Articles

Published on May 9th, 2014 | by Thage

50

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.

@Thage_VGC


About the Author

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.



50 Responses to Building a Foundation in Pokémon: Part Two

  1. Gonzo says:

    Or even “grimer that won’t work even if performed/executed properly”.

  2. Szarkai says:

    That could be said for the old Hyper Offensive playstyle, double intimidate leads, etc etc. 
     
    If you want the definition I was going for: External
    “A hidden mechanical device by External a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.”
    Battling is a semi-controllable game of chance. There could be hax all over on either side, thus all of the “control” or battle plans could be considered gimmicks. “Inconsistent” is the metagame. We aim for a consistency of a certain degree, but it will never always be the same every battle. If used properly, the strategy follows the same path to victory more often than not.
    If the strategy fails or as you said, highly unlikely to work if the opponent sees it coming (and has a plan to counter it), it becomes a struggle. If it fails more often than not, then yes the gimmick is bad. That does not mean all gimmicks are bad, or will even work consistently. Honestly there are too many variables between player skill, checks, counters, playstyles, etc to really count something as completely bad.
     
    I didn’t mean to start a huge argument over it though :/ Just trying to say just because it was labeled as a gimmick does not mean it is all bad. It could be a viable strategy (*cough*competitive wigglytuff*cough*)

  3. chipndip says:

    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.

    To be fair, many people use it as if it’s bad, and it causes people to rush in and defend the thing in question. It’s a way of saying something’s “shallow but effective because it’s cheap”, in a sense, if we go by how it’s used in the Pokemon community. It has a negative connotation to it.

  4. Dark51 says:

    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.

    That’s the connotation it receives from the community. We no longer rely on that definition of the word, so you really can’t blame him. He was addressing the implied meaning of the word as given by the context. And this may be slightly off-topic, and I understand why you are trying to say, but do note for the future that Wikipedia isn’t a very reliable source.

  5. Thage says:

    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)

    “You don’t lose if you don’t set up with TR, if you do, you are using it wrong.”

    Which was my point exactly. We’re on the same page.

  6. Mudkip421 says:

    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.

    from your link: “In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something “stand out” from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.” A gimmick is just for the same of having a special feature. A gimmick is typically thought of being irrelevant and useless. Sounds like a pretty bad word to me. The fact that you even posted this link giving all this info on gimmicks being useless shows a bit of ignorance.

    I really don’t have a problem with the article though. Just A way of thinking, not THE way of thinking. My only problem is with the comments.

  7. Pizzameister says:

    As a brand new VCG player, these articles AND the comments sections have been incredibly useful in conceptualising the game. I’m going to suggest that the debate over archetypes and categorisation is predictable given the high level so many of you will be playing at. Because there is no formal indoctrination into pokemon, each of you will have identified differently with the metagame and have a slightly different understanding I would liken to different ‘cultural’ views on pokemon. As we’re aiming to ground new players (such as myself) in pokemon, the best suggestion I have seen is that of a response article.
    Through this article I have not only learned about one idea of team categorisation but about a whole load of situations where this might not apply as well as some other methods of categorisation. An organised response would in my opinion create some more excellent debate through which us new players can only learn more.
    I’d like to thank everyone involved for sharing their thinking, nugget bridge is pretty much the only place I’ve found where people seem interested in discussing the thinking behind the game rather than the cold stats. While these articles present (by necessity) one view of things, they have been an eye opening read for a beginner and the debate has been equally enlightening.

  8. break says:

    gosh…after re-reading this article, I am in disagreement with the “gimmick” section.

    * I give my thanks for noting “full-trick” room and not trick room *

    I prefer using a term like “setting up” instead of the offensive “gimmick”

    gimmick just oozes hatred toward someone’s direction/strategy.

    but the whole “it’s your own fault for being unskilled/uneducated enough to beat someone’s gimmick-team” just sounds ridiculous >_<"

    now…it one thing knowing exactly what your opponent is going for but it's a totally different thing to stop/counter it.

    a person would be delusional if they assume victory, after looking at the team preview, because they know what their opponent strategy is.

    making a player feel shame for losing to a "gimmick" sounds like an excuse to justify the loss.

    I don't believe any person can grow from that mentality.

  9. Thage says:

    gosh…after re-reading this article, I am in disagreement with the “gimmick” section.

    * I give my thanks for noting “full-trick” room and not trick room *

    I prefer using a term like “setting up” instead of the offensive “gimmick”

    gimmick just oozes hatred toward someone’s direction/strategy.

    but the whole “it’s your own fault for being unskilled/uneducated enough to beat someone’s gimmick-team” just sounds ridiculous >_<“

    now…it one thing knowing exactly what your opponent is going for but it’s a totally different thing to stop/counter it.

    a person would be delusional if they assume victory, after looking at the team preview, because they know what their opponent strategy is.

    making a player feel shame for losing to a “gimmick” sounds like an excuse to justify the loss.

    I don’t believe any person can grow from that mentality.

    I was not attempting to shame anyone for losing. My point was that if you didn’t know that Slurpuff could use Belly Drum or Barbaracle knew Shell Smash and you allowed them to set up and sweep you, that is your mistake for not doing enough research. There are plenty of people who go after the threats they’ve seen before because they realize they’re actually threats. What people need to realize is that if they have a Pokemon whose moveset you don’t know, most people probably assume they don’t know because it’s not very good. In truth, your opponent should never be underestimated, and they are likely using that Pokemon because they think it’s good. 

    “Gimmick” is a derogatory term because it suggests their team is only capable of doing one thing, and if you stop that thing from happening, they can no longer win. That is not the case with a lot of teams that use Dragon Dance, Belly Drum, Trick Room, etc, but it is the case with some. As I noted in the article, relying on a single thing to win you a game is not a viable strategy. Relying on Trick Room and using Trick Room are two entirely different things. I labeled those as Gimmicks because that’s what they are, not because of some hatred for a strategy. If you take offense because of the word gimmick, I apologize, but you’re being defensive, and it doesn’t make your strategy any less of a gimmick. If you noticed, I put “1/2 Trick Room” under the non-Gimmick label.

  10. 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.[/size][/color]

    I don’t think we ever met. If we did I do not remember. I have no idea who you are. I much prefer the ability to post anonymously so people will take what is being said on its merit not because of a person’s reputation.

    I general have adverse goals for my posts (most are for comedic intent). A lot of posts on these types of threads have an intent to show others it is okay to have differing opinions from what NB publishes and more importantly that if you want to express your opinion you should be able to back it up with logical reason.

    Anyways, “setup or lose” is a very weak way to categorize gimmicks. I would argue that using sheninja is a gimmick. It takes a lot of setup to use effectively (killing threats, possible soak user, preventing status threats, and stopping weather). I would not suggest using shedninja, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t lost to shedninja using the team I got 6th at world’s with.
    Perish song is a gimmick, but that doesn’t stop a high level player out predicting someone with perish trap.
    You could also argue something like ferrothorn is a gimmick. If you don’t “setup” your ferrothorn by eliminating things with fire moves, you will not sweep at the end.
    Blissey in 2010 was a gimmick. If you setup up Blissey by eliminating the physical attackers you would win (or 8 turn freezes could happen I guess). That still didn’t prevent me from losing a free trip to Hawaii when I knew my opponent had a Blissey.

    Those are ideas of a setup or lose “gimmick” that was portrayed as bad. I would not consider these bad at all. These strategies develop a meta game and force players to be more creative because a perfectly played perish trap could be as effective as a perfectly played agro-control. Suggesting that new players shouldn’t use gimmicks denies them a learning opportunity. Not to mention limiting the potential impacts that a new strategy utilizing a gimmick could create.

  11. Thage says:

    I don’t think we ever met. If we did I do not remember. I have no idea who you are. I much prefer the ability to post anonymously so people will take what is being said on its merit not because of a person’s reputation.

    I general have adverse goals for my posts (most are for comedic intent). A lot of posts on these types of threads have an intent to show others it is okay to have differing opinions from what NB publishes and more importantly that if you want to express your opinion you should be able to back it up with logical reason.

    Anyways, “setup or lose” is a very weak way to categorize gimmicks. I would argue that using sheninja is a gimmick. It takes a lot of setup to use effectively (killing threats, possible soak user, preventing status threats, and stopping weather). I would not suggest using shedninja, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t lost to shedninja using the team I got 6th at world’s with.
    Perish song is a gimmick, but that doesn’t stop a high level player out predicting someone with perish trap.
    You could also argue something like ferrothorn is a gimmick. If you don’t “setup” your ferrothorn by eliminating things with fire moves, you will not sweep at the end.
    Blissey in 2010 was a gimmick. If you setup up Blissey by eliminating the physical attackers you would win (or 8 turn freezes could happen I guess). That still didn’t prevent me from losing a free trip to Hawaii when I knew my opponent had a Blissey.

    Those are ideas of a setup or lose “gimmick” that was portrayed as bad. I would not consider these bad at all. These strategies develop a meta game and force players to be more creative because a perfectly played perish trap could be as effective as a perfectly played agro-control. Suggesting that new players shouldn’t use gimmicks denies them a learning opportunity. Not to mention limiting the potential impacts that a new strategy utilizing a gimmick could create.

    The difference is that a lot of the things you mentioned as being gimmicks do not fall under the “set up or lose” category. If you are not able to KO their threat to Ferrothorn immediately, you are not necessarily losing. Winning 3v1 with Ferrothorn is more of a strategy and less of a gimmick. If a gimmick fails to accomplish what it’s trying to, it will almost certainly lose.

  12. pball0010 says:

    I don’t think we ever met. If we did I do not remember. 

    For reference, I believe it was downstairs at the Madison Regionals hotel where ryuzaki shared her Yoshi stories is where you and Thage apparently met, if memory serves me well. I only know because I shared a room with TheLoveDrVGC and Thage at that regionals.

  13. Scott says:

    Not to intrude on this very productive discussion, but I’m pretty sure you guys agree on pretty much everything you’re discussing other than, as with earlier in the thread, the definition/connotation of “gimmick”.
     
    I don’t think either of you would disagree with general premises that flexibility is a requirement for consistent success (which is basically Thage’s point as far as what isn’t a gimmck/to what extent gimmicks work) or that overlooked/gimmicky threats can work in the right situations(which is most of what I think Matt’s point is?). You’re not really debating anything except each other.

  14. The difference is that a lot of the things you mentioned as being gimmicks do not fall under the “set up or lose” category. If you are not able to KO their threat to Ferrothorn immediately, you are not necessarily losing. Winning 3v1 with Ferrothorn is more of a strategy and less of a gimmick. If a gimmick fails to accomplish what it’s trying to, it will almost certainly lose.

    EDIT (accidentally submitted too soon): If you lost to Blissey and/or Shedinja, and knew they were fringe viable, that was your choice. I’m sure there were slight alterations you could have made to your team to fight those, but you either didn’t consider them “real” or you didn’t consider them at all.

    Full Perish Song is a gimmick, but you say “that doesn’t stop a high level player out predicting someone with perish trap.” Again, if you are not 100% focused on it, it’s not a gimmick — It’s a tool. Tony’s team from WA Regionals is a good example of that, and also the only team with Perish Song to do well at a Regionals.

    So if I win any games with a 100% perish trap team (I am not really sure what is classified as 100%) or a shedninja team, it is because my opponent made a mistake or was ill-prepared? It has nothing to do with predicting who will be attacked or knowing how the opponent plans to counter my strategy. Because that is exactly what you said in that post.

    I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make with the article. I can concede that the overall point (hopefully) is that you should build a team with clear goals in mind and use 6 pokemon to do that. I don’t agree that the goals described in the agro/control/agro-control are the goals you should build a team by.

  15. Scott says:

    This concept got brought up sort of sarcastically on IRC and I made a comment I thought I should post here, which I think is maybe a better way to explain the point a lot of the opposition has here.
     
    To me, aggro and control in Pokemon isn’t really about Pokemon choice as it was presented in the article in a meaningful sense. Aggro is pretty much either “newbie” or “exploiting holes early in formats” in that context. What I think at least at a higher level is more accurate is that most players would agree that the right way to play the game, step 1, is to maneuver into dominant board position, by switching or leading well, or by sacrificing at the right time, whatever. Once in that position, you need to use that superior board position to capitalize on your opponent being forced to switch, or being incapable of switching, by picking up the KOs you’ve forced them to give you or by punishing their “safe” switches so much that they can no longer position advantageously. I think a better metric of a player’s aggro vs control tendencies in Pokemon is more like their willingness to try to exploit those holes by making aggressive reads to try to take leads and close the game quickly as opposed to continuing to play more defensively from an advantage and safely continuing to maintain advantageous board position while taking smaller advantages, drawing out the game. 
     
    In the end, as far as Pokemon choice, there are a lot of holes you have to try to plug in this game and carrying a bunch of frail Pokemon inhibits your ability to maneuver well enough to get consistent board position against opponents that have teams that get it more efficiently than you. Unless the format is so broken that the offensive threats can’t be checked efficiently, you need a minimum level of bulk to position well enough to succeed. As a result, I guess I agree with the people who think aggro/control is more up to playstyle than Pokemon choice (though hopefully I articulated that a little bit better), and also why I think Aggro in the sense it was written in the article is something that falls off in the end of the year when more players have strong defensive cores they’re very practiced with. In an early format Regional or when testing teams on a ladder or something, and especially in best-of-one play, the frail aggressive stuff is more likely to work, but being able to maneuver to maintain board position is too important of a game mechanic to short yourself on later in the season. As a result, players who don’t have the bulk in their teams tend to fall off in the serious events as a result of limiting their own maneuverability. Thus why this is more a matter of playstyle: tempo is decided by how players are using the pieces that are bulky enough (and maybe 1 or 2 frail options on their team) differently than their competition rather than by large differences in ideal team compositions.
     
    I think stuff like Perish Trap existing outside of that norm is actually the right way to look at it, but I would disagree with the premise that pure Perish Trap isn’t something that could work even in the high-end tournaments in this format, for instance. It depends a lot on the “gimmick” being discussed: there’s always some that have advantageous matchups in a format and some that don’t. I personally wouldn’t suggest most of that type of stuff because I think having consistent winnable matchups is harder the less standard you go, but having a couple inessential quirks definitely helps in a long tournament.

  16. crazysnorlax says:

    I like using strong Pokemon.

  17. Thage says:

    So if I win any games with a 100% perish trap team (I am not really sure what is classified as 100%) or a shedninja team, it is because my opponent made a mistake or was ill-prepared? It has nothing to do with predicting who will be attacked or knowing how the opponent plans to counter my strategy. Because that is exactly what you said in that post.

    I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make with the article. I can concede that the overall point (hopefully) is that you should build a team with clear goals in mind and use 6 pokemon to do that. I don’t agree that the goals described in the agro/control/agro-control are the goals you should build a team by.

    Like Scott said earlier, I think we’re on the same page. 

    If you are playing against Perish Trap, have practiced the matchup, and have a good plan, I think you’re a favorite to win. All of this is assuming you play pretty well, but doesn’t necessarily mean you have to play perfectly.

    In the other scenario, where you might know that Perish Trap is a thing, but don’t know how/why it works, what it’s trying to accomplish, and you don’t accidentally have a good check to it, you are probably not in a good position. Even in those spots, you can still win games just as you said.

    However, I feel like you’re be much better off doing the research and putting in the effort since it will be pretty difficult to lose to it if you ever play against it. Maybe it’s -EV to spend time “fixing” matchups that might not even occur, but I’d like to cover my bases if possible.

  18. Azazel says:

    To start off on a good note, thank you Thage for an insightful piece on analyzing teams and providing means through which a player can enhance his/her game by fulfilling or abiding by certain archetypes. With no further intent to shed neither a positive or a negative light on the work, let me say this:

    1. Smith hit the nail on the head with this

    “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.”

    2. The reply section of this article actually sparked my interest in getting involved in this communities online domain and voicing my opinion. The amount of people that appropriately respond and display maturity as well as professionalism is refreshing. Nevertheless, the few of you who chose to nitpick and dislplay animosity, intentional or not, also peaked my interest in voicing my opinion, a specific one in fact. Please, be respectful and polite. The people that write these articles or provide criticisms/perspectives take their time to shed light on a very complex and at times frustrating metagame. The analysis these people provide isn’t a rallying cry to the tune of ‘I know everything’, it’s an outstretched hand that offers guidance to beginners and people that wish to elevate their game in order to compete at higher levels, as I’m sure many of is out there wish to do! Someone mentioned, Thage actually mentioned it, that we should take that animosity and use it to write our own articles and give our own take on the meta in order to also provide meaningful help to those in need of more outstretched hands. I plan to do that, this article is part of my inspiration for that, I hope we all can do that in the near future, as I love nothing more than a heavy flow of content on this website.(it makes the dead hours at my job much more enjoyable)

    3. I think the gimmick category is spot on and does illustrate a category that has the potential to make any player stumble even if only slightly, but there should be a different name for it. Maybe ‘unconventional’ or ‘anti meta’ would be more politically correct, because those in the community that have an affinity for that realm of the meta take offense to the term gimmick. My suggestion to change that is just that, a suggestion, not a hostile demand or reflection of insult done upon me, though I do think it would have a positive lift on the snarky tit for tats going on in the comments below.

    Hopefully I properly expressed my thanks for your insight Thage, and I plan on following up with my opinions elsewhere, including your highly anticipated part three! I’m happy to join this community and I look forward to reaping souls and learning from defeat in the days to come!

    -Sincerely, Azazel

  19. CodeCass says:

    Really informative and helpful! This has given me quite a bit of insight as to what I need to work on as a beginning VGCer!

  20. Whale says:

    I would like to applaud Thage for making this post. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, create a foundation for VGC newbs (aka me) to build off of. This article is NOT used for the purpose of discoverying your playstyle and sticking with it, it was written to give unfamiliar people a sort of foot in the door and building up from that. With this “archetype” its gives new players a direction towards creating their first teams and trying them out and possibly going to RMT for constructive criticism. Over time, a person will find a style of play suitable to their disposition. Oh, and the veterans shouldn’t be having arguments with this subject, it confuses new players but, instead you guys should work together adding your ideas and experiences towards a follow up article to correct whatever misinterpretations a new player might have.

Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑