I vowed that I'll never post again, but at this point I can't stop myself from lurking, so I really felt like I needed to post something like this.
Here's the thing.
Pokemon doesn't need perfect counters.
And it is quite likely that when you are playing your opponent that your "counter" to a given Pokemon will not be a perfect counter.
The second your mentality is to simply "counter" your opponent, then you have already lost - you are playing your opponent's game, not your own.
But yet everytime I look at a tier thread I see the reasoning that a Pokemon needs perfect counters within the tier for it to be viable.
Who gives a damn, really? This just means the following
1) You are reacting to your opponent. Your moves SOLELY depends on your opponent. This means that you are one step behind your opponent, or at the very best, you will on the same step. If you are running a team full of counters - you will have no strategy - your free turns gained from "countering" a threat will go to waste. Meaning - you should have a plan. Why does thunderwaving shit to death help you? Is it because you want to set up that Rhyperior in the end for the sweep? Go ahead. but if you're just countering, and trying to hit the next Pokemon - you will get outstalled, you will be outpowered eventually by sheer offense teams. See Point #2.
2) Most people stuck in this mentality ends up with horrendous teams with too little offense. The best strategy within this mentality is to either a) use a counter of a specific common threat and use that opportunity to baton pass or b) slowly whittle down certain threats until your own sweepers finally get a chance to sweep. The issue being is that you will either get overwhelmed by a full offensive team, and a full stall team WILL whittle you out. Wanna see an example of such a team? http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41872
3) Means that your teams will tend to be stuck in the concept of "roles" - meaning that you think "You HAVE to counter a threat" if you don't want to lose. I do admit that the site has MIGHT have that kind of mentality - especially in the RMT forums where "you are 6-0'd by ttar" is common - but note Surgo's thread in the RMT forums - you are not going to counter everything. The point is to execute your own strategy and live with it. Execute YOUR strategy, and pick the Pokemon that best achieve this. Sure, you might need to "cover" certain threats - but you will likely find ways around it anyway (IE you are not Gyarados weak if Gyarados can never set up on you, or if you have a plan to play around with it) Roles should not just be made of the counters you wish to use, but it should also support your team.
So what SHOULD you do? How SHOULD you build teams? The goal of synergy is to have a way out of every situation feasible - and this includes more than counters - and the team with "better synergy" will work together to work "around" certain other threats. Why do you think revenge killers are actually useful, such as scarftran? Why do you think offensive teams rely so much on resistances?
this is why having a "perfect counter" to garchomp isn't necessary as long as you find ways to "deal with it". Same with all of the arbitrary UU discussions that I keep seeing. If it's so much trouble - find ways around it. I'm sure you guys are all creative minds, especially since many of you have this fascinating obsession for gimmicks without learning how to play the game first. Garchomp outrages and takes down your cresselia? Okay now you have a free turn to use to 1) Take down Garchomp or 2) set something up. How about instead of complaining that Pokemon X is broken, learn to use the free turns that Pokemon X gives you by taking down your Pokemon?
To everyone using suicide leads - you might want to factor in WHY it might be useful for you to use such a lead. Why bother with a suicide lead when the rest of the team are heavy tanks that can switch in for free turns anyway? Why bother trying to deal with a suicide lead if your team doesnt give a damn about Stealth Rock? Why COMPLAIN that Stealth Rock ruins the metagame?
The point of the game is to make the best out of the situation. Only in the most extreme cases (IE Garchomp, Deoxys E) will things be "tested". We are playing Pokemon - not "Pokemon according to user X's whim".
In the end - why is that there is this prevailing mentality that you MUST be able to deal with every situation perfectly in some static, restrictive way when there are other ways around? Garchomp giving you trouble? Have a team that can smack it around and never let it "set up" or that is faster than it. Mixape giving you issue? Create a situation where it cannot use CC and switch in your scarf heatran. Once you grasp long term thinking you will realize that you can have a good chance of winning with random combinations of teams as long as you're doing.
tldr - the point is that Pokemon is more about than countering, there are more ways to play it without having to utilize a perfect counter. And even if you use a perfect counter - if you can't use the free turns well, then what's the point really? You are trying to win - make every free turn count, make every Pokemon count. If you're going for a perfect counter approach it is quite likely you will never reach that point considering you can't counter every threat anyway, and people WILL run odd moves/EVs that will throw your "counters" off anyway. Ever hear of lures?
Wheee, random midnight rants.
---------------------------
Okay, I guess I "owe" you guys a response clarifying stuff considering the "uproar" this thread has created!!!! (And again, this is partly my fault for making this thread while I was half asleep in about 15~ minutes)
I'm utterly amused by everyone claiming that somewhere I have claimed "counters shouldn't be used/countering sucks". Go read my posts. I don't think I have ever made a claim like that! All I have mentioned is "there is more to Pokemon than countering" and that "Pokemon does not NEED perfect counters".
The counter definition I am using is Jumpman's definition - which is "being able to switch in repeatedly". This is the definition of a "counter" that aldaron called archaic.
Pokemon does NOT need this definition of a counter. My claim is that the having "no perfect counters" (perfect counter implying jumpman's definition - counter just being something that can switch in)
This really just is a deeper explanation to Surgo's RMT sticky - about instead of building your team around counters - build your team around a strategy. Sure, you can counter, but make sure you pick your counter so that it helps your team in a more effect manner than "hey I'm just going to deal with threat X" This is why I called chrisisme and skiddle on not understanding my point (although yes, my point was... rather poorly worded) considering it was a step beyond sending out your jumpluffs against Garchomps. Jumpluff comes out against Garchomp, but now what does it do for your team?
The fact that people are so worried about losing their Pokemon to Garchomp shows that people are indeed stuck in this mentality. Sure, Garchomp took down one of your Pokemon, but then again, you are taking Garchomp down the next turn, aren't you? The point is that losing a Pokemon to Garchomp should not affect your long term strategy - if you have one in the first place anyway. Pokemon is about seizing up your situation, finding the best moves to deal with the situation and how that affects your long term strategy.
This is why there has been such a shitstorm of arguments regarding Garchomp is uber - many users simply stop their argument from "Garchomp has no counters", and people who think differently say "so what? You can deal with it. It is not the end of the world". This is why I argue that "No counters" should not be an argument - since in the end people are arguing "no counters" is simply saying "it is unreasonable to deal with Garchomp" (which of course, supporting arguments showing why it is unreasonable). This is why the Garchomp debate threads never ended up going ANYWHERE and we had to resort to such a subjective voting scheme - because the wording of your very arguments threw everything off.
Now, I do apologize for the previous post I have made in this thread that was condescending to SubVersion and jrrrrrr - especially since the fault is mine for not clarifying the OP to begin with. But my point still stands - Pokemon is not a game of putting each other in check through counters, but using these checks to gain an advantage for your team. Of course, this may be common sense, but this "common" sense has been nonexistent in many people's arguments.
Basically - play the game you are meant to play - don't try to twist "Pokemon" into a "Game of Counters and Checks" unless you have a pretty good reason for it. Competitive play is making the best out of every situation with regards to ingame play. In my view, many people want things banned only because they want it gone for their own personal gratification - without giving a coherent reason why they want it gone. This isn't ADV anymore - this is DP.
Here's the thing.
Pokemon doesn't need perfect counters.
And it is quite likely that when you are playing your opponent that your "counter" to a given Pokemon will not be a perfect counter.
The second your mentality is to simply "counter" your opponent, then you have already lost - you are playing your opponent's game, not your own.
But yet everytime I look at a tier thread I see the reasoning that a Pokemon needs perfect counters within the tier for it to be viable.
Who gives a damn, really? This just means the following
1) You are reacting to your opponent. Your moves SOLELY depends on your opponent. This means that you are one step behind your opponent, or at the very best, you will on the same step. If you are running a team full of counters - you will have no strategy - your free turns gained from "countering" a threat will go to waste. Meaning - you should have a plan. Why does thunderwaving shit to death help you? Is it because you want to set up that Rhyperior in the end for the sweep? Go ahead. but if you're just countering, and trying to hit the next Pokemon - you will get outstalled, you will be outpowered eventually by sheer offense teams. See Point #2.
2) Most people stuck in this mentality ends up with horrendous teams with too little offense. The best strategy within this mentality is to either a) use a counter of a specific common threat and use that opportunity to baton pass or b) slowly whittle down certain threats until your own sweepers finally get a chance to sweep. The issue being is that you will either get overwhelmed by a full offensive team, and a full stall team WILL whittle you out. Wanna see an example of such a team? http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41872
3) Means that your teams will tend to be stuck in the concept of "roles" - meaning that you think "You HAVE to counter a threat" if you don't want to lose. I do admit that the site has MIGHT have that kind of mentality - especially in the RMT forums where "you are 6-0'd by ttar" is common - but note Surgo's thread in the RMT forums - you are not going to counter everything. The point is to execute your own strategy and live with it. Execute YOUR strategy, and pick the Pokemon that best achieve this. Sure, you might need to "cover" certain threats - but you will likely find ways around it anyway (IE you are not Gyarados weak if Gyarados can never set up on you, or if you have a plan to play around with it) Roles should not just be made of the counters you wish to use, but it should also support your team.
So what SHOULD you do? How SHOULD you build teams? The goal of synergy is to have a way out of every situation feasible - and this includes more than counters - and the team with "better synergy" will work together to work "around" certain other threats. Why do you think revenge killers are actually useful, such as scarftran? Why do you think offensive teams rely so much on resistances?
this is why having a "perfect counter" to garchomp isn't necessary as long as you find ways to "deal with it". Same with all of the arbitrary UU discussions that I keep seeing. If it's so much trouble - find ways around it. I'm sure you guys are all creative minds, especially since many of you have this fascinating obsession for gimmicks without learning how to play the game first. Garchomp outrages and takes down your cresselia? Okay now you have a free turn to use to 1) Take down Garchomp or 2) set something up. How about instead of complaining that Pokemon X is broken, learn to use the free turns that Pokemon X gives you by taking down your Pokemon?
To everyone using suicide leads - you might want to factor in WHY it might be useful for you to use such a lead. Why bother with a suicide lead when the rest of the team are heavy tanks that can switch in for free turns anyway? Why bother trying to deal with a suicide lead if your team doesnt give a damn about Stealth Rock? Why COMPLAIN that Stealth Rock ruins the metagame?
The point of the game is to make the best out of the situation. Only in the most extreme cases (IE Garchomp, Deoxys E) will things be "tested". We are playing Pokemon - not "Pokemon according to user X's whim".
In the end - why is that there is this prevailing mentality that you MUST be able to deal with every situation perfectly in some static, restrictive way when there are other ways around? Garchomp giving you trouble? Have a team that can smack it around and never let it "set up" or that is faster than it. Mixape giving you issue? Create a situation where it cannot use CC and switch in your scarf heatran. Once you grasp long term thinking you will realize that you can have a good chance of winning with random combinations of teams as long as you're doing.
tldr - the point is that Pokemon is more about than countering, there are more ways to play it without having to utilize a perfect counter. And even if you use a perfect counter - if you can't use the free turns well, then what's the point really? You are trying to win - make every free turn count, make every Pokemon count. If you're going for a perfect counter approach it is quite likely you will never reach that point considering you can't counter every threat anyway, and people WILL run odd moves/EVs that will throw your "counters" off anyway. Ever hear of lures?
Wheee, random midnight rants.
---------------------------
Okay, I guess I "owe" you guys a response clarifying stuff considering the "uproar" this thread has created!!!! (And again, this is partly my fault for making this thread while I was half asleep in about 15~ minutes)
I'm utterly amused by everyone claiming that somewhere I have claimed "counters shouldn't be used/countering sucks". Go read my posts. I don't think I have ever made a claim like that! All I have mentioned is "there is more to Pokemon than countering" and that "Pokemon does not NEED perfect counters".
The counter definition I am using is Jumpman's definition - which is "being able to switch in repeatedly". This is the definition of a "counter" that aldaron called archaic.
Pokemon does NOT need this definition of a counter. My claim is that the having "no perfect counters" (perfect counter implying jumpman's definition - counter just being something that can switch in)
This really just is a deeper explanation to Surgo's RMT sticky - about instead of building your team around counters - build your team around a strategy. Sure, you can counter, but make sure you pick your counter so that it helps your team in a more effect manner than "hey I'm just going to deal with threat X" This is why I called chrisisme and skiddle on not understanding my point (although yes, my point was... rather poorly worded) considering it was a step beyond sending out your jumpluffs against Garchomps. Jumpluff comes out against Garchomp, but now what does it do for your team?
The fact that people are so worried about losing their Pokemon to Garchomp shows that people are indeed stuck in this mentality. Sure, Garchomp took down one of your Pokemon, but then again, you are taking Garchomp down the next turn, aren't you? The point is that losing a Pokemon to Garchomp should not affect your long term strategy - if you have one in the first place anyway. Pokemon is about seizing up your situation, finding the best moves to deal with the situation and how that affects your long term strategy.
This is why there has been such a shitstorm of arguments regarding Garchomp is uber - many users simply stop their argument from "Garchomp has no counters", and people who think differently say "so what? You can deal with it. It is not the end of the world". This is why I argue that "No counters" should not be an argument - since in the end people are arguing "no counters" is simply saying "it is unreasonable to deal with Garchomp" (which of course, supporting arguments showing why it is unreasonable). This is why the Garchomp debate threads never ended up going ANYWHERE and we had to resort to such a subjective voting scheme - because the wording of your very arguments threw everything off.
Now, I do apologize for the previous post I have made in this thread that was condescending to SubVersion and jrrrrrr - especially since the fault is mine for not clarifying the OP to begin with. But my point still stands - Pokemon is not a game of putting each other in check through counters, but using these checks to gain an advantage for your team. Of course, this may be common sense, but this "common" sense has been nonexistent in many people's arguments.
Basically - play the game you are meant to play - don't try to twist "Pokemon" into a "Game of Counters and Checks" unless you have a pretty good reason for it. Competitive play is making the best out of every situation with regards to ingame play. In my view, many people want things banned only because they want it gone for their own personal gratification - without giving a coherent reason why they want it gone. This isn't ADV anymore - this is DP.
