IV versus pragmatism?
There are a number of times when I have caved in to using low IV mons, when it is convenient to do so. For example, most of my best Blissey attackers have less than stellar IV: Confusion/Solar Beam Exeggutor - I caught a level 30 Executer had a pile of eggs candy and decided to evolve her and see what I got; a similar story for my fire spin/overheat flareon; I even walked 10k with a less that 50% IV eevee to get an espeon with future sight h and high CP quickly; just today, I caught a 2085cp dragon tail/huricane dragonite and am planning on using it, as is, as a prestiger/attacker.
For most mons, IV would candy all of them. However, all the ones I mentioned fill niches that I don't have an easily obtainable high IV alternative, and they seem to work pretty well, as is.
My question is, would insisting on using only high IV mon be strategically better in the long term? If so, why?
Answers
For me...
IV only matters on the big defenders. And the only defenders I will take over lvl30 (maybe 30.5) are high IV. This is because those levels get expensive, and I can not justify the spend on something that will be lower than other mons of the same type in a gym.
In gyms, CP is king, so this dictates good IVs are preferable.
For attackers....moveset > IV all day long.
I have evolved many a high level catch with less than optimal IV in hope of getting an attacking moveset. If I do, then I know I will have a good attacker immediately, without any further dust or candy investment, and the difference the IV will make is miniscule.
There are some attackers that I will demand specific IV stats to be high - Alakazam must have high Stamina IV for example - but as a general rule, for attackers IV total is not as key for me at least.
For attackers: High CP (up to level 30 or so) and good movesets are desired. IVs are comparatively less important. There are very few situations where a 30-50% IV attacker would cause you to lose a battle which you could have won if you had a 90%IV mon with the same moveset and level.
So there is nothing wrong with you using your low IV attackers to do the job, provided they have high CP and have good movesets. In fact this saves tons of stardust and candy! I would recommend this wholeheartedly because there is no point powering up great IV but low CP/level mons UNLESS they are totally rare and nearly impossible to find (like Lapras).
Most people on forums and here are interested in 'min-maxing', which then fuels the desire for high IV, high CP AND good moveset mons. Needless to say, this is a long and painful process and it is not for everyone. Players who do this do get an advantage in the long run BUT it the difference is not so big, and it comes at a cost of short-term inefficiency.
Also to add: IVs are pretty important when it comes to defenders because of the CP sequence in gyms. I'd almost never take any attackers beyond level 30, but I would sure do for defenders for this reason alone. And if you are powering up defenders beyond level 30, then you get more bang for your buck if your defenders have high IVs.
High CP (up to level 30 or so) and good movesets are desired. IVs are comparatively less important.
But IVs affect what the CP will be, especially the Attack IV. And as we all know, CP overvalues Attack and undervalues Defense and Stamina, which can lead to misleading information about how good a mon will be as an attacker; one that faints quicker can be inferior to one that damages less with each individual attack but lasts longer in battle
There are very few situations where a 30-50% IV attacker would cause you to lose a battle which you could have won if you had a 90%IV mon with the same moveset and level.
How do you know this? I can only say I've had a lot of battles that I barely won, and it's rational to believe that a small benefit from a high IV contributed to many (if not all) of these wins.
So there is nothing wrong with you using your low IV attackers to do the job, provided they have high CP and have good movesets
Actually, I could make the same argument you have but with regards to movesets. For instance, Fire Spin/Overheat is very clearly a better moveset for Flareon than Ember/Fire Blast. But if I only use Flareon against defenders weak to fire, I could argue it's unlikely I will ever lose one of those battles with either moveset. Type can far outweigh moveset. So, by your logic, why worry about movesets? Just consider type when picking attackers.
.>Most people on forums and here are interested in 'min-maxing', which then fuels the desire for high IV, high CP AND good moveset mons. Needless to say, this is a long and painful process and it is not for everyone. Players who do this do get an advantage in the long run BUT it the difference is not so big, and it comes at a cost of short-term inefficiency.
If you evolve a low IV mon and shortly thereafter get one with higher IVs, it seems to me this is an example of short-term inefficiency with regard to candy use.
IV's only matter a lot for defenders and gyms so if you don't do gyms at all, IVs don't matter much.
At the higher levels, 100CP could mean the difference between near the top of a gym or the bottom and that's about 2 full trainer levels to add 100CP.
As you know, EXP requirements to level at higher levels (34+) starts to get to insane levels so a 0% Dragonite vs. a 100% Dragonite could mean 400 CP difference so that could be 8 trainer levels between 2 Pokemon if someone were to power up a 0% to level 39.
