Strategy & Metagame LC vs OU viability

[MattL]

Co-authored by Goddess Briyella. The article title will be changed when we think of something better.

What we're going to talk about in this article are evolution families and their differing viabilities. Specificially, we're going to talk about two things:

1) Pokemon who are top-tier LC pokes whose final evolution is horrible in OU.
2) Pokemon who are top-tier OU whose first-stage evolution is horrible in LC.

We're going to cover Swirlix being really good in LC but Slurpuff not being good in OU, Tirtouga good in LC but Carracosta bad in OU, Azurill sucks but Azumarill great, Larvitar bad but TTar good, Gible bad but Garchomp good, and Spritzee good but Aromatisse bad.

I would do the commentary for why the evolutions are good/bad in OU and Briyella would explain the LC Pokemon. So, we had an idea that possibly we could do the article interview-style, like with the colored blocks with the text in them and the avatars on the side? It seems appropriate in that it would help visually separate the evolution vs first-stage analyses and give the article character, but I can see why you guys wouldn't prefer that either, so let me know what you think of that idea, thanks.

 

[Bummer]

Seems like a neat topic. I assume base stage stats, different abilities and Eviolite access are some of the major factors, but I can see myself reading this. Will leave it open for others to weigh in, though.

 

[sandshrewz]

Yea sounds good. I'd recommend that you focus less on why a Pokemon is bad if it's pretty obvious for stuff like Slurpluff is not good in OU etc and more on why some Pokemon are good in the tier. Interview layout sounds cool too. Maybe have an OU and LC mon for avy so it's easier to differentiate :p Approved! :)