Approved Sticky Web Support

[nyttyn]

The move, the myth, the legend. Ever since Sticky Web was discovered, people have been been brainstorming and dreaming up ways to use the move (doubly so since there is only one remotely OU viable setter, Shuckle). This concept, which has popped up multiple times in the past and has been submitted this time by DetroitLolcat aims to explore this move. The question is: is Sticky Web sticky enough to hold together a CAP project in its web? If so, what questions should we ask? Is there any way we could or should improve this concept? Or should we just defog it off the field?

Everyone is free to discuss the submission as if this were a concept discussion.

---

Name: Sticky Web Support

General Description: A Pokemon that uses the move Sticky Web to support its team.

Justification: Sticky Web is considered one of the best moves in the game of Pokemon, but is not relevant in high-level OU play. This is because there is not a single OU-viable Pokemon that learns Sticky Web. As we've seen in the lower tiers (e.g. RU when Shuckle was allowed) and in certain Other Metagames (e.g. CAP metagame with Necturna), a viable Sticky Web user can completely reshape the metagame or at the very least introduce an entirely new style of offensive play. Furthermore, we don't really know what it takes to make a Sticky Web user viable in OU, so this concept will demonstrate what it takes for Sticky Web to be able to "redeem" a Pokemon; all we know about Sticky Web right now is that it's not great enough to redeem the likes of Galvantula and Shuckle. It goes without saying that this concept introduces a new niche in the metagame; in fact, I don't think there's another move in OU other than Sketch that can influence a metagame more than Sticky Web.

Questions To Be Answered:
1. Can Sticky Web fit into the OU metagame without either dominating it or fading into obscurity?
2. What else does a Pokemon need to have to be a viable Sticky Web supporter?
3. What Pokemon perform best while aided by Sticky Web, and what Pokemon become less viable because of Sticky Web's presence?
4. Can non-Sticky Web offense still exist in a metagame where Sticky Web is a viable strategy?

Explanation: Any OU player knows that Sticky Web is one of the best moves in the game, but its lack of distribution has made it the biggest question mark in OU right now. This concept intends to explore the move Sticky Web by making it a viable playstyle in OU. Given we know about CAP playtests, we'll definitely get a firsthand look at an OU with viable Sticky Web. Even if we fail to balance the Pokemon, we'll learn what makes a Sticky Web user broken or underpowered in OU.

This concept is difficult to fail; no matter how we go about this concept we will learn something about the move Sticky Web and how it fits into OU. It will hopefully make OU a more diverse metagame, and, most importantly, it's focused. There is no ambiguity to this concept, yet there are countless ways to accomplish it. One of the most significant reasons Concepts were overhauled over the last PR period is because selected Concepts were broad and difficult to define, or because they locked us into one specific typing/ability/stat spread/movepool early on in the process. This Concept avoids both of those pitfalls while nearly guaranteeing that we learn something significant about the metagame.

 

[NumberCruncher]

I thought everybody already knew what effect Sticky Web had on OU. It sticks around on the field so that the opposing Bisharp can sweep your entire team.

 

[DetroitLolcat]

Well, I submitted this concept this round so I'm pretty obligated to support it. I like this concept because Sticky Web is the biggest question mark in OU at the moment. We've seen its effects in the lower tiers; Shuckle broke RU in half because of its ability to set the hazard up so easily. However, there just isn't a viable Pokemon in the OU metagame with the move. Galvantula was originally touted as the face of Sticky Web offense, but now it's barely clinging to a spot in UU. Shuckle will likely live in the limbo that is BL2. This is because those Pokemon are just bad, not because Sticky Web is bad. If we can create a Pokemon that can make Sticky Web offense a viable playstyle in OU, we will learn a tremendous amount about the metagame.

It's true that opposing Bisharp, because of Defiant, would like Sticky Web on its side of the field. However, Bisharp by itself does not make Sticky Web unviable in OU. There are ways to beat a +2 Bisharp, such as a typing that resists Dark and/or Steel, Fighting priority in Mach Punch and substitute-breaking moves like Pin Missile, Unaware, etc. CAP20 could potentially serve as both the Bisharp counter and the Sticky Web user on a team. Just because CAP20 will be built for offensive teams doesn't mean it has to be an offensive Pokemon; in fact I believe CAP20 would work better as a bulky supporter so teammates like Metagross or Manaphy can sweep without fearing opposing revenge killers (that don't use priority).

 

[Burt Racecar]

I'm pleased this concept has been approved.

Bisharp is a massive issue when running Sticky Web, but Bisharp is also a problem with running defog (not quite as potent a problem but still). As DLC pointed out, the lack of representation of Sticky Web in OU is also down to the setters themselves, it's pretty much a liability to run Galvantula or Shuckle.
Thundurus outclasses Galv as the better electric type that still has a method of speed control with prankster Thunder Wave. Shuckle in my opinion, is just far too passive to fit on teams that aren't stall, and stall doesn't really care for Sticky Web support as much as it does Stealth Rock, of which there are better setters than Shuckle in the first place.

Though when approaching this concept Bisharp is going to need to be addressed and considered in most of the stages of the CAP process.

In response to what pokemon could benefit from Sticky Web support. Mega-Diancie popped to mind, it can have trouble Megavolving and sometimes runs Rock Polish to outspeed most of the meta, web support could negate the need for RP and open options in further coverage or Calm Mind. Similarly Landorus-I is a pretty strong threat in OU right now especially with a Rock Polish under its belt, so like with Mega-Diancie, Landorus-I might be able to run coverage/Calm mind.
Base 80 speed pokemon would be able to outspeed a huge chunk of the meta up to base 118s, but most notably this means the 110 speed tier. Great news for Dragonite, Togekiss, and heck even Chandelure could become a threatening piece of work with specs shadow ball.

 

[Empress]

I'm super excited to see this one chosen. Sticky Web is still a highly unexplored move in the OU environment, so it will be great to see how it performs with a viable setter of it. Let's run through the questions.

1. Can Sticky Web fit into the OU metagame without either dominating it or fading into obscurity?

I actually have a feeling that the presence of a viable Sticky Web user will dominate OU. Despite being matchup-dependent and being mostly ineffective against a stall team, its ability to shut down hyper offense and even bulky offense to a certain level makes it a very threatening move. Bisharp won't cause the move to fade into obscurity, either. After all, people have not given up on using Defog simply because of the threat of Bisharp. Chances are if you played RU before Shuckle got banned, you got a taste of what Sticky Web does to offensive teams. With all your Pokemon at 2/3 Speed (and with no Bisharp in RU), the opponent could easily use that to gain momentum for themselves. So yeah, I see the move becoming dominant.

2. What else does a Pokemon need to have to be a viable Sticky Web supporter?

Let's look at Shuckle and Galvantula and see why they are not great in OU despite both having access to the move. Shuckle is unequivocally the better user because of its bulk, and so it can set up the move multiple times during the match. However, it struggles to make a name for itself in OU because it is extremely passive, and so it is a huge momentum killer for the offensive teams that are the most likely to benefit from Sticky Web support. Galvantula is just plain unviable because of its frailty, so it is relegated to being a suicide Sticky Web lead. It may have some offensive presence, but that's not enough. If we are to make a Sticky Web setter, it should be able to set up the hazard multiple times during the match, and have enough offensive presence to be able to take advantage of the move itself.

3. What Pokemon perform best while aided by Sticky Web, and what Pokemon become less viable because of Sticky Web's presence?

Offense and balance teams are aided by Sticky Web the most. Stall doesn't need the support as much, as it already shuts down hyper offense anyway. Offense and balance, on the other hand, enjoy the ability to cut opposing momentum, making it easier for them to keep up offensive presence. Therefore, generally, Pokemon commonly seen on bulky and balanced offense, such as Excadrill, will be well-aided by Sticky Web, while Pokemon commonly seen on hyper offense, such as Keldeo or Mega Metagross, will suffer from it.

4. Can non-Sticky Web offense still exist in a metagame where Sticky Web is a viable strategy?

In the playtest, naturally most players will be trying out CAP 20, so there won't be much presence of non-Sticky Web offense in such a metagame. Nonetheless, the OU metagame is actually fairly diverse as is, considering team strategies from hyper offense to balance to stall are all plenty viable. Even though Sticky Web will make hyper offense less common, the fact remains that the move is still fairly matchup dependent, leaving bulky offense and balanced offense to fare well even if they lack the move.

 

[Alfalfa]

I think that if we want a Sticky Web user that can perform consistently in OU, then it needs to be able to have an offensive presence, unlike Shuckle, and not be as fragile as glass, unlike Galvantula. It would need to be something with the right mix of speed, power, and bulk without pushing it over the edge. We should not resort to discussing BST until we have selected this as a concept, but I am referring to something with similar bulk to Azumarill, speed similar to Mega Pinsir and Galvantula, and offenses similar to Raikou or Starmie as a reference point of what I am referring to.

 

[trc]

i do like this concept because it was the one i submitted in cap 18. it's interesting but with seeing the effect of shuckle in ru i think if this is pursued we need to find the line between the setter being too potent and not potent enough (ie: shuckle in ru vs galvantula in ou). quite a few pokemon can benefit from sticky web, both slow wallbreakers and also offensive teams with sweepers that can appreciate the negation of choice scarf users. how do we compound the bisharp problem though.

 

[Deck Knight]

I guess the question is, for a competent SW setter, is Bisharp really a problem? Is the metagame made worse if Bisharp is more viable?

For example, lets say our SW user is Bug/Fighting (there's really no need to be part Bug either, really). Cool, Bisharp comes in with +2 and lowered speed... and it's Sucker Punch is NVE against our setter.

By definition our CAP is going to shape the metagame. If one of those acknowledgements is a general increase in the viability of Bisharp, wouldn't that be one of the things we want to measure anyway? If our SW user could handle Bisharp, but Bisharp benefitted generally that would be an excellent, predictable condition to weigh the concept against. I think it is a net positive.

 

[Agile Turtle]

I think that if we want a Sticky Web user that can perform consistently in OU, then it needs to be able to have an offensive presence, unlike Shuckle, and not be as fragile as glass, unlike Galvantula. It would need to be something with the right mix of speed, power, and bulk without pushing it over the edge. We should not resort to discussing BST until we have selected this as a concept, but I am referring to something with similar bulk to Azumarill, speed similar to Mega Pinsir and Galvantula, and offenses similar to Raikou or Starmie as a reference point of what I am referring to.

that's really powerful. way too powerful. I'd say pick from the triangle.

While I personally am not a fan, I do think it would be interesting to observe the effects it would have on the metagame. How prevalent would sticky web be in shaping the metagame if it had a good setter? There are a lot of flying and levitating pokemon in OU right now (which can partially be attributed to the distribution of defog to mostly flying pokemon), but how many more of them might we see if sticky web were a viable play style?

 

[Bughouse]

Sticky Web just isn't a viable team structure in the current meta, and that has a lot more to do with the meta than the mons that can set it. There is already a great example of it being usable in a meta that favors it, RU prior to the Shuckle ban.

This is a concept that I wouldn't mind keeping around and revisiting if at some point in the future the meta is more susceptible to a sticky web invasion. But right now, nope. Not a good idea.

 

[LightningLord2]

There's another problem with trying to make a viable Sticky Web Support - your opponent can negate your advantage not just by spinning/defogging, but also by setting up Sticky Web himself. So a good Sticky Web team needs to have:
1. A good setter
2. A reliable way to Rapid Spin (not Defog!) away opposing Sticky Webs and/or a way to take advantage of Sticky Web by your opponent (Defiant, Gyro Ball...)
3. Something that becomes exceptionally strong if Sticky Web is on the opponent's field that doesn't have a lot of speed or too much attack power (or it could just strap on a Choice Scarf while still getting kills)

So basically, you'll need not only a strong setter, but also ways to beat opposing Sticky Web and a Sticky Web abuser, which means we'll need to fill out 2-3 viable teamslots rather than one.

 

[tehy]

There's another problem with trying to make a viable Sticky Web Support - your opponent can negate your advantage not just by spinning/defogging, but also by setting up Sticky Web himself. So a good Sticky Web team needs to have:
1. A good setter
2. A reliable way to Rapid Spin (not Defog!) away opposing Sticky Webs and/or a way to take advantage of Sticky Web by your opponent (Defiant, Gyro Ball...)
3. Something that becomes exceptionally strong if Sticky Web is on the opponent's field that doesn't have a lot of speed or too much attack power (or it could just strap on a Choice Scarf while still getting kills)

So basically, you'll need not only a strong setter, but also ways to beat opposing Sticky Web and a Sticky Web abuser, which means we'll need to fill out 2-3 viable teamslots rather than one.

If you and your opponent are both running Sticky Web, you probably have similar teams, so it comes down to your teams and predictions.

Also, Bisharp.

 

[Ignus]

Most of the things that have been said against this concept are honestly not that strong of arguments as reasons to not preform the concept, so I'm going to try to respond to many of the problems people have mentioned as possible, and try to fix some problems in the definition of the concept as it is right now.

Problem 1: Sticky Web is not viable as a basis for an entire team in OU as of right now for reasons other than lacking a good setter.
For this I'm assuming we mean a team that would be considered "Sticky Web Offense". The idea behind this is that basically, teams based around sticky web (primarily containing a sticky web setter, sticky web sweeper, and 4 other pokemon who support this core) are not viable right now because of reasons other than that there isn't a strong sticky web setter in the metagame. What are these mystical reasons? I'll just list some off:

• 40% of pokemon in OU that have > 100 speed are airborne, and therefore not effected by sticky web.
• Priority is a rampant force in the metagame, completely nullifying the speed race in some situations.
• most strong 'endgames' in OU don't need to rely on sticky web in the first place - They either are already faster than everything or have a different method of wrecking the metagame.
• Hazard removal this generation is much better than previous. Defog, rapid spin, and the opponent using Sticky Web too all nullify your own, making it harder to create opportunities to capitalize.
• Sticky Web is super easy to punish even without removing it. This is especially true after ORAS, when not one, but two extremely strong magic bouncers were introduced on top of Bisharp already existing.

Obviously some legitimate points. It's apparent that while not having a decent Setter of the move effects its usage, that is by far not the only reason.
- So why is an illegitimate reason to ignore this concept? Because it prematurely answers what the concept's process would either confirm or deny. The point of the concept is to find what type of pokemon would be required to MAKE it viable. If we find out that the CAP has to be so strong that it's viable in OU even without Sticky Web, then we have answered the concept's question: Sticky Web by itself can not be a justification for a team member slot.

Furthermore, arguing that we shouldn't explore it because it isn't relevant in OU is pointless: especially when other threads are being argued against for the exact opposite reason (We already know what choice scarf does, That makes it a boring concept etc.). Part of the reason the concept was brought up in the first place is because it isn't relevant.

Problem 2: We already know Sticky Web does.
1.) This is just blatantly false and 2.) this argument completely ignores the point of the concept. Yes, it lowers speed by one stage on switch. Yes, Bisharp gets a Defiant Boost. But the truth is we don't know what a OU-qualified sticky web setter would look like. We may know what the move does, but we have no clue (yet) what the setter itself would be. That's the point of the CAP project. If we just wanted to see what sticky web does, we would just use the move in a battle. This is the Create A Pokemon project, not the Use A Move project. As obvious as it sounds, we will be making a Pokemon, and should make sure to not forget that this is the point of the project; not arguing whether the move is good/bad and whether we know/don't know what it accomplishes.

Problem 3: Hitting the balance between "Strong Enough for OU" and "Weak enough to not be viable without sticky web"
This problem is mostly follow up on the first - and is probably the thing that would be looked back on as the determining factor for the perceived 'success' of the project. If CAP is too strong, it will end up in OU regardless of its access to sticky web. If it's too weak, then Sticky Web won't be enough to justify its use in OU, despite the fact that it shares a niche with only Shuckle and Galvantula.
However, I'd argue that either of these endings would still be a beneficial answer to the project - we just found out that it's the move that's bad, not the Pokemon. If it ends up broken on either end of this spectrum, we just found that sticky web isn't a good enough move to justify usage in OU.

Problem 4: Perceived success of the project post-playtest
Okay, so now let's take a massive leap forward to the end of the project. We have now successfully made a pokemon with sticky web. Does that mean we completed the process successfully? Not really. Here are some of the drawbacks of the CAP process that will effect the perceived success of the project.

• Usage is an unhelpful measure of success in CAP playtest.

This has always been the case - CAP statistics are always heavily skewed due to the infamous 'New Pokemon' syndrome - but is especially unhelpful when we try to find things like "Who benefits from a sticky web user the most?" or "Whose usage changes negatively with the rise of sticky web?".
To make things worse, Smogon's tier system is based off of the very same style of usage statistics that are so ludicrously pointless in CAP - making it extremely hard to determine if something is OU or not just in a playtest. Because of this, we should try to avoid using usage as a measure of success anyhow - most people agree that they aren't that effective at determining how strong a Pokemon is in the metagame anyhow.
So what should we do instead? Not sure yet. Hopefully we can look at this in this thread so we can fix the problem before it shows up in a CAP.

• How strong a CAP is directly reflects the perceived success of the project from the inside and outside world.

The success of the project will really be determined after the end of the playtest - when people will argue about whether CAP is overpowered/underpowered, whether sticky web is broken or useless, roll their eyes at our secondary ability - all of this will help determine how successful the project is seen. Cawmodore is a great example of this - it's process was actually quite solid, everything went relatively smoothly without running in to too many issues (Other than secondary ability. What a surprise, right?), but post project it's often seen as a failure because it's mind-bendingly powerful. If you look closer, however, the end of the project was an overwhelming (if not extremely anticlimactic) success. The goal was to make Belly Drum viable. Belly Drum was made viable. There's nothing else to it. Cawmodore did its job. It just that it did it in such a singular, terrorizing way that made it seem like it failed as a project.
Unfortunately if we find balance to be a major issue, the project, just by nature of the concept, will be doomed to be perceived as a failure. Furthermore, there isn't much we can do about this without re-evaluating how the concept is followed in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From those problems, here's what's relavant to fix to make this concept strong enough to become a fully fledged concept:

• Redefine concept in a way that removes emphasis on using usage as the determining factor of concept's 'success', and something else.
• Push balance harder in the concept so that the CAP is a direct reflection of Sticky Web's viability in OU.

Hopefully this can be a jump off point to make sure we can move forward with the concept QC.

 

[Alfalfa]

You mention some issues with Sticky Web, mainly Magic Bounce, Defiant, airborne units, but the thing is that there are so many ways we can tailor this CAP to beat whatever Pokemon we deem most important. We can give it Mold Breaker to bypass Magic Bounce, Oblivious to bypass Taunt, Unaware + appropriate typing to handle Bisharp, Competitive + appropriate offensive typing to KO common Defoggers.... we could easily tailor this CAP so it is a Sticky Web user that can run a couple of different variants of a Sticky Web set that can handle Pokemon that are troublesome for Sticky Web-based teams. Sticky Web teams have flaws due to bad setters and inconsistent match-ups, but why are we shutting ourselves off from allowing this potential CAP to allow these teams to adjust some of their caveats?

 

[nyttyn]

Think I like this one, and I'm not left wanting by the arguments in favor of it.

Approved 1/2

 

[Birkal]

I'm not entirely impressed with this concept, to be blunt. srk1214 got it right in that there aren't a ton of Pokemon that are affect / inhibited by Sticky Web in the current metagame. That being said, I think Ignus' proposed fixes go a long way in making this concept viable. Setting out for balance (something we should do by default in CAP) would give this enough interest during the later stages, while the idea of making Sticky Web viable will play out strongly during typing and ability polls. While I am not entirely convinced that this is the best concept, it would certainly lead to an interesting and focused CAP Process.

APPROVED 2/2

 

[tehy]

I'm probably not supposed to post after the approved 2/2, but i'd like to say something real fast.

When Sticky Web was first announced, I had high hopes for it, notably calling it 'the best move in the game'. I'm not entirely ready to admit defeat on that one, but the main thing with Sticky Web that i've noticed is that it's always based around one suicide setter and a team that depends on it, usually being fairly slow wallbreakers.

But I have to ask: why? In my opinion, it's because of the suicide setter-because you're playing one mon down, essentially, you have to try as hard as you can to make up for it. Of course, the teams i mentioned are best-suited to Sticky Web anyhow, so they'd still exist, but what if you had a Sticky Web setter that could just function on its own in offensive teams?

I'd argue that my dream would come to fruition; rather than just make specific sticky-web abusing teams, you'd have random offensive teams that slap on Sticky Web as a way to improve their matchup against opposing offensive teams, bringing down their ground-bound scarfers and Mega Lopunnies and what have you. Because the Sticky Web setter would still be a good Pokemon, the team wouldn't *need* Sticky Web and would still be good or even great in its absence, but would have the option to use Sticky Web to improve matchup in certain scenarios.

Of course, Bisharp is a bit of a problem, but even so, I think that this CAP is what we should be shooting for (nothing specific, just a good mon that lays webs and doesn't need suicide to do it). In the process, we could learn whether or not offensive teams can benefit from slapping on webs, or whether it always needs a dedicated team built around it.