Building a Foundation in Pokémon: Part Two
If you haven’t seen part one yet, I recommend you check that out first, as a lot of the ideas from that article will be mentioned in this and later parts of the series. For those of you who read and enjoyed my article, thank you! Even if it’s just helping you internalize stuff you already know or getting you think about the game in a new light, I’m glad to be of some help.
Archetypes
Both teams and play-styles fall under three general archetypes: Aggro, Control, and Aggro-Control (or Tempo, which I’ve seen many VGC players refer to as “Momentum”). It’s important to recognize the distinctions between them so you can recognize what works best for you, but also figure out what your opponent is trying to do.
If you learn one thing from this article, let it be this: There is no single best strategy.
Whatever you think is “by far the best and it isn’t close” could definitely be what’s best for you to play. However, what you play well won’t necessarily be what somebody else plays well and vice versa. It’s important that you play what you enjoy playing and what you play well, and it’s also important to remember that when interacting with other people. You might not like their strategy, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong.
I’ve seen a lot of trash talk toward Talonflame from higher level players, but they seem to be missing the point. Clearly Talonflame has a niche, and to say that Talonflame is bad because that niche is not something you’re interested in is misleading. If you refuse to try something because suicidal leads aren’t your thing, you can either try to use it a different way (a mix of support/suicide or something that comes out of the back to clean up games) or you risk limiting yourself as a player.
You might think you’re the best Control player in the universe, but if you don’t understand what your opponent is up to and what they want to accomplish, are you really the best? Also, there are points where the metagame could become incredibly hostile to your archetype. If you don’t know how to build or play anything else, you’re at a significant disadvantage when you keep trying to jam the same strategy.
Above all else, it’s important to have a plan and stick with it. Diggersby and Ferrothorn might cover each other pretty well defensively, but they probably shouldn’t be on the same team since they aren’t part of the same plan. Diggersby is typically Choice Scarfed and Ferrothorn is an end game finisher that milks Leech Seed and those plans conflict with each other. Of course, you can build different versions of both of those Pokémon (like I suggested with Talonflame above), but those are the most common uses.
It is possible to blur the lines between archetypes a bit, but most of the time, you shouldn’t have such direct opposites on the same team because they’re trying to accomplish different things.
Aggro
Traits: Fake Out, Feint, Rock Slide, Choice items, Focus Sash, priority, setup, Level 2, 252/252/4 EV spreads, speed control (Tailwind, Icy Wind, 1/2 Trick Room), aggressive switching, punishing opponents’ switches, sacrificing rather than switching
Overall, I would say that Aggro is the least popular archetype in VGC, but it’s not without its success. After all, linkyoshimario and mattj both performed well at Regionals with teams that I would consider hyper aggressive.
Aggro hasn’t been very popular because it’s linear and most people don’t like that. Preserving your options is important, as is being able to react to what your opponent is doing. However, Aggro has a lot going for it that most people don’t realize, or at least they don’t actively think about.
For starters, Aggro is relatively simple to play, at least as far as VGC goes. Your goal should be to apply pressure and keep it on. This means that, in a way, you are controlling the game even more so than a Control player could, as you’re limiting your opponent’s options. When you’re going after them, they are often more concerned with stabilizing than they are mounting a counter offensive, which is easily exploitable.
When you’ve put them in a corner, it limits the amount of ways they can react, especially when compared to what their options are on a stable board. Once they’re in a corner, it’s much easier to close the game because your decision points are much simpler.
Much of Aggro’s success depends on the opening lead matchups. Since Aggro doesn’t have a lot of good defensive switches, you can get yourself in a lot of trouble if your lead matchup isn’t at least equal. If you have a good lead matchup, it’s often correct to anticipate them switching, at which point you can make a logical conclusion to what they’ll switch to based on team preview.
Trying to nail their switch in is always a risky gambit, but Aggro doesn’t have a lot of other options. Most of the time, your Pokémon are frail and you won’t have the capability of playing a long game where you’re trading blow for blow. However, be aware that they might scout what you’re going to do with Protect before deciding if they should switch.
Another option is trying to switch into a better matchup (assuming you don’t have something that deals massive damage to what you think they are going to switch into). Again, this is a big risk since most of your Pokémon don’t have high defenses or many resistances, so they can deal you massive damage almost on accident. However, if they’re expecting you to Protect with that Pokémon, it might be a good time to take advantage of it with a switch.
The swings are pretty huge with Aggro, but if you can anticipate how they’re going to react, you’ll be in a good position.
Control
Traits: Defensive switching, status, Intimidate, resistances, rarely setup, Level 1, a finisher (think Aegislash/Ferrothorn), specific EV spreads to solve problems
Whoever said there is not a lot of switching in VGC lied to you. Anyone who doesn’t use defensive switches to their advantage is lacking a significant tool in their arsenal. As I mentioned earlier, you don’t specifically need that option to be successful, but if you’re trying to play a more well-rounded team, it’s definitely something you should incorporate.
In this Gen, “Control” might be something of a misnomer. Time stalling isn’t exactly viable due to all the heavy hitters out there, and gaining complete control isn’t something that’s likely to happen. Instead, the Control teams aim to set up a favorable board position through switches and by not making any high risk/high reward plays. In that sense, Control is getting even closer to blurring the line between it and Aggro-Control.
I think the important distinction to make between the two is that while both Control and Aggro-Control are looking for an opportunity to turn the corner and start hitting hard once they’re in a favorable position, Control can take its time more often. Their better late game typically comes in the form of defensive tanks that can heal themselves, such as Leftovers Aegislash and Leech Seed Ferrothorn. It’s not uncommon for either one of those Pokémon to win 3v1 once the threat to them has been eliminated.
If you think you have a handle on the metagame and are able to play a solid defensive game, then Control is probably what you should be playing.
Aggro-Control
Traits: Basically anything from Aggro and Control
When you start to blur the lines is when it gets kind of tricky. By some metrics, Aggro-Control is schizophrenic. You have controlling elements and aggressive elements, yet it somehow combines to form a cohesive package.
Most teams in this category play out like a normal Control team. If there’s an opening for your setup Pokémon, you take it and try to start sweeping. If you’re not running anything requiring a setup, you’re just looking for an opportunity to turn the corner and get aggressive, even quicker than a Control team would. Aggro-Control doesn’t typically have the late game that pure Control does, so the sooner they switch gears, oftentimes the better.
So how can you tell the difference? Ray’s team from the Virginia Regionals looks much more controlling than his Massachusetts Regionals team, despite the presence of Aegislash. With Wigglytuff’s Competitive (even if he rarely used it) and Kangaskhan’s Power-Up Punch, it’s much easier for Ray to get ahead and stay there than with his Virginia team.
Aggro-Control is the most dangerous archetype to play against because it’s the most difficult to figure out what their plan is on any given turn. By the time you figure it out, they might already have you pinned.
While those three are the basis for any team building, not everything fits neatly into three little boxes.
Mashups
Traits: Two teams, two mega stones, misdirection
An Aggro-Control team will have multiple possible plans with teammates that all work well together, whereas a Mashup features two distinct teams that are almost never mixed. Building a great Mashup might be the key to succeeding in best-of-three and possibly succeeding at VGC in general. If it’s possible, why limit yourself to only one plan?
Chinese Dood’s team from the Seattle, WA Regionals is a great example of a Mashup that works. Not only did he have semi-Perish Trap angle, but the rest of his team didn’t support Raichu/Gengar. If he was paired against something that could handle a Perish Song opening, he had a “normal” team to keep his opponent guessing as to what he’d lead with.
When you’re playing a Mashup, you have an information advantage that your opponents can’t do anything about. If play skill and information about potential move sets are equal between the players, even the slightest bit of advantage is huge.
Gimmicks
Traits: Full Trick Room, Full Perish Trap, Shell Smash, Belly Drum, Dragon Dance, Curse, etc
“Setup or lose” is not a valid strategy. However, it’s how most people learn VGC. If you copied Ray’s team, you might not know what to do in certain situations, nor what certain Pokémon are capable of. If you’re focusing on setting up a sweeper, you’ll eventually learn what certain Pokémon can do to stop you. From there, you can go about fixing your problems until you have a handle on the format.
For people that have been around the block, it’s not too difficult to sniff out a setup strategy, and most good teams will find a way to stop it. That said, it’s still important to recognize what your opponents are trying to do. These strategies are prevalent on Pokémon Showdown (more so than on Battle Spot) and I’ve found it useful to practice on there from time to time in order to familiarize myself with new, different strategies. The element of surprise can win a few games, but it’s your own fault for losing if you’re not well-educated.
Again, I just wanted to say thanks for all the positive feedback from Part One. You guys rock! This community is among the best I’ve seen, especially at being welcoming to new players. Of course, there are some exceptions, but that’s going to be the case no matter where you go.
Here’s something to keep in mind though: It’s incredibly important to have variety and foster all types of players as a community. Even though I think most people do a good job, we could still be more respectful to all players. It can be easy to forget about the big picture, but growing the community presents many opportunities for all of us.
About the Author
Thage Thage is a professional gamer and who played the first few generations of Pokémon games. After a lengthy break, he got back into Pokémon with B/W 2 and started playing VGC with X/Y. He hopes to use what he's learned playing other games to bring VGC players up to the next level.
Related Posts
New Mechanics Introduced in VGC 2016 →
VGC ’16 Pokémon Speed Tiers →
Hyper Offense Analysis – BadIntent’s Evil Thoughts →
I do want to take the opportunity to comment on this first and mention that I think this article makes a faulty assumption I expect a lot of veteran players will be tempted to jump Thage for in that it assumes all playstyles are equally viable. That may be true in other similar games, but I definitely don’t think playing what is described as Aggro here in VGC has or ever will work in the most important without some major gameplay changes.
The rock paper scissors element of Pokemon being such an integral part of gameplay requires some element of bulk to be present on most Pokemon on a high-end team to be able to work against opponents who can control the game reasonably well and who have teams that are ready to deal with a majority of threats. Aggro teams always do best earlier in the year before the field has had time to get teams that are consistent enough defensively to frustrate them, but by the end of the year the best teams are always fairly defensive but opportunistic offensively — which is Control or Aggro-Control depending on where you want to put the line. I would say this is true almost to the point that basically every elite end-of-season team that has ever existed would be best classified as an Aggro-Control team by the standards set in the article, with maybe the only exception of Wolfe’s team in 2012, which is the purest Control team I can remember doing well and isn’t something I think is replicable in every format. Even the more aggressive successful Worlds teams — Sejun and Flash in 2012 and Mean in 2013, for instance — pull way too heavily from the Control traits to be considered Aggro teams given some of the bulk and support options they had available to let their teams function consistently enough to work. Frankly, I think if you’d put the heading “Newbie” over Aggro and “Advanced” over Control, you’d pretty much still have been accurate, but Pokemon is also a game where you have to push advantages efficiently to get ahead enough to win consistently with most conventional teams… forcing Aggro-Control traits.
What I do think is helpful about this article is the idea of actually focusing the team members around the intended playstyle. I think people sometimes get caught up a little too much in “I need a counter to (Pokemon)” and then tend to overlook the flow of their team and the tempo they want to play a little too much.
My playstyle would probably far fairly far under the aggro camp, with control mostly coming from redirection, or one bulky finisher mon. Togekiss was my most consistent Pokemon for the fast two years because it allowed me to play as aggro as I wanted while still keeping a semblance of control, and I think the lack of a viable substitute for the fairy has been causing me to need to learn a bit of a different playstyle this year. Interesting article, good read.
I like the article! As a bit of a suggestion of sorts in an underused Aggro-Control Pokemon, Mega Aerodactyl has been fantastic for me.
It can hit hard for damage, and get a Tough Claws boosted Sky Drop (essentially a Fake Out that does a ton more damage), and offers Ice Fang among others to provide excellent coverage to threats.
Its control aspect is a bit different than most, but I enjoy exploiting it. Mega Aero boasts a blistering 150 base speed, and when run with a Jolly nature, only requires 100 Speed EV’s to out-speed anything significant in VGC, allowing 156 EV’s to be dispersed in making it bulkier.. Combine this with the flinch factor of Rock Slide, and the ability to just simply out run any non-Scarf Pokemon, and Mega Aero is something I feel is extremely under appreciated.
A bit off topic, but something I feel any player can pick up relatively easily and fits into a number of team archetypes outlined here.
Good work.
I do end up agreeing with Scott here with regards to the Aggro archtype. I’d probably say my team style ends up about as aggressive as you can get with higher end players, but even then my teams aren’t without the use of redirection in Rage Powder/Follow Me or having a bulky Pokemon on the team in order to provide me the small bit of supportive control needed to keep up an offense pressure. 100% aggro kind of feels like it’s described such that you need near perfect prediction, and one small mistep will let them escape the cornering and strike at your paper-thin defenses, and thus something you can’t really sustain, especially against trainers of equal or greater skill. And can leave you prone to some of the more gimmicky strats.
Speaking of gimmicks, I feel like this gen is full of potential gimmick land mines. So while people may pride in saying they won’t fall for any sort of gimmicky strats, there’s always going to be a few that slip through the gaps of people’s knowledge networks. It can be pretty scary.
This is a fun topic to discuss, but I don’t see a lot of value for this information outside of team preview. I think this is a double-edged sword when applied to anything in the teambuilding process, and something I typically try to stay far away from when building teams. I honestly don’t believe teams should be built with a pre-conceived style in mind, as it limits options unnecessarily. It’s a good way to look back and define a team, but it could potentially throw out an excellent idea that could allow you to go a different direction (for example, maybe Belly Drum Azumarill was a perfect fit in your 6th slot, but you were already committed to building a pure control team. Whoops.)
I definitely like having another way to answer “what am I going up against?” in team preview, however, so this is a really good, objective way to take 5 seconds to see if I can find a bit more information on the opponent’s team.
To be honest if we’re defining playstyles here it isn’t so much based on the team, it’s how you use it. Kamaal using Tyranitar/Excadrill and Randy using Tyranitar/Excadrill are two very different beasts
I agree with Zach in a lot of ways, people should not use this as a guide for teambuilding. Instead they should use it to define their playstyles and know themselves a little better, as well as trying to figure out your opponent, helping with prediction during the team preview and in-game. Relating back to the first article, figuring out your opponents type of team can help you drtermine what level their prediction skills are at.
Playin’ with dem Gimmicks and a Cloyster carrying Protect. XD
I respectfully think this article is even worse than the last one. The team definitions are horrible. Maybe no one told you this isn’t magic the gathering? I would not limit myself to a single team archetype ever, that is the simplest way to limit your options and lose games before they even start.
Probably the most infuriating thing about this article is your stance on gimmicks. The best part of pokemon is the ability to be creative to win games through unconventional means. Smeargle is a gimmick but, it makes the game more exciting and requires better team building. You call dragon dance a gimmick when a dragon dance tyrantar won nationals 2012.
I would keep going but people only read my replies far enough to see “wow a negative post about a topic he doesn’t agree with, why is he so hurtful to the community?”
So instead I am going to leave you with a quote I read recently: “It’s incredibly important to have variety and foster all types of players as a community”
(Though this quote only applies to when you do not go against the norm. People who go against the norm on nugget bridge get bullied until they leave)
I still really enjoyed this article, even if it was perhaps a little more clear here than in your first article that Pokemon isn’t really your native element, Thage. I think the main issue is your description of Aggro. I’m pretty much the opposite of that and align myself pretty strong as more in your “Control” camp, but I know many players, like Ben Irons (and possibly Blake Hopper, but I think he’s closer to your Aggro-Control) who play a little on the offensive end of things, and having played them ad nauseum I’d like to propose a little different of a categorization for more offensive teams.
I think more offensive Pokemon is categorized not necessarily by pure Aggression, in the sense that you’re always hitting as hard as you can, but with Pressure. To me, the “Pressure” archetype is a great way of defining teams like Kangaskhan / Azumarill / Amoonguss, or Randy’s regionals team. It is not necessarily the case that teams like this are always seeking to deal as much damage as possible- indeed, in a game like Pokemon, this can be disastrous. Even if I have a pokemon like a Specs Noivern that can deal 80%~ to many Pokemon, Ice Beam is still going to KO him. I think that’s why Scott could definitely call pure Aggro very beginner-y and be right on the money.
Allow me to make your distinction in a different manner: to me, very advanced offensive teams apply pressure. To use Randy’s example, if I see a Smeargle / Blastoise lead, and I don’t have anything faster than Smeargle, I’m sweating because my hands are tied. It doesn’t really matter what I do, he’s going to start playing his game and inflicting damage, while I am powerless to stop him. This futility is what defines offense for me. It is not necessarily the case that Smeargle will do direct damage, (n fact, such a proposition is absurd), yet he finds himself exclusive on more offensive teams. This is because offensive players play into situations that force the opponent’s hand, and that win them the game. That’s why Rage Powder or Follow Me is so big- you HAVE to deal with the Rage Powder, or you lose. You are FUTILE if you choose to ignore it. Once I don’t have any options, you are free to win the game.
Perhaps to draw an example from another game I’ve been getting into, Super Smash Bros Melee: Falco is a highly aggressive character. He can combo your entire life, or stock away. The reason, however, that his combos are good, is not necessarily just because they do a lot of damage. Indeed, if at any point in the combo, I could perform a neutral air in the middle, knock him off stage, and prey on his very poor recovery options, then Falco would not be good. What’s good about his combos is the pressure it puts on the opponent, and the futility it evokes in them. While you are getting combo’d, you can try to “DI” away (or try to move your character out of the combo), but reasonably you can do nothing, especially nothing to actually repay the Falco. In short, he is applying Pressure, and making you futile.
Oftentimes, this Pressure archetype manifests into a more Aggressive style that you’re talking about, but I think any teams that relies on bulkier set up sweepers or abusing bulk also definitely falls into this category. Pure aggression, in a game like VGC, or really any Pokemon doubles metagame, simply doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Nevertheless, this is a very wise article. I think it’s a particularly important point, and one that I need to remember personally, that being aware of the style of your team is the surest way to success. A lot of teams, though sound on paper, fall apart for me because too many distinct elements of the team are too frail or too defensive. As always, can’t wait for future installments!
I want to take this quote and spam it all over Verlisify’s videos for the rest of the year.
I assumed you would feel that way. I can’t wait for your reaction to part three.
This is not Magic, nor did I ever say it was. However, they are both strategy games that share a lot of unique elements, and when I started looking into VGC, I couldn’t find any articles on basic strategy. The gist I got from most articles was “I picked six Pokemon, obviously they are good, I’m not going to explain why they are good, then I’m going to play without a cohesive strategy.” That is not helpful. Few people explain the “why” or “how.”
I find it hard to believe you actually read my articles considering what your nitpicks are. For example: “I would not limit myself to a single team archetype ever, that is the simplest way to limit your options and lose games before they even start.” Perhaps you should look at the portions where I describe blurring the lines as far as archetypes are concerned. You should also consider that since you are so enfranchised, you might not have to think about what style you play best, how to figure out what their game plan is, etc. You are able to build and react on instinct, but not everyone is you, and giving people guidelines to work with is helpful. You said you don’t enjoy playing against fish in tournaments, then perhaps instead of spending your time criticizing me, you could be helping others. Feel free to write some articles, Matt. I’d love to read them.
Dragon Dance is a gimmick. Spending your turn pumping your guy while giving them free reign is gimmicky. Literally the first sentence in the paragraph was “‘Setup or lose’ is not a valid strategy.” Most teams that incorporate Dragon Dance, Belly Drum, Power-Up Punch, etc do so in such a way that it is not their main strategy. Those teams are not “setup or lose,” they are setup when is convenient, which is fine. Most players run the “setup or lose” strategy with Smeargle and fail miserably. Randy is the only person to have had real success with it because he didn’t play it with a gimmick.
Matt, I think the issue with the negativity is the hostility involved. You could be handling this in a more constructive, professional manner. If you would ever like to have a reasonable discussion about strategy, community, what would be best for the game, or whatever, feel free to contact me.
As for this: “Though this quote only applies to when you do not go against the norm. People who go against the norm on nugget bridge get bullied until they leave.”
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’ve considered not finishing the series because of comments like yours, so thanks for that.
Very well thought out article. I can seehow this will help newer players.
I think part of the reason why aggro worked for me that time is because the meta was still really new and unstable. Things are getting much harder now that the majority of people know what these new tools can do.
Please do, Human says you think about the game in a really effective manner, and spreading that thinking would help the community.
I’m confused as to what you mean “set up moves are a gimmick.” Was Top-Moth a gimmick? was swords dance scizor a gimmick? Sunny day cresselia + heatran? levitran? the list goes on and on. dragon dance as a “strategy” could be considered a gimmick, but i’m sure players will notice that when their pokemon start dying.
Furthermore, on the idea of archetypes. as KOM said, ‘archetypes’ –or really, strategies– are about how you play the game. pokemon don’t make an archetype. pokemon not making an archetype is in fact one of the things that matt was talking about, which leads to confusing your opponent when your garchomp uses substitute or your salamence uses roost, as i know human was a fan of, which leads to more development of the pokemon and the meta. calling something part of an archetype slots people into thinking in one way which decreases the level of play.
“Above all else, it’s important to have a plan and stick with it. Diggersby and Ferrothorn might cover each other pretty well defensively, but they probably shouldn’t be on the same team since they aren’t part of the same plan. Diggersby is typically Choice Scarfed and Ferrothorn is an end game finisher that milks Leech Seed and those plans conflict with each other. Of course, you can build different versions of both of those Pokémon (like I suggested with Talonflame above), but those are the most common uses.”
first, diggersby and ferrothorn have terrible defensive synergy, both are hit hard by w-o-w from rotom-w, and hit really hard by scarfed dragons. but second. i don’t think it makes sense to tell people not to have diggersby on the same team as ferrothorn. Diggersby does a bunch of good things very well like getting ferrothorn into the 3v1 situation that you discuss later on in your article. a much more sensible example would be to tell people not to use two pokemon that do similar things and share similar weaknesses, like ferrothorn and gourgeist, ferrothorn and aegislash, or aegislash and gourgeist.
but back onto the idea of archetypes. Giving your team one solid strategy is flawed. as zach said
But even further, if you are unable to change your strategy in response to your opponent’s team, you are in a really bad spot. say you have a “control” team and your opponent has pokemon that smash your important “control” pokemon, you’re going to be in a bit of trouble. you want to be able to change up your strategy based on your opponent to nail them when they try to predict your strategy.
@prettylittleliar read all of your post and while I still believe you’re always full of hot air. Most of the time it’s undignified what you post and uncalled for. Do you ever say anything positive? Like ever? I’m a strong pessimist myself but your cynical sense of humor is really annoying me.
If you want to give criticism make it constructive and tell them how to improve it and not liken it to a tutorial on how to drink water.! But seriously why has no one kicked you for bullying and demeaning people over the internet!
Seriously though here are two new maxims to live your life by “be cool” and “don’t be a jerk”. Anyways knock it off! Sincerely everyone on Nugget Bridge
#1: Stop escalating this argument.
I think the gimmicks section is somewhat broad. As for Trick Room and setup moves, yet may be hard to execute at times, but I would hardly call them gimmicks. The assumption from that body of text seemed to imply that people using these strategies at all lost due to incompetence. That was certainly not your intention. 
Do remember, this is just my take on the article and what you could change to make it even better! I’m sure some of the community agrees with me as well. 
Good luck in your future!
#2: Get acquainted with his style of posting, because you might as well get along.
Now, formalities aside, I will now address the author of this article. I have to say, it’s a great analysis. Well-based takes on the current meta. They’re is but one thin that I somewhat disagree with, but I hope that you will accept this as constructive criticism, as you have really done a fantastic job, and you are also one of the first pioneers to do this kind of article.
If you use “control” team, you need a multiple backup plans and strategies if someone was nailed your switch, outplayed you, surprise factor and etc.
Set up moves isn’t that gimmicky, TopMoth is not gimmicky because it’s well known duo. MegaTar/Amoonguss is another good duo to use boost move.
That’s another good article to read!
This has gone on long enough!!! Bullying is something I refuse to accept. Rather than take his crap, why has no one banned him? Is it unreasonable and escalating the argument to expect him to act like a civilized human being. This isn’t X-box live, so I expect more out of pokemon players.
ITT: Nitpicking everywhere without actually reading.
It was a really good article considering the wide subject matter, though I think that the way that “setup or fail” sounded to encompass far more than was intended. Usually if someone plays Trick room or Parish song teams they have certain counter such as a way to work around taunt or other disabling moves while parish song teams have to be ready for u-turn/volt switch, ghost-types, and other shadow taggers. People need to not be so defensive about their teams. Although it is noticeable (not sure intentional) that aggro is not that good of a playstyle. I do hope that you write the part 3.
I am pretty flattered that you wrote this whole comment for me, in addition to the last 2 paragraphs of the article making a reference to the good ol’ community jerks, but kinda creeped out that you reference me by name.
I don’t understand how you can suddenly define what is a gimmick and not a gimmick. So if I win with a strategy it is no longer a gimmick? So using scarf dark void Smeargle is automatically bad without even considering what else is on the team? That is the kind of logic you criticize in the whole “good players criticize talonflame, calling things bad is dumb until I call setup teams bad later in the article.” It is kind of insulting to say new players shouldn’t even be trying these teams when players have had success using those strategies previously.
Also, I don’t get why you needed to steal the magic the gathering deck types and apply them to VGC. Unfortunately, there is not a “counter target kangaskhan” pokemon.
I referenced you by name because I know who you are. I assume you know who I am. Why is that creepy?
Perhaps this conversation would be easier if I understood what your goals were. Are you concerned by the validity/quality of the content on NuggetBridge? Do you truly want to help the community get better? It doesn’t seem like it, so I guess my only conclusion is that you’re trolling. I’ll indulge you anyway.
The line between gimmick and utility is a pretty hard line in my opinion, but maybe I’m not explaining myself well enough. If your team strategy, regardless of what you see in team preview or what they lead with, is to set up X, that is a gimmick. If you are using a move, such as Dragon Dance, as an opportunistic play to set up momentum in your favor, that is utility. Sometimes the most opportunistic time to use Dragon Dance is on turn one, sometimes it’s on turn three, sometimes it’s never. You are playing the game normally with a set up move at your disposal to use as you see fit, but you never lean on it.
There are people that I’ve played at Regionals and on PS that have had teams that literally cannot win unless you allow them to set up. They will keep trying to set up even when you’ve shown that you won’t let them. THAT is a bad strategy. It may work sometimes, but it is unlikely that you will ever win a tournament with it. THAT is a gimmick. As kingofmars (Gavin, I know who he is too!) pointed out in this thread, there is a difference between how people use various Mons, and the same is true of how people use various move sets.
Again, perhaps I could have been a little clearer in the article. I said “If you’re focusing on setting up a sweeper, you’ll eventually learn what certain Pokémon can do to stop you. From there, you can go about fixing your problems until you have a handle on the format.” I meant that using a gimmick when you’re new is useful. The journey is the most important part, and in order to start learning, it helps to know what you’re trying to accomplish in the first place.
As for the specific terminology, some of it is from Magic (although terms like “Aggro” and “Control” are used all over the place), and some of it, like Mashup or Hybrid, is just jargon. Would you prefer I use “Pressure” or “Momentum” instead? I could have also gone with poker terms like LAG or TAG. You can call them whatever you want since the underlying principles of proactive and reactive are still there and are the only part that really matter. Getting on the same page for labels is important so we know what each other is talking about, but I don’t particularly care what they are as long as they’re the same.
In regards to “counter target Kangaskhan,” I feel like most people in your position could (and should) write an article on the subject. There are certainly enough forum posts asking for it.
Criticism is much appreciated. I would not mind if the articles were further amended to fix things people found issues with or weren’t clear enough.
As I told PLL above: “The line between gimmick and utility is a pretty hard line in my opinion, but maybe I’m not explaining myself well enough. If your team strategy, regardless of what you see in team preview or what they lead with, is to set up X, that is a gimmick. If you are using a move, such as Dragon Dance, as an opportunistic play to set up momentum in your favor, that is utility. Sometimes the most opportunistic time to use Dragon Dance is on turn one, sometimes it’s on turn three, sometimes it’s never. You are playing the game normally with a set up move at your disposal to use as you see fit, but you never lean on it.
Basically, if you have a plan and stick to it, that’s noble and I’m fine with it. You just shouldn’t expect to execute your strategy every game because your opponent’s job is to stop you. We have not seen many 100% Trick Room teams have success for that reason. However, I’ve have been beaten several times by the 1/2 Trick Room teams I described in the Mashups section, which uses Trick Room as a form of speed control, and is by no means reliant on Trick Room being up in order to win. Part of the key to that is using Trick Room on a Pokemon that isn’t your usual Trick Room setter, like Gardevoir, alongside some faster Pokemon to both function outside of Trick Room and disguise the fact that you have it in the first place.
Thanks for posting, and I hope that makes sense.
#proud
That and my steel gem Scizor were like, literally my thing, oh my god I was so upset at not being able to play 2012. Teambuilding with Wolfe was so much fun; that nationals/my Manchester #4 team was adorable.
As for the article though, I’m not so sure. For someone like me, I have to admit it’s basically pointless. I’ve never found a purpose for assigning pretty arbitrary labels onto things that you can’t really define. Like, myself I wouldn’t even say there were real team archetypes. Something relevant would be helping people to learn to analyse the individual parts of a team and work out what they do, but that’s a whole lot harder to write about and teach- you have to learn it through experience.
So, I don’t know really. You’re taking on a huge challenge here, and I’m not going to knock you for trying. In fact, please stick at it, because it’s enjoyable reading anyway and I’m sure you’re helping a lot of people learn to analyse their game. Just make sure you don’t appear to be trying to construe these articles as word of God (which I appreciate is hard to avoid if you want people to listen), which is the only reason anyone’s complaining, really. But hey, you can’t please everyone. Just try to please as many people as possible!
When I stopped playing MtG, I started playing Pokemon and… I can’t disagree with this article more.
I can see your thought process and what pushed you to the arguments and conclusion you present, but it just doesn’t really work for me.
First thing, the archetypes. Sure, Aggro, Control nad Aggro-Control work in MTG, as you either want to dismantle your opponent completely by destroying his creatures, dealing damage real fast, putting his whole library in his graveyard, take control over his turns or just throw out a huge load of artifacts so you can cast them for free (I know, I butchered this, but you get the picture). Your goal and method of achieving it are combined.
In Pokemon, there is just one goal – defeat your opponent, so what really defines your archetype is the tactic you choose. That’s why I’d call Rain, Trick Room, RainRoom, Goodstuff and so on archetypes, not the fact of aggresive or more interruptive playstyle.
Let’s have a look at rain team with Ludicolo and Politoed: it’s probably going to be a hard hitting, bulky Toed and a fast, frail Ludicolo. But what if Ludi is a SubSeed staller with Rain Dish and Politoed is scarfed? Or what if they form a TR core in a RainRoom team? MTG is more predefined with colour’s preferences: White hits and protects, blue counters spells, disrupts and flies, red burns, etc. Pokemon themselves are way more versatile, so seeing one’s “opening hand” at team preview won’t tell you as much information as in MTG, where team concepts in a metagame are pretty similar and decklists look pretty much the same with very small variations.
The gimmick argument is only partially valid. If you’re in a bad position and getting your DD or another setup move up is your only way to win, then yes, it’s a gimmick. But if you have a good way to ensure your setup, whether it’s Tailwind, Trick Room or a stat booster, it can’t be called a gimmick anymore if the risk you take by this action is heavily reduced, it’s not a gimmick anymore. It’s true that setting up is risky, but there are situations where your opponent isn’t able to interrupt it or punish it. Why not capitalize on that or even make this situations happen on purpose if you have the skills and tools to do so? That’s why Porengan’s team placed third in Germany. He had the tools to allow Gyarados use Dragon Dance and then sweep.
I hope this makes sense. Not my day for writing quality posts in English, but I find this article to be painfully inaccurate, which is weird, because I can’t really disagree with part one.
Thanks again for the article Thage.
There is some good info here, but like any strategy article it has to be understood that these are not set in stone rules. This is just a very surface level article to help newer players.
I know I looked for these types of articles when I first started looking into competitive Pokemon (recently last October)
Something like this series would’ve helped me a great deal and as I played I would’ve started to form more opinions, and perhaps disagreed, but these articles make the learning curve less steep for newer players.
I’ve said it before and I’ll reiterate, I was amazed that there wasn’t more game theory articles out there for Pokemon. I’ve seen some over on Eggy Emporium as well and if any new player hasn’t checked out their site (a bit unwieldy at times, and pretty sure that English isn’t a first language for most of the writers) then you are doing yourself a disservice.
What I’d love to see is a rebuttal article. Maybe explaining things in way that the writer feels makes more sense. This leads to better information for the community (forums are fun and all, but combing through the trolling/brown nosing can be brutal).
As is-
I think the thinking behind this article is there, but somethings are unclear and possibly were not fully fleshed out before being written down. Being a series titled “Building a Foundation” that isn’t necessarily a “bad” thing since this is meant to be a starting point, but I think it might’ve made the points feel stronger even from a surface level.
Look forward to the next article. I’m still learning, and if nothing else, the comments following these articles help me crystallize my own experience
Cheers
I can agree to a good degree with this post. Although “agressive”, “control”, and so on may “kind of” describe how you’re playing the game, it’s not enough to give good insight in the overall game plan of either player. I could control speed to win, but I could also just beef up defenses and eat up everything, or beef up attack and destroy everything. You also don’t have to make too much of your strat revolve around doing/controlling one thing. You could use Dragon Dance, or you can hit the opponent with a surprise Char Y Heat Wave boosted by Helping Hand out of nowhere.
There’s many ways to play Pokemon. Although it’s not a bad idea to categorize general play-styles, I don’t think MtG terminology does that well.
I really like this article, but I strongly disagree about Trick Room being a gimmick strategy. You don’t lose if you don’t set up with TR, if you do, you are using it wrong. Most experienced TR players know that they wont always get the ideal set up, which is why most TR teams that have been successful are very versatile. In 2013 I got top 8 at nationals with Amoonguss, Bronzong, Heatran, Conkeldurr, Thundurus, and Tyranitar. Tyranitar was choice scarf’d and my Bronzong was designed to work well even when taunted by using the offensive options of HP ice and Psyshock.
Anyways, I just think that you may have wanted to do more research on this playstyle before just throwing it in the gimmicks section.
(Also, I realize that my nats team could have been labeled as “semi-Trick room”, but if you look at the 2nd place team in the masters division at this very event, you will see that it was used to great effect, and was most definitely a full-trick room team)
People keep having the misinterpretation that gimmick=bad. To me, gimmick means it has a central theme that uses a specific playstyle. Perish-Trap, Trick Room, Double Dragon, etc. They fit a specific archtype and strategy and to beat it there are specific counters/checks for it. Without a check to the strategy, it generally goes down well and wins fairly easily. With a check, it goes back to being strategy VS counter strategy.
External
If it relies 100% on the central “gimmick” it is a poor strategy overall. If it has alternate means to work with or without the gimmick, it is a good strategy.
Please stop acting like gimmick is a bad word.
Gimmick is absolutely a word with a strong negative connotation Pokemon. It’s also a little strange you linked to the Wiki page with the marketing definition to try to prove otherwise, since that word also has a strong negative connotation in marketing in the sense you’re basically trying to use something irrelevant to fool weak-minded consumers into thinking your product is more appealing than it really should be.
In Pokemon, gimmick tends to connote something between “inconsistent” and “highly unlikely to work if your opponent sees it coming.” These are not desirable qualities.