: Brave Bird, Hurricane
Ghost: Shadow Claw, Shadow Ball
Grass: Wood Hammer/Power Whip, Petal Dance
Ground: Earthquake, Earth Power
Ice: Icicle Crash, Blizzard
Normal: Double-Edge, Hyper Voice
Poison: Gunk Shot, Sludge Wave
Psychic: Zen Headbutt, Psychic
Rock: Head Smash, Power Gem
Steel: Meteor Mash/Iron Tail, Flash Cannon
Water: Aqua Tail, Hydro Pump

A Pokemon can become a Counter if we believe coverage for a certain type is helpful, but the move we choose does not have enough BAP to satisfy the second requirement below.

Examples of in-game counters with these criteria:

Skarmory vs. LO Excadrill:

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
  [*]Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
  [*]Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

BW Standard Tyranitar vs. LO Latios:

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
  [*]Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

(Minor note: Though Standard BW Tyranitar carries Stealth Rock, if it switches into LO Latios Surf and uses Stealth Rock it will be unable to counter it in the future, so the last requirement isn't highlighted. Tyranitar in this case counters primarily because it can threaten a OHKO back, not because it can set up or use hazards. Dragon Pulse + Surf + Surf also has a chance to 3HKO, and if SR is down it always 3HKOs. If Standard Tyranitar subbed out Stealth Rock for Thunder Wave, it would qualify under criteria 5 as well.)

CM Reuniclus vs. Chansey:

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

SD Gliscor vs. Skarmory:

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

Ultility Jellicent vs. Bulky Swords Dance Scizor:

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

(Minor notes: Bulky SD Scizor only has its STABs so there's really no coverage moves to speak of. You could technically count it, bit it's not really applicable. The combination of burn and taunt is what qualifies it for criteria 5 and 6, since UC Jellicent effectively shuts down what makes Bulky SD Scizor dangerous: Attack boosting + Roost)

This is a decent starting point I think. Criticisms are welcome.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I think all of this is pretty, er, overly specific. I think the definition of a counter for a specific project should be able to change based on how seriously we want a Pokemon to be able to counter our CAP. All of this would be decided by the TL, whose knowledge would lead him to say: "Hey, I want there to be a hard counter with these qualities (...)." I do, however, absolutely agree that counters discussion should be after typing. We want to talk about counters/checks as early as possible to guarantee that we keep them in mind for the whole project and don't box ourselves into a poor check/counter situation (see Krilowatt).

 

[Deck Knight]

I think all of this is pretty, er, overly specific. I think the definition of a counter for a specific project should be able to change based on how seriously we want a Pokemon to be able to counter our CAP. All of this would be decided by the TL, whose knowledge would lead him to say: "Hey, I want there to be a hard counter with these qualities (...)." I do, however, absolutely agree that counters discussion should be after typing. We want to talk about counters/checks as early as possible to guarantee that we keep them in mind for the whole project and don't box ourselves into a poor check/counter situation (see Krilowatt).

My thought process in being specific wasn't necessarily to impose the standard, but just so we might have a framework of what a real "counter" vs. a "check" would actually be. The ideal I was going for in the criteria is essentially that a counter fulfills at least three of the criteria while a check fills out one or two. Thundurus for example checks a whole bunch of things because it can cripple a bunch of things without risking a OHKO, but it can't confidently switch in on a whole lot of STAB attacks, even resisted ones.

My illustrations were just a testing the application if the concept to see if I was too off base, not precise enough, or something like that. What I was going for is an enforceable standard. If for example giving a CAP Stone Edge would remove one of the Pokemon we agreed should counter it, but Rock Slide did not have sufficient power, we could consider that at the movepool stage.

My chief concerns if we make Counters a concrete part of the process is that we can clearly define what we mean, and have our criteria be specific enough so that we could determine in what ways our CAP could be countered. For example, if our CAP were defensive, the OHKO or 2HKO back criterion would not often be reached, but our CAP could be excellent at crippling foes. On the other side, few Pokemon would be able to counter it with STABs or coverage KOs, but they could attempt to stall it out, cripple it, or set up hazards on it.

Mostly I want the parameters to help assist the TL's judgement so they can specifically say, check for a calc that would override a previous Counter discussion, or open up an avenue for discussion if say our CAP gets Thunder Wave, a move that would make it much more difficult to truly counter by several sets of Pokemon (the ones that get the OHKO/2HKO criterion on it, but either can't take it's STAB/Coverage or else are too reliant on Speed to beat it).

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I can see that. There is often discussion in those CD threads about "what is a counter" that could maybe be eliminated. It might be worth putting some of those descriptions you came up with in the OP of the Counters Discussion thread to prevent confusion and give people something to reference. I don't want this to in any way replace a TL's judgment, however.

 

[Deck Knight]

I can see that. There is often discussion in those CD threads about "what is a counter" that could maybe be eliminated. It might be worth putting some of those descriptions you came up with in the OP of the Counters Discussion thread to prevent confusion and give people something to reference. I don't want this to in any way replace a TL's judgment, however.

It's not meant to serve as a replacement, just as a guideline that can help steer discussion or, in some specific cases, curb the movepool creep a little bit. For example the Stone Edge vs. Rock Slide example I alluded to earlier. If we decide that say Bulky Dragonite should be a counter to our high Atk Bug/Ground CAP, but we don't want flying mons in general to wall it, Rock Slide should be strong enough to ward them off but not significantly impact BulkyNite.

The counters could also be set specific rather than Pokemon specific, such as if we wanted FatMence to counter our Pokemon but not DDMence. In any case if we do something like DarkSlay's idea we can have a threat discussion with something like my list above that enumerates various ways a Pokemon can be a threat. and then work off of there. Ideally I want to avoid "blank checks" as much as possible and focus solely on counters. Checks tend to be those Pokemon that can alter their movepool to address a Pokemon, whereas Counters are those Pokemon that pretty much defeat every set, unless you use a very out of place move on it. There's not really varying "degrees" of checks and counters. Look at Choice Band Ferrothorn. That set completely obliterates most of the standard counters to the stallier standard version. Band, Specs, and occasionally Scarf alone can alter check and counter dynamics, but they have their own drawbacks.

I think the idea to shoot for would be "all other things being equal, does [threat] *counter* CAP Pokemon." If you're going to use +2 LO Calcs, you'll find the list of counters quite small indeed, heh.

 

[AJC]

personally i think it should be held 2 twice

once after typing poll and again during/after stat poll

since after all some things are so good even with a bad typing if the stats make up for it

case in point chansey/blissey have no resistances and their defensive typing isn't great but are the best special walls in the game simply due to how focused they are stat wise for taking special attacks.

 

[Solstice]

I feel like the best option right now would be to attempt having two counter discussions. The primary would be after the typing poll, which gives us a frame of reference that would shape the rest of the project. The second poll after either stats or movepool can be our frame of reference to match up the counters. If we have a Dark-Rock type, then in the primary counter discussion it would appear that Machamp would be an excellent counter. However in the second we might be able to see that because of CaP 2s higher defense and offensive STABs that Lucario is a better counter, while he wasn't as strongly suggested in the first one. I feel like the second one would allow us to see if the CaPs progression fits our initial predictions.

 

[jas61292]

I will also throw my support behind the idea of two counter discussions. As many people have said, having a primary discussion after the types have been decided will help focus the CAP, since types are one of the defining features when it comes to counters.

As for a secondary discussion, I would think the best place for it would be right before move discussions. As AJC mentioned, something such as Blissey with pure normal typing might not be assumed to have much walling potential and thus might be assumed to be countered by special attackers who carry Focus Blast during a discussion where only typing is know, simply due to its weakness. However, after stats and abilities are decided, we would then realize that, while a few of those Special Attackers can break through, most are just not strong enough, and can't be considered counters. However, we would also realize that any pyhsical attacker that doesn't really fear status could be a counter no matter what its typing is.

Basically, the idea is that while typing is an important, if not the most important, factor is determining counters, it is impossible to truly know what can be a counter without more info.

Yet, we don't want it to be made and then just see what counters it. We want it to have counters in mind during the process so that it does not overpower everything. That is why I believe that just before the movepool is the best place for a secondary discussion to go. Enough of the Pokemon will have been made to choose adequate counters but enough of it is left to be made that if it seems to be overpowering to its counters, it can still be limited by not giving it the moves to do so.

 

[Spork]

Just posting to say I 100% agree with Deck Knight.

 

[Deck Knight]

So here's my preliminary assessment before we close out the thread:

Adding a Threats Discussion After Typing:

After the CAP's Typing is decided, we develop a list of Pokemon that threaten the CAP using these parameters (credit DarkSlay):

Questions for Threat Discussion:

• Going specifically by typing, what Pokemon found in the OU (or relevant) metagame will be able to comfortably give this CAP project trouble?
• What Pokemon will be major threats to this project right off the bat? What Pokemon have the potential to become counters? What Pokemon may end up as threats, but must be contained or dealt with per the concept?
• Will the concept succeed with these set list of threats? Is this list of threats acceptable for the project?
• What Pokemon will be threatened by the CAP based off of typing? Are these Pokemon targets that we want CAP to hit? Will these targets be "unavoidable" to threaten based solely on the typing?
• What direction must the project go in now that a set list of basic threats has been identified? What must be done in order to make these threats "wanted counters" or these threats be eliminated from counter discussion? What Pokemon do we want this project to counter entirely?

Alterations to the Counters Discussion:

Counters Discussion will use the list developed in the Threats Discussion as a base, then reassess to finalize a Hard Counters List. The questions the discussion should answer are:

Questions for Counters Discussion:

• With now a combination of typing, ability, and stat pool, which previously defined threats are considered hard counters to the project? Basic counters? Checks?
• Are the Pokemon that are currently able to counter the project the Pokemon we want/need to counter the project? If not, what must be done to handle these Pokemon? Is it unavoidable?
• What Pokemon have arisen in discussions that were not brought up before? As in, are there Pokemon that counter/check this concept on concepts that are not focused around its typing? Where should they be placed in the discussion?
• Which Pokemon have been taken out of the counters discussion due to the stat pool and ability?
• Which Pokemon have moved from threats purely by typing to checks? To neutral match-ups?
• Which Pokemon are now countered by the project fully? Which are checked by the project? Which have become neutral match-ups against the project?
• With this set list of counters and checks, does this fulfill the concept's goal?

The end goal of the Counters discussion will be the basis for limiting Attacking Moves and non-Attacking Moves. A few Pokemon will be selected as Pokemon that should Hard Counter the CAP based on fulfilling three of six criteria:

Criteria for a Hard Counter (Requires 3/6):

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

Attacking Moves that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks under ordinary circumstances will not be allowed.

Non-Attacking Moves such as stat boosters or Taunt that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks will not be allowed.

Note: If it would take both an attacking and a non-attacking move to alter a Hard Counter, whichever discussion comes first will limit the second discussion.

For example if Dragon Dance + Close Combat would make a Hard Counter unable to do so, where neither Dragon Dance nor Close Combat alone would do so (e.g. Only +1 LO CC OHKOs, but the counter is ordinarily faster and can OHKO the CAP after taking a +0 LO Hit from Close Combat) then if Dragon Dance is selected first, Close Combat cannot be selected. If Close Combat is selected first, then Dragon Dance cannot be selected.

The list of criteria are up for discussion as far as clarity, relevance, etc. but in order to enforce Hard Counters we should come up with some number of characteristics that are applicable to them.

 

[tennisace]

At first I was thinking that Deck's criteria for hard countering were too limiting, but then I realized we can interpret them loosely in the end. Essentially, it boils down to not being 3hko'd by an stab move (or 2hko'd by a coverage move), and being able to either kill the CAP, permanently cripple the cap, or set up for the opponent. These are basically what we had been discussing in the counters section anyway, so it's good that we finally hashed out what the end product of the discussion should be.

 

[Aerodactyl Legend]

I like the criteria proposed. It gives us the discussion more of a purpose than thinking up of a list of counters we want. It is a secondary learning opportunity about counters in general and helps us further understand the CAPs.

Should there be a couple questions also written that could/should be answered by the time the CAP ends, like the Concept questions (not necessary really, just a thought)?