Denied Anywhere Goes

Not open for further replies.


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 Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
This concept by Ununhexium 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: Anywhere Goes

General Description: A Pokemon that can find a teamslot (and be used well) on multiple team archetypes.

Justification: A lot of Pokemon only do one job really well or only fit on one or two archetypes of team. A good example of this is Bisharp. While it is a very good Pokemon, would you ever use it on a less offensively inclined team? (The correct answer is no). Another good example is Chansey; while it is very good on stall and defensive teams, it has no use on offensive teams because its such a big momentum suck. That said, a good example of what I'm trying to describe is Crobat in UU. It only really has two sets (support and Choice Band), but because of its unique stats, typing, and movepool, it can easily find a spot on all sorts of teams, ranging from hyper offense to defensive builds looking for a check to Beedrill, Fighting- and Grass-types, and can control hazards all in one go.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • Is a Pokemon capable of fitting on many archetypes even possible in this meta
  • What characteristics make a Pokemon valuable to multiple team archetypes
  • How can it deal with threats to multiple team archetypes without compromising the ability to fit on some
  • As it would fit on multiple team archetypes, would it mean it can function well against many teams as well
Explanation: I think I've covered most of what I wanted to say, but could a Pokemon be used in OU on an against many playstyles.
I really liked this concept, so I figured I would submit a simulation for it:

Concept Assessment:
1) A bulky Pokemon that can be a wall for stall or a hazard lead for offense
2) A sweeper that fits easily on offense, but can also fit on balanced or stall because its typing and ability allow it to check/counter a couple very common threats with a more defensive EV investment.
3) A Pokemon that can fit on Bulky offense/balanced teams with a healing move in its arsenal, or can fit on HO with a boosting move (built so it can't reasonably do both without losing important coverage)
4) A Pokemon bulky enough to function as a wall, but with enough power to function as an offensive threat with the right EVs and item (think Sylveon).

Assume 2 was chosen because it leaves a lot of options open in fitting both archetypes instead of being pidgeon-holed for one or the other.

1) Grass/Fighting: Has resistances to all of the common moves on Landorus-T and Rotom-W as well as good support/defensive moves. Offensively, has access to powerful STABs, as well as the possibility of set up moves and/or STAB priority.
2) Steel/Ghost: Filling in where Aegislash left off, this typing allows the CAP to go on the offensive with the great offensive ghost typing, while still fitting on stall by checking many common wallbreakers (Metagross, Heracross, Gardevoir, Gallade, Latios, etc.).
3) Ice/Electric: The offensive potential of STAB BoltBeam goes without saying, while on the other hand resisting BoltBeam itself can potentially provide a switch in to some common Volt Switchers and offensive Electric Types.

Assume 3 was chosen, because even though 1 and 2 probably fulfill the concept better, people like new and unique typings (and outside of Rotom-F, 3 is unique). Additionally, the fact that Playtests are always centered around the CAP means that the CAP's Ice/Electric typing resisting itself defensively might make sure both sets are popular.

1) Levitate (Because Levitate is always suggested when the mon has a Ground Weakness)
2) Magic Guard (Because Magic Guard is always suggested when the mon has a Stealth Rock Weakness).
3) Water Absorb: This would allow the Pokemon to handle Rotom-W better, as well as check Keldeo, Azumarill, and other powerful water types for Balanced/Stall teams.
4) Intimidate: This could patch up the Pokemon's sub-par bulk and allow it to setup to sweep for offensive teams as well as enhance it's physical bulk for defensive ones.
5) Prankster: Depending on the support options in this mon's movepool, Prankster could potentially give it the "Thundurus effect" for offensive teams, as well as allow the mon to serve as an emergency check or situational stop for balanced teams.

Assume 4 was chosen because Intimidate actually brings a lot to the table for both offensive and defensive sides, which should be the ideal for the current concept.

1) Speed>111, SPa of about 125, Bulk of about 105-80-70. This mon can sweep for offenisve teams thanks to its high speed (beating Thundy and all of the 110s) as well as switch in on a couple neutral hits thanks to Intimidate and its good natural bulk. It also has enough physical defense to go the Wall/Parashuffler route with the right investment.
2) Speed in the 70-90 range, Atk of 130, Bulk of 125-80-60. This mon can function as a bulky sweeper and/or wall breaker. Leaning towards Attack also allows it to make use some fun moves that aren't typically seen on Electric Pokemon. This mon also has ample defense to function as a physical wall with the right tools.
3) Speed<50, SPa of about 135, Bulk of about 125-80-60. This mon can function as a bulky pivot and actually allow offensive teams to have a switch in for weaker physical attackers. As with the previous spread, the mon also has ample defense to be a wall when boosted by Intimidate, but can now use a very good Volt Switch to punish switching around to a Pokemon that isn't intimidated.

Assume 2 is chosen because it will result in underrepresented moves, and people typically like those.

Icicle Crash and Wild Charge will be Required because the mon needs some solid STABs
Recover and its clones will be allowed because it won't break offensive versions of this CAP, while still giving the defensive versions a very important tool.
Volt Tackle will be controversial because it might represent "too much power" when combined with an Adamant Nature.
Ice Shard will be controversial because it might allow this mon to bypass its speed tier, though it would also give this mon some easy offensive presence against dragons for defensive teams.
Attack Boosting moves will be controversial because they might make this mon so good that only the offensive set is worth using and the defensive set can no longer check the most powerful BoltBeam user (Ironically, itself).
Ground/Fighting/Fire Coverage will be controversial because while they are excellent for the offensive coverage of this CAP, they also run the exact same problem mentioned above.
Thunder Wave will be controversial because it doesn't do much for offensive teams but would make the defensive sets much better.
Phasing moves will be controversial for the same reasons as above. Additionally, combining TWave, Phasing, and reliable recovery may make the defensive set eclipse the offensive, since the ParaShuffling support will be so solid.

Hope this is what people had in mind for the simulations (it's kinda hard to submit one when there are no examples to go off of) but hopefully it highlights some of the options (good and bad) that would be available for this concept.
This sounds an awful lot like Krilowatt's concept, which was to counter any top threat in the meta, but not all at once. I noticed that having high speed and HP with medium-low stats everywhere else is the best way of giving a Pokémon a lot of versatility, since it can run both offensive and defensive EV spreads well, but is never strong in both roles. Just stay away from Sheer Force and Magic Guard, as these two abilities make a mon a ridiculous powerhouse with Life Orb.


I closed my eyes and I slipped away...
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I imagined this concept as a type of supporter that can use varying moves to fit onto different team archetypes. Like in my example, Crobat could use Taunt to keep entry hazards on the opponent's side of the field or Defog to clear them away for the teams, Taunt being more valuable for offensive teams while Defog being valuable for slower / bulkier teams. I actually didn't think of Landorus-T when coming up with this, but it is a good example of a Pokemon that finds use on teams as a Choice Scarf user that can check many threats or a bulkier pivot. One of the most common things I see on Pokemon like these is their access to U-turn (or Volt Switch but I like U-turn more) which allows them to provide support beyond checking threats / controlling entry hazards etc. by allowing it to give a teammate a positive matchup.
really I think this mon should have 3 or four set goals that pretty much something that good team would need.This needs some debate but like mphallor said, we should have...

1) bulk so that it can be a wall and has the ability to provide hazard lead for offense
2) sweeping potential so that it fits easily on offense
3) and the ability to heal and/or remove hazards for utility

having an a stat over 120 is to encouraging for that specific stat imo, especially if the Bst of this mon is going to stay in the 500's this cap would have have similar stats to arcanine but have a very wide and diverse movepool to support the varying roles. Remember the job with this concept is to make a pokemon that works everything, we have to be careful it doesn't become a more powerful tomohawk that can do everything.


used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
This concept concerns me in that it is, in my opinion, far too broad to lead to a successful project. What exactly constitutes a playstyle with regard to this concept? Is it enough to be on varied types of offensive teams, or is it only a success if Stall is using it as well? Beyond that, this concept really lacks much guidance. There is no real goal other than "function on multiple team types." I worry that this would cause discussions to stagnate as each person tries arguing for things that help it fit in their preferred playstyles. After all, so long as they are trying to make it work in a playstyle, then, as worded, there is nothing really wrong with that.

While I'm not sure that even with adjustment you could really get this to be focused enough, I do think that a good way to change this up to improve it would be to specify playstyles and limit the number of sets, like the Crobat example said. It is one thing to fit on multiple team styles, but it is something completely different to do what Crobat does and fit on to multiple styles using the exact same sets. By forcing us to make sure the sets themselves fit in multiple places, and not just the Pokemon, it would give the discussions more focus.

With that said, my other main concern is simply that I do not really think this is necessarily as rare as the concept seems to suggest. Ununhexium mentioned Landorus-T as an example of a Pokemon that, with only a couple sets, fits on all sorts of teams (and is the most used mon in the game because of it). There are other examples too, but many of them are not as common as Landorus-T. That doesn't mean they don't exist though, just that you need to be really good at what you do for a Pokemon to function on all sorts of teams regularly.


From Now On, We'll...
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
Pretty much seconding everything Jas is saying. Way too vague, mons already exist that can do this and are hardly unseen (hello Landorus-t this gen, hello Jirachi last gen).

I also don't think we're capable of making a pokemon who's capable of being good on every team without being too powerful. CAP has historically had a problem with vision in the middle of a project, and this would more or less require a very, very strict hold on vision to reach the razor's edge between falling short of being good on every team archetype, and being way too good period that I think is perhaps beyond our process.
I was lurking for a bit, and playing a bit, and I found there are very few pokemon who can fit and be effective on many team types, but creating one would be difficult. I also was thinking of this, However, its variability in both use and creation may be a liability. I also agree with the above two comments saying it may be too powerful, and I think it could become almost a requirement on every team.
I'm not really on board with this idea. I think my biggest concern with this concept is that if a Pokemon is expected to fit into a wide range of ideals, then it's going to have one that is just better than the others anyways. If we have a Pokemon that is supposed to fit on stall, hyperoffense, and balance, it's no doubt going to fit one of these roles a lot better than the other. I feel that this concept is attempting to handle too much in just one slot. You wouldn't use a Mega Metagross on stall because it's strictly better in balance; the same applies here. You wouldn't use x on y because it's better on z. There aren't really any Pokemon besides the base 100 pixies that are able to fit on many team styles very well, and it's quite uncommon. Creating a new one seems very difficult and could come out more catered to fit a certain criteria than to actually create something worthwhile. As Jas has stated, this idea is also just too broad. There needs to be a more narrowed down way for us to create something well, and this leaves too many holes in the idea. The Pokemon could either potentially be really bad because it's trying to master so many things at once, or it could be really broken because it is able to master all things at once.


Banned deucer.
Or it could be Jirachi which can basically do it all (moreso down in UU but meh), victini can pull it off to an extent too


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

Yea, largely for the same reasons as above. I kinda like the idea of the concept, but its just so broad that I don't think that its workable in its current form.
Not open for further replies.

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