- At what point do you think accuracy comes into play in calling something reliable or not? [WDM]
Accuracy matter incredibly in terms of reliability, but I think the extent to exactly how important it is varies from person to person. To one, Focus Blast missing 30% of the time is a good trade-off for the amount of power it puts out the 70% of the time it does hit. But for others (like myself, using mostly stall, semi-stall, and balance), every chip of damage is so necessary that the 30% is absolutely unacceptable. Even something like Fire Blast is scary for me despite it having better than five-to-one odds of hitting. It depends on the individual's preference of how much they are willing to gamble, whether it be to err on the safe side (like me, where anything less than 95% is pushing it) or to play a little more recklessly (to where risking a 30% chance of losing a game because of a missed Focus Blast is worth the chance).
- Can Pokemon that rely on some luck (Swagger Liepard being the primary topic, but also like SubHarvest Eggy, etc) to create more opportunities for themselves be considered reliable? Are they still unreliable because they need luck in the first place, or does their ability to "capitalize" on luck and then create more of it change that? [bv]
I think when luck begins to play into the equation, the amount of luck needed to be considered "reliable" has an inverse relationship with the defensive capabilities of the Pokemon. For example, bulky 'mons like Alomomola need little luck to fulfill their job on a team. The only luck that really matters is the chance of a crit from the opponent or the 15% of the time that Toxic misses, and in fact, Alomolmola has the potential to shake off this sort of unfortunate luck and continue to perform its job, making it even more "reliable." Something like Liepard, on the other hand, folds like a wet tissue when hit. The trade-off is this: you pull it off, you piss off your opponent while paralyzing everything in sight and chipping away in the process. You fail, and you're one Pokemon short, without having pulled off its job at all. And if its job was to soften things and spread paralysis, then it has failed. Can it be called "reliable" if it "only" has a 50% chance of fufilling its (potentially important) role on a team through confusion or a 37.5% chance of succeeding through parafusion?
- Does it make a difference whether or not it's a Pokemon's primary moves or coverage moves that are inaccurate? [WDM]
If you're using an offensive 'mon with a very powerful primary attack that you'll be spamming 75% of the time (in OU, Terrakion's monstrous double-STABs come quickly to mind), accuracy matters much more to a Pokemon's reliability and its worth on a team than if you're using something where the primary attack is used only marginally more than coverage moves.
- Thinking about Gothorita, but applies to other Pokemon: if a Pokemon is very reliable in certain situations (defensive teams with Alomomola, etc) but often useless in others (offensive teams with nothing to trap), is it still reliable? [WDM]
The reliability of the Pokemon in such a situation actually depends less on itself, but much more on the rest of the team and the capabilities of the player as a teambuilder. If it is possible to construct a team that is more than capable of handling between themselves all the Pokemon except the ones that the one in question, then I'd say that not only can the Pokemon be considered reliable, but the very definition of reliability: the ability to consistently fulfill its given role on a team. In fact, I've read numerous successful RMTs where four Pokemon cover most things in the metagame and two entire teamslots are dedicated to covering the small number of things that the four do not. They will not be the most used Pokemon in every game, but they will give the player a good shot at winning should such a situation occur.
- On non-stall teams, is having an "unreliable" Pokemon necessary to consistently win? What do you think? [FLCL]
Tiering and viability rankings are actually a reflection of this. If a Pokemon has a combination of power, speed, and accuracy, it will invariably be ranked higher because it can do its job on a team without needing support from other (lower ranked, which may mean less reliable) Pokemon. The more you take away from any one of the three attributes to offense, you increase its risk of being taken advantage of by other Pokemon, whether that be through status, set-up, or a strong retaliatory attack. I think the words "unreliable" and "constistently" are polar opposites, to the point when I think it's not only unnecessary for having such a Pokemon to win consistently but that it's almost a detriment to having one on your team despite the benefits that it MAY provide.
I think that in the end, reliability is entirely down to personal preference. For someone like myself, who thinks in everything in terms of numbers and percentages and weighing the risks versus the benefits of everything, defining such a thing is impossible due to the necessity of facts and numbers. But put simply, a Pokemon is reliable to the individual player when the potential benefits of using a Pokemon outweigh the risks taken should the Pokemon become crippled in any way on a team.