I do appreciate what is being said here. This is coming from some who can both see, and has even conceded how this point
could be seen as valid. But I still think this line of reasoning is very short sighted and misguided. I do not agree with it at all.
I'll try and demonstrate my point further, again by quoting
LucarioOfLegends, who I feel put it rather well despite, ironically, intending to speaking AGAINST
Analytic/Stakeout.
It was being pointed out that the 'pseudo trapping' abilities of Stakeout/Analytic, make the need or use of Trapping Moves, redundant. When in actually I think that is completely false. They make the prospect of a Trapping Moves a much realer danger. It's the synergy between the two that I feel make the threat of the Trapping move far more compelling. I also think many people as are VASTLY OVERESTIMATING the impact and effective of Stakeout/Analytic in isolation.
The claim is that Stakeout/Analytic are 'pseudo trapping' abilities, therefore 'anti-concept'. But let's assess for a moment what they ACTUALLY DO, and in comparison to other suggested abilities in this thread.
Stakeout/Analytic raise the Attack of the user. For one turn. Only under specific conditions (on a switch-in). A condition that is, in fact, dictated by the OPPONENT, and not the user at all. Their Attack boost is, limited, time dependent(very), circumstantial, controllable and predictable.
Where as there are other suggested Abilities such as
Adaptability/Tough Claws/Strong Jaw, which all raise the users Attack INDEFINITELY for the
entire duration of the match. And none share many, if any, of the drawbacks of Stakeout/Analytic.
I want to make it clear that I don't actually have any issue with the above mention abilities for this concept. In fact I'm rather in support of them for varies reasons that they do help progress the CAP's mission statement. But I bring them up to compare in stark contrast to Stakeout/Analytic. And I pose the question that, if we follow the logic that this thread has largely adopted about Stakeout/Analytic, would the above three Abilities not also be 'anti-concept' (in not greater so) posed solely on what they actually DO??? Rather than the ill conceived notion of what they 'are' ('pseudo trapping' abilities)?
My fear right now is that
Stakeout/Analytic have been unjustifiably labeled as 'anti-concept' base on a false pretense, and there for are simply being
dismissed without further thought. Which means they are not even being given the proper chance to have their viability and merits discussed or explored at all.
Edit:
In fairness, I don't really think much of this is reasonable way to invalidate Analytic/Stakeout either.
Other abilities are toted for their aim to target specific Pokemon we want to check/counter (which I also agree is a worth while endeavor) but is by their own definition also very limiting. It's also inferred that Analytic/Stakeout will not manage any of these specific targets, where as moments later it is explained how they might actually hit too hard and deal with too much?!? I see a lack of consistency here.
There are a lot of assumption being made here about 'how hard we will potentially hit' and 'how fast we will be' compared to out checks/counter list. Also how does, 'just run Band and be capable of deleting Pokemon', not also equally ably to other Attack Up Abilities??
We still have an an entire Stats, and Movepool process to go through in which we will far more closely define what and how we want to check specific threats, based on any Abilities we choose. This will go a long way to mitigating any concerns we have about any of that at this point. We have a clever, sensible and experienced community here, who know how to build a balanced CAPMon.