Denied Knock Off? Knock it off.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
This concept by Ignus was approved for discussion. Is this concept worth pursuing? If so, what questions could we ask? How could we improve this? Everyone is free to discuss the following submission as if this was a concept discussion.

---

Name:
Knock Off? Knock it off.

Description: A pokemon that not only successfully absorbs the move knock off from a variety of threats, but that uses the opportunity to steal that momentum from the opponent.

Justification: Knock Off. It's massive buff is one of the largest changes between gen 5 and gen 6 - it combined with the buffs to dark type's coverage created the monsters we fear known as bisharp, landorus-t, azumarill, and every other spammer of the damn move in the game. Fortunately, the same generation came with the introduction of mega-evolution: the only 'counter' to the otherwise unstoppable dark earthquake. Unfortunately, a team is limited to a single mega-evolution. But what if I want to use an offensive terror like Mega Latios or Mega Alakazam? Who's going to stop that stupid move now?
Enter CAP 20. The stage is set for the greatest knock off counter the world has ever seen. The best part? It doesn't take up your mega-slot. This introduces opportunities for some of the frailer Megas to get their chance in the limelight - theoretically opening up more teambuilding options in other slots as well.

Questions to be Answered:
  • How important is Knock Off in the Metagame as of now?
  • What benefit, if any, does an appearance of a "True Knock Off counter" contribute to the usage of Mega Evolutions weak to the move?
  • What effect, if any, does a Knock Off counter have on the users of the move?
  • What is the most effective way to handle the loss of an item? How does the lack of an item effect the choices you can make within a battle?
  • What strengths and weaknesses do the vast majority of knock off users share?
Explanation:
The concept itself is relatively straightforward. Knock off is dumb. I don't like dumb things. Lets make our opponent sad for using dumb things. Hopefully, if this concept is executed correctly, we may see what could be considered one of the defining traits of the metagame make a visible shift at an underlying level, effecting everything from usage to move distribution.
As I mentioned earlier, the biggest reason this concept is strong is because it opens up options for the mega slot. Without its existence, potentially every Mega Evolution that's weak to dark moves or too frail to take the hit could see a bump in their popularity. Knock off is one of the best distributed dark type VGMs in the game, but honestly lacks power after the first hit. If there was a reliable, strong, manly counter out there, it's usage could potentially drop quite a bit. Not only that, but Knock Off is an extremely unique, and relevant, mechanic within the game. Exploring how to handle it could honestly teach us a load about the strengths and weaknesses of the pokemon who currently spam it, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the move itself.
In addition, the flexible nature of the concept allows us to approach it from a variety of directions. Do we want to abuse abilities like justified or unburden, or just be able to consistently tank and punish the move with an ability like flame body? Does it make sense to try and make a pokemon on the bulkier end of the spectrum despite the lack of an item like leftovers? While dark resistance will obviously be a big part of typing, does it make sense to take a fairy or fighting type when pokemon like Bisharp or Azumarill have STAB Super Effective moves against those types?
Such questions lead to some damn good debates, and hopefully push out some solid discussion in the upcoming steps.
 

Ignus

Copying deli meat to hard drive
I originally posted this in the Submission thread, but I'm moving it over here because this is where it belongs, and I feel like these changes should still be discussed .
-----------------------

Cutting to the point, Right now my concept isn't in a very good place. It has some relatively obvious problems as things are - mostly within my justification relating to mega evolutions. Here's a big ass IRC log from relatively recently that mostly contains me and ginja arguing about my concept - It's worth the read if you don't understand the underlying problems with it so far. I bolded a TL;DR in it too, if you like that type of stuff.
IRC said:
01[21:23] <Ignus> ging
01[21:23] <Ignus> I don't agree with what you said to mine
[21:24] <%ginganinja> srry
[21:24] <%ginganinja> im thinking of other ways to counter knock off
[21:24] <%ginganinja> then "Sticky Hold"
01[21:24] <Ignus> sticky hold doesn't counter it, first of all
[21:24] <%ginganinja> o
01[21:24] <Ignus> because it doesn't counter the damage boost
[21:24] <FMD> Still gets the damage boost.
[21:25] <bane> just use no item acro mon that resists dark
[21:25] <bane> gg
[21:25] <%ginganinja> but you get to keep the item
01[21:25] <Ignus> and while things like justified exist
[21:25] <%ginganinja> so it stops
[21:25] <bane> or like
[21:25] <bane> weak armor
[21:25] <%ginganinja> im just saying its like
[21:25] <FMD> Unburden?
[21:25] <bane> !data weak armor
[21:25] <TIBot> Weak Armor: If a physical attack hits this Pokemon, Defense is lowered 1 and Speed is boosted 1.
[21:25] <%ginganinja> easy to get your concept
[21:25] <bane> wait..
[21:25] <bane> !data rattled
[21:25] <TIBot> Rattled: This Pokemon gets +1 Speed if hit by a Dark-, Bug-, or Ghost-type attack.
[21:25] <%ginganinja> dark resist mon
[21:25] <%ginganinja> done
[21:25] <bane> with rattled
[21:25] <%ginganinja> meh
[21:25] <Qwilphish> scared cap
01[21:25] <Ignus> But the types that resist dark
[21:25] <%ginganinja> like
[21:25] <bane> wait
[21:26] <%ginganinja> if you want a rattled mon
03[21:26] * Ununhexium (unun@hex.ium) has joined #cap
[21:26] <%ginganinja> it needs to sweep
[21:26] <%ginganinja> without Life orb
01[21:26] <Ignus> don't resist the STABS of the knock off users
[21:26] <bane> are we countering it or discouraging it
[21:26] <%ginganinja> which you would no longer have
[21:26] <%ginganinja> counter
[21:26] <%ginganinja> is what he said
[21:26] <%ginganinja> which means switch in and not care about it
[21:26] <Ununhexium> Ignus
[21:26] <Ununhexium> Fighting type
[21:26] <bane> dark resist mon that sweeps with acrobatics
[21:26] <Ununhexium> + justified
[21:26] <Ununhexium> + mach punch
[21:26] <%ginganinja> which almost no pokemon
01[21:26] <Ignus> azumarill yo
[21:26] <%ginganinja> really enjoys
[21:26] <Ununhexium> = profit
[21:26] <Ununhexium> Done
[21:26] <%ginganinja> because most pokemon really like having an item
[21:27] <Ununhexium> ^^^
[21:27] <Ununhexium> Except crobat
[21:27] <Ununhexium> Because then it counters beedrill
[21:27] <bane> maybe in your shitty metagame
03[21:27] * newbie|2 (~cyzir_vis@synIRC-E6379660.hawaii.res.rr.com) has joined #cap
[21:27] <%ginganinja> you would still use MegaEvos
[21:27] <%ginganinja> to block Knock Off
[21:27] <%ginganinja> because they dont lose the item
[21:27] <Ununhexium> ^^
[21:27] <%ginganinja> if you are running say, Mega latios, then you don't need to run a defensive mega
[21:28] <%ginganinja> because you are basically running HO
[21:28] <%ginganinja> or already have a counter to a Knock Off mon like Bisharp
[21:28] <Ununhexium> Hey guys just wondering
[21:28] <bane> or flame body mon
[21:28] <Qwilphish> the main problem i saw in your concept was the assumption that dark weak mevos arent used because they are weak to knock off
[21:28] <Ununhexium> Whenever yourr using a scarfer
[21:28] <Qwilphish> when knock off really has no influence on mevo usage
01[21:28] <Ignus> I realize that that's not the only reason
[21:28] <Ununhexium> Like
[21:28] <Ununhexium> Mega latios
02[21:28] * newbie (~cyzir_vis@synIRC-E6379660.hawaii.res.rr.com) Quit (Ping timeout: 181 seconds)
[21:28] <Ununhexium> Is just out classed
03[21:28] * v (vi@veri.veniversum.vivus.vici) has joined #cap
01[21:29] <Ignus> but I also don't think that knock off doesn't effect their usage
[21:29] <Ununhexium> By normal latios
01[21:29] <Ignus> not only that, but the fact that knock off users are exceptionally diverse
01[21:30] <Ignus> means we can't just dump rattle on a 4x resist and call it a day
[21:30] <Ununhexium> What are the common users
[21:30] <Ununhexium> Bisharp
01[21:30] <Ignus> Azu
01[21:30] <Ignus> landy
01[21:30] <Ignus> sizor
[21:30] <Ununhexium> Maybe crawdaunt and weavile
01[21:30] <Ignus> thundy
[21:30] <%ginganinja> are you looking
03[21:30] * newbie (~cyzir_vis@synIRC-E6379660.hawaii.res.rr.com) has joined #cap
[21:30] <%ginganinja> to counter all Knock Off users
[21:30] <%ginganinja> because thats something else entirely
01[21:31] <Ignus> Not particularly
[21:31] <%ginganinja> are you trying to counter the MOVE
[21:31] <%ginganinja> or the pokemon that USE IT
[21:31] <%ginganinja> there is a subtle difference
01[21:31] <Ignus> It's just that you can't separate the MOVE and the POKEMON that easily
[21:31] <%ginganinja> sure you can
01[21:31] <Ignus> is the point I'm trying make
01[21:31] <Ignus> Because if you do
[21:32] <v> we need to make apkmn who can reach 1,000,000 points
[21:32] <%ginganinja> Sticky Hold shuts down Knock Off
01[21:32] <Ignus> then you lost the context of the metagame
[21:32] <v> and unlock superstardom
[21:32] <%ginganinja> it gets the dmg point
[21:32] <%ginganinja> boost*
[21:32] <Ununhexium> Ginga
[21:32] <%ginganinja> but you have a quad resist or whatever to Knock Off
[21:32] <Ununhexium> Justified too
[21:32] <%ginganinja> to moot point
[21:32] <%ginganinja> do you lose your item
[21:32] <%ginganinja> with Justified?
01[21:32] <Ignus> yes
[21:32] <Ununhexium> Yeah
[21:32] <%ginganinja> k so just KNock Off
[21:32] <Ununhexium> But you get a nifty attack boost
[21:32] <%ginganinja> if you want to counter the POKEMON tho
[21:32] <%ginganinja> dark resist dont work
02[21:32] * newbie|2 (~cyzir_vis@synIRC-E6379660.hawaii.res.rr.com) Quit (Ping timeout)
[21:33] <%ginganinja> cos Azu can beat you or w.e
[21:33] <%ginganinja> so
[21:33] <%ginganinja> you need like, a defensive tank
[21:33] <%ginganinja> which means you don't want to use shit like Mega Latios
[21:33] <%ginganinja> which defeats the purpose
01[21:33] <Ignus> But the thing about a tank is that you lose the benefit of a defensive item
01[21:34] <Ignus> this is why it's a hard problem
[21:34] <%ginganinja> yea but you premise was
[21:34] <%ginganinja> "You can use a defensive mon and Mega Latios"
[21:34] <%ginganinja> but Mega Latios etc are like, HO mons
[21:34] <%ginganinja> well I guess you can try a balance team
[21:34] <Ununhexium> The real question
01[21:34] <Ignus> I should edit my premise then, I suppose
[21:34] <%ginganinja> but I could just use like, Mega Venu instead and like, normal Latios
[21:34] <Ununhexium> Is why youre using mega latios
[21:34] <%ginganinja> ye
[21:34] <%ginganinja> lol
[21:35] <%ginganinja> thats part of it as well
01[21:35] <Ignus> So what do you think I should change it to?
01[21:35] <Ignus> Help pls <3
[21:35] <%ginganinja> we will never be able to counter all Knock Off users in OU
01[21:35] <Ignus> Ok
[21:35] <%ginganinja> they are just 2 diverse
[21:35] <%ginganinja> in typing and movepool
01[21:35] <Ignus> So lets recap what we've said so far then
01[21:35] <Ignus> that's wrong with my concept
[21:36] <%ginganinja> ok
[21:36] <%ginganinja> #1 Your examples are bad
[21:36] <%ginganinja> because there are a ton of reasons why the dont get used
[21:36] <%ginganinja> and its not just "weak to Knock Off"

01[21:36] <Ignus> alright
01[21:36] <Ignus> next
[21:36] <%ginganinja> #2 Lacks distinction as to if its wanting to counter Knock Off users, or the move: Knock Off
01[21:37] <Ignus> Ok
[21:37] <%ginganinja> the latter is easy
[21:37] <%ginganinja> the form is like, almost impossible
[21:37] <%ginganinja> former*
01[21:37] <Ignus> so make that distinction?
[21:37] <%ginganinja> I think those are the primary issues
01[21:37] <Ignus> If it chose the move specifically
01[21:38] <Ignus> don't you think that might narrow it down too much?
01[21:38] <Ignus> or is that
[21:38] <%ginganinja> If it chose the move specifically, you just pick Sticky Hold and a dark resist typing
[21:38] <%ginganinja> -done
02[21:38] * v (vi@veri.veniversum.vivus.vici) Quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPod touch - http://colloquy.mobi)
03[21:38] * newbie|2 (~cyzir_vis@synIRC-E6379660.hawaii.res.rr.com) has joined #cap
[21:38] <%ginganinja> if you choose the users
01[21:38] <Ignus> What I'm trying to figure out is if theres a way to still have the idea of users within it
[21:39] <%ginganinja> then you need to counter Azu, Bisharp, Lando, Thundurus
01[21:39] <Ignus> without it being too broad
[21:39] <%ginganinja> umm, a ton else
[21:39] <%ginganinja> Conk?
01[21:39] <Ignus> aye conk
[21:39] <%ginganinja> and
[21:39] <%ginganinja> these are just the OU mons
[21:39] <%ginganinja> lol
[21:39] <%ginganinja> its not like you can cut the list down
[21:39] <%ginganinja> much further
01[21:39] <Ignus> So maybe the first thing to do is to try to figure out what most OU knock off users share
[21:40] <%ginganinja> a Dark typed move with what
[21:40] <%ginganinja> 80 base dmg
[21:40] <%ginganinja> idr what it is
01[21:40] <Ignus> 97
[21:40] <%ginganinja> ok 97
01[21:40] <Ignus> well
[21:40] <%ginganinja> um
01[21:40] <Ignus> for the most part
[21:40] <%ginganinja> most of them are physically based
[21:40] <%ginganinja> wait nvm
01[21:40] <Ignus> they're physical
01[21:40] <Ignus> lol
01[21:40] <Ignus> except not
[21:40] <%ginganinja> Thundurus, Lando
01[21:40] <Ignus> ye
[21:40] <%ginganinja> gg
01[21:40] <Ignus> fuck dude
01[21:40] <Ignus> this is hard
01[21:40] <Ignus> fuck this concept
02[21:41] * Ununhexium (unun@hex.ium) Quit (Client exited)
[21:41] <%ginganinja> ye
That said, this concept may be worth refining in to something better - either with the same general premise (exploration of knock off and knock off users) or with an entirely different premise that explores the same topic. Here's what I'm thinking about changing to the concept to make it stronger as a concept as a whole.

  • Scrap Mega-Evolution Justification as the main point of exploration within the concept.
This should be relatively obvious as a good starting point. Honestly, the biggest issue with the concept as of now is that it assumes that knock off almost single-handedly reduces the usage of mega evolutions that are weak to it, like MegaZam and Mega Latios. This, however, is just not true. Mega Alakazam, especially, has issues that prevent true viability within the metagame even without knock off existing. While Knock Off sure doesn't help their viability, its over-presumptuous to assume that a single counter to the move would make a meaningful impact upon their usage, when either better choices exist or the mega evolution mentioned doesn't fill a niche that's particularly needed on the majority of teams.
  • Rather then have Knock Off be the focus of the project, shift the focus to entirely being about creating a Pokemon that shines brightest (or equally bright) without an item.
Honestly, I should've made this the premise in the first place. Items are kind of extremely, extremely good. The lack of an item is a pretty big deal for offensive and defensive pokemon alike - and is something that hasn't been particularly explored outside of the occasional acrobatics spam Talonflame - and with the lack of gem items this generation, is almost never seen within the current metagame.


Alright, that's all I've got for now, I suppose. I'd love to hear some feedback on these changes so that I can get an idea of what this might screw up. It should be noted that I actually am quite worried that we'd just end up with an unburden acrobatics CAP if we focused on lack of items - So the original concept may be better.
 
Honestly, the best place to start with your concept would probably be to brainstorm all of the possible ways to benefit from 1) Lack of item (Unburden, Magician, Acrobatics, etc.) and 2, Knock Off (Unburden, Justified, Rattled). Those are just the ones I can list off the top of my head, and based on that short list, I personally don't think the topic would be very fun to explore. Moreover, even if there is some other interesting and obscure way to benefit from lack of item or Knock Off, its probably so specific that it would pretty much be selected in Concept Assessment, and then there would be no real meaningful discussion after that. But who knows. I would start by looking at all of the options to achieve either concept you mentioned and then see if there's enough there to actually make a project out of it.
 
I think the concept is very relevant for the meta right now as Knock Off is one of the most spammable moves probably second only to Scald. And with the changes to ORAS new pokemon have received the move and things like BellyJet Azu with knock off has become legal. Knock Off is capable of generating momentum for the user, as the opponent has to choose which pokemon can afford to lose their item, potentially forcing them to switch to something undesirable.
Beside activating justified boost for Terrakion and I personally haven't seen much of him on the ladder recently, and I've seen even less of Cobalion, there is no real drawback to clicking Knock Off.

I agree with the latter half of your statement:

Rather then have Knock Off be the focus of the project, shift the focus to entirely being about creating a Pokemon that shines brightest (or equally bright) without an item.
This is certainly a good way to approach this concept from, but I still think "countering" Knock Off is an integral part of it.

Having a pokemon that is equally good with an item as it is without would be interesting. Just this, depending on how different the itemless set plays from the other, could actually cause players to reconsider just clicking Knock Off if it means an itemless set would be harder for their team to play around.
Personally I feel Unburden+Acrobatics is the lazy way of doing this concept, we would learn as much from this as we would from using Hawlucha on the ladder.

Moulding the two concepts is the way to go imo. Make a Pokemon that is not crippled by being hit with Knock Off, but instead turns it to their advantage.
 
Can't we just use Sticky Hold on a physically bulky Pokémon, preferrably Fighting or Fairy type? If its able to take out common users of Knock Off, it already takes momentum from the enemy.
 
The problem with that is it still does nothing to discourage Knock Off use, all it does is safeguard the Pokemon's own item.

For this Pokemon to be the closest thing to a universal Knock Off counter that would also mean it would have to match up well against the majority of common Knock Off users not just resisting that move.

OU viable users of Knock Off that almost always carry it:
Azumarill
Bisharp
Conkeldurr
Crawdaunt
Gallade (Mega)
Landorus
Mew
Sableye (Mega)
Scizor
Tentacruel
Thundurus
Weavile

Some of those are more commonly seen than others, but usually always carry Knock Off. And then there's a few mons who have more niche sets with it on, like Serperior, Gliscor, Mandibuzz and so on.

As you can see this is a fair number of Pokemon that this CAP would have to contend with. So to realistically fulfill this concept will require discussion in all stages of the project in my opinion, not just limited to typing and ability.
 
Last edited:
I believe someone already said (i think on IRC) that Sticky Hold doesn't negate the boost Knock Off gets (also, on PS, you get this for !dt Knock Off: "1.5x damage if foe holds an item. Removes item.")

Having a Pokemon which discourages Knock Off usage through being the universal Knock Off counter is going to be a difficult act to balance. To be able to check or counter the Pokemon which Toebag listed is going to require good bulk; Mega Gallade, Crawdaunt, Azumarril, Bisharp, Conkeldurr, (Mega) Scizor and Weavile all have powerful Attack stats, while Tentacruel, Mega Sableye, Thundurus and Serperior have similarly strong SpA. In addition, a universal Knock Off counter would have to deal with status from the likes of Mew, Sableye (and Mega), Thundurus, Gliscor and Mandibuzz, including Will-O-Wisp, Thunder Wave and Toxic, as well as priority from the likes of Azumarril, Bisharp, Weavile and Crawdaunt. Add in coverage moves and the variety of different things they can attack you with is overwhelming.

A universal Knock Off counter becomes useless if Knock Off users can 2KO it on the switch or cripple it with status, but stopping things like Banded Scizor and Belly Drum Azumarril or boosted Serperior or Thundurus on top of being able to take Will-O-Wisp, Thunder Wave and Toxic is nearly impossible to do without wandering into the realm of being unbalanced. The sheer amount of power and variation of common Knock Off users is too much.
 
I'm reading these posts and I find that I'm having a problem with the fact that this CAP should be a universal Knock Off counter.
Given the variety of the adversaries we want to take, I think it's nearly impossible to make a single Pokémon that can counter Knock Off users without being overpowered.
What I think we should do is think of non-Megas in OU that can handle Knock Off without much consequence.
From there, we should mold our CAP into something that works well with these existing KnockOff-tolerant mons.

In my experience, I've punished Knock Off users with Rocky Helmet Ferrothorn. While the opponent does remove Ferro's secondary means of passive damage, it still takes Rocky Helmet and Iron Barbs damage.
If I predict right, I can still dish out a powerful Gyro Ball, or cripple the user's speed with TWave.
Now I'm not saying we should make a viable version of my (rather gimmicky) Ferrothorn set, but I think that if we look for Pokémon that take less consequences from Knock Off, we can try to grasp at an idea for how the CAP should be framed.

Toebag encouraged we discuss topics outside of potential Typings and Abilities.
We should try to discourage Knock Off's use by having CAP be paired up/in a core with KO-tolerant contenders.
 
I'm reading these posts and I find that I'm having a problem with the fact that this CAP should be a universal Knock Off counter.
Given the variety of the adversaries we want to take, I think it's nearly impossible to make a single Pokémon that can counter Knock Off users without being overpowered.
This is basically what I was getting at in my earlier post.

Ignoring the bit about Rocky Helmet Ferro (I prefer lefties anyway), we're basically going to end up with a Pokemon which resists dark and doesn't mind losing their item. In addition, I'd be very careful about having a CAP in a core, considering the last few that tried to do that.
 

Ignus

Copying deli meat to hard drive
Honestly, Despite this being my concept, I've got to agree with most of what has been said against this concept to far. While there are quite a few ways to go about this project, it becomes obvious that once we start down the path of interpretation for the concept being about the move knock off, it becomes extremely hard to not have the conversation narrow itself to "Resist dark acrobatics mon" or "Unburden counter sweeper" or even "weak to dark weakness policy wall breaker". It's the same problem that my first proposed change had, too. Focusing on lack of items may be doomed to the same failure.
The other interpretation, having the project focus on knock off users, is equally nonviable as a project due to the fact that knock off is a super-distributed move, existing on and used by a large range of pokemon spanning from Conkeldurr to Thundurus. This means that if we chose users as the main front of the project, 1.) CAP may end up not actually accomplishing it's goal, or 2.)Become super duper broken.
Both of these interpretations are relatively doomed to fail just due to the fact that we're trying to turn something considered BAD (losing your item) into something good. We ran in to a similar problem last project with the concept based around fainting. It quickly became clear that fainting is pretty terrible no matter what situation you're in, and the concept had to resort to relying on another pokemon to be scary enough to discourage the opponent from fainting Plasmanta. I think the fact that we're already resorting to the same thing in this concept thread is a huge red flag telling us to not go forward. I honestly believe that focusing on Knock Off as a concept is a bad direction to push off a project in and would rather see this concept moved in a different direction. What direction? Not sure yet, but I feel like the premise (exploring items and their interaction with pokemon) is still work looking at.
 
Last edited:

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I would just like to echo a lot of what has been said already as far as the limitedness of this concept. Countering a single move with the utility of Knock Off pretty much means one of two things: either that you don't take much from the move and benefit from losing your item, or that you don't take much from the move and can't lose your item. Furthermore, as has been said, you can't really counter a move by itself. You have to counter Pokemon. Even if you can tank Knock Off, if you can't beat the Pokemon that use it, that doesn't mean much, and the fact is, there is a massive variety of Pokemon that use it. Dealing with the all is frankly impossible.

While the Knock Off changes are one of the biggest new mechanics this generation, I don't really think there is much of a way to explore the move, at least from the point of view of countering it, that isn't incredibly predictable.
 

Empress

Warning: may contain traces of nuts
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Despite what's been said about this concept, I actually find it to be doable. There are many ways to go about this, as various users have said, from Acrobatics, to Unburden, to Justified. I interpreted this concept as to being the ultimate answer to the move Knock Off, as opposed to users of it. While this Pokemon may still lose to other moves that common Knock Off users carry, if the Pokemon's presence on the battlefield makes Knock Off the worst option for the opponent, then we've succeeded in fulfilling this concept.

The issue that I do see is that once we pick a direction, the discussions may turn fairly obvious. That is to say, we'll already have a very good idea on what we're going to do for abilities, typing, etc. On the flip side, if the community has a specific goal in mind for the CAP, then as long as we stay along our proposed path, the process will run smoothly, and we'll end up with a product that we can be proud of. Well, provided that the concept itself isn't completely nebulous, like the ones for Plasmanta and Volkraken.

To sum it up, this appears to be an easy enough concept to pull off, and I don't think that having a goal in mind before the process begins is necessarily a bad thing.

We should try to discourage Knock Off's use by having CAP be paired up/in a core with KO-tolerant contenders.
I swear to god if we take on one more concept that involves a core...
 
Despite what's been said about this concept, I actually find it to be doable. There are many ways to go about this, as various users have said, from Acrobatics, to Unburden, to Justified. I interpreted this concept as to being the ultimate answer to the move Knock Off, as opposed to users of it. While this Pokemon may still lose to other moves that common Knock Off users carry, if the Pokemon's presence on the battlefield makes Knock Off the worst option for the opponent, then we've succeeded in fulfilling this concept.
I'm afraid I disagree with this. The CAP will get KO'd by moves outside of Knock Off, leaving the Knock Off user to carry on Knock Offing, meaning the CAP will have had little effect other than to prolong the Knock Off.

The issue that I do see is that once we pick a direction, the discussions may turn fairly obvious. That is to say, we'll already have a very good idea on what we're going to do for abilities, typing, etc. On the flip side, if the community has a specific goal in mind for the CAP, then as long as we stay along our proposed path, the process will run smoothly, and we'll end up with a product that we can be proud of. Well, provided that the concept itself isn't completely nebulous, like the ones for Plasmanta and Volkraken.
From what I understand, the discussion is the most important part of the entire process, so limiting it is a big no-no. Whether the product is good or not is of a lower priority than the discussion, so a concept which limits discussion, whether or not it has a good end product, is considered to be less useful.
 

Empress

Warning: may contain traces of nuts
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I'm afraid I disagree with this. The CAP will get KO'd by moves outside of Knock Off, leaving the Knock Off user to carry on Knock Offing, meaning the CAP will have had little effect other than to prolong the Knock Off.



From what I understand, the discussion is the most important part of the entire process, so limiting it is a big no-no. Whether the product is good or not is of a lower priority than the discussion, so a concept which limits discussion, whether or not it has a good end product, is considered to be less useful.
I do understand this, but it can absorb a Knock Off on the switch, and possibly use its Unburden or Justified to turn it against the opponent. It may lose to other things outside of Knock Off, but if the Pokemon can discourage a player from clicking the move Knock Off, however it may be, then it's doing the job correctly.

Second, though I do agree that discussion > end product, the fact is that we've had some decent discussion over the past 2 CAPs (moreso for Volkraken than Plasmanta), but two relatively disappointing end products. Limiting discussion is bad on paper, but, as we saw with Plasmanta at times, nebulous discussion can go all over the place, thereby derailing the thread. If we know what the plan is from the get-go, discussion in all areas will go much more smoothly.
 
Discontinuing the discussion of this CAP having any synergy with anything, I'll focus on what wh0sy0urpapa said.

it can absorb a Knock Off on the switch, and possibly use its Unburden or Justified to turn it against the opponent. It may lose to other things outside of Knock Off, but if the Pokemon can discourage a player from clicking the move Knock Off, however it may be, then it's doing the job correctly.
Assuming we're focusing on 1v1 match-ups, we should integrate discussion on the abilities that Knock Off is a benefactor to, and the list of viable Knock Off users.

Which ability would punish/threaten the Knock Off users the most?
Considering we don't want the CAP to take on all Knock Off users and become an overpowering force, which of those users should we aim to threaten with CAP's presence?
 

ginganinja

It's all coming back to me now
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I do understand this, but it can absorb a Knock Off on the switch, and possibly use its Unburden or Justified to turn it against the opponent. It may lose to other things outside of Knock Off, but if the Pokemon can discourage a player from clicking the move Knock Off, however it may be, then it's doing the job correctly.
Except this isn't actually discouraging Knock Off. If you have 6 pokemon on your team, and one of them is "CAP KNOCK OFF HATER", then I'll quite happily click Knock Off knowing that I have a 6/6 shot at taking away an item as you switch in, and even if you bring in say, an unburden mon, or a justified mon, I can safely go to my counter / revenge killer, force you out, and then happily spam Knock Off again. This is even without considering that my Knock Off user might have a positive matchup against this CAP anyway, for as its already been pointed out, Knock Off users are rather varied.
 

nyttyn

From Now On, We'll...
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I think we can all agree this concept's pretty much unviable. Ginganinigga's post basically says all we need to know.

Declined 1/2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top