Pre-battle team selection and the simulator/Wi-Fi gap

[Kevin Garrett]

I think this decision was a bit hasty. There are a lot of things to consider for this topic. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think one option is superior to the other. Having no preview before the battle increases the level of skill in a game. Scouting has been a fundamental skill since the beginning of competitive Pokemon. That is thrown out the window outside of scouting move sets, which isn't really anything. In both preview and no preview, you have to outplay your opponent. With no preview, if you are skilled with your switches and keep Pokemon remain hidden and do a better job of seeing your opponent's Pokemon, you are rewarded by gaining the upper hand in a game. This is a skill; it makes the game more competitive.

Another thing to consider are surprises. That is limited to just move sets once again because any Pokemon that is uncommon and forms a nice niche will be sniffed out before you have a chance to spring it on your opponent. People say previewing has its advantages. Let's take a look at what they are. You can see your opponent's Pokemon so you can see if you have a huge weakness to your opponent ahead of time and plan for it. Good players aren't generally weak to many things so this is really an overstated advantage. Most of the time this doesn't help you at all. Another reason for previews is that you can change your lead. That sounds really good at first, but then some random player could switch their lead for the hell of it and foil your strategic switch. There is no guarantee a skillful lead change will give you an advantage. Compare that to what I said above with scouting, which is sure to give you an advantage.

From the looks of it, no preview is clearly the way to go if we are going to make competitive Pokemon have an emphasis on skill.

 

[cim]

I honestly thought any team that relied on being secret to win in the last gen was ineffective for anything but best-of-one tournaments, and to say all skill is removed from Pokemon because you can't use gimmicks and have to do things a little differently than before is pretty ridiculous. Most of the skill of Pokemon is in prediction, team balance, and strategy execution. Effective strategies don't suddenly suck with a revealed team, prediction (possibly the most "lucky" part of pokemon) isn't ruined entirely (you have more knowledge to go off of, that's all), and team balance obviously doesn't change either.

The main things are that you can't go "lol i killed your only gyarados counter now i'm going to sweep with the gyarados you didn't know I had!!!!", which put too much of an emphasis on "preparing for everything" in my opinion anyway.

 

[Kevin Garrett]

I honestly thought any team that relied on being secret to win in the last gen was ineffective for anything but best-of-one tournaments, and to say all skill is removed from Pokemon because you can't use gimmicks and have to do things a little differently than before is pretty ridiculous. Most of the skill of Pokemon is in prediction, team balance, and strategy execution. Effective strategies don't suddenly suck with a revealed team, prediction (possibly the most "lucky" part of pokemon) isn't ruined entirely (you have more knowledge to go off of, that's all), and team balance obviously doesn't change either.

Not really. August got through a few rounds of his ST5 winning run with lesser used Pokemon like Rhyperior. TAY is another prolific battler who was known for successful gimmicks.

The main things are that you can't go "lol i killed your only gyarados counter now i'm going to sweep with the gyarados you didn't know I had!!!!", which put too much of an emphasis on "preparing for everything" in my opinion anyway.

Why didn't they know you had it? They didn't execute a good enough strategy to force you to switch it in at any point.

 

[cim]

Not really. August got through a few rounds of his ST5 winning run with lesser used Pokemon like Rhyperior. TAY is another prolific battler who was known for successful gimmicks.

Pokemon like Rhyperior, Empoleon, and other "low OU gimmicks" don't lose all of their effectiveness once the opponent knows you have one. If they do, they're pretty bad!

 

[Kevin Garrett]

Pokemon like Rhyperior, Empoleon, and other "low OU gimmicks" don't lose all of their effectiveness once the opponent knows you have one. If they do, they're pretty bad!

That may be so, but it eliminates the ability of your play with other Pokemon to back your opponent into a corner that they can't escape with the said niche Pokemon. I see it as a skill (or the opponent's lack of) to conceal a certain Pokemon to spring it on the opponent after they are too weak to handle it. With previewing teams, even an average player would know they need to look out for something in particular.

 

[undisputed]

Hmmm. I disagree a little bit with KG on at least why we should go one way or another. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that KG means that suprises are all lost with team preview. Because this is true, I think this may be the exact reason why team preview might turn out to be the best thing for Gen 5. From experience, the Gen 5 ladder is really a huge free for all. No matter what team I've used, or seen someone else play with, I find myself being unable to adapt to the sheer number of Pokemon available. There are some Pokemon that I flat out lose to, and then there are some pokemon that I will lose to if they have Partner X. I often find myself just guessing based on what I've seen of a person's team what I should keep around and what Pokemon I should get rid of. Obviously you can make the same point about Gen 4, but when compared, I think Gen 5 is just a huge STAB in the dark. TBH, I don't think 6 Pokemon can cover a good portion of teams anymore. I usually find myself sacrificing something and hoping that one of the 5+ mons it covers doesn't show up.

Now the easy point to make here is "undisputed, that is called skill: to know what to sac when" and to a large extent I agree. Obviously you want to Sacrifice whatever gives you the best shot of winning. But, in Gen 5 at least thus far, I need all 6 mons to even cover a decent portion of what I might face, and giving one Team member up is to hope that whatever Pokemon it covers doesn't come in. In gen 4, I was able to have backup counters to almost everything, so letting one Pokemon faint wasn't as potentially game breaking as it is now.

I think we should try playing in both metagames, and then a vote could be held as to whether one metagame is preferred to the other, or whether they both bring positive feedback to the table.

 

[Kevin Garrett]

It is completely unfair to call no team preview a free for all. The only ladder I have seen available for no preview is Dream World, which is by definition a clusterfuck. Not to mention that the initial list we voted on was liberal to make sure we don't have to go back and test suspect Pokemon. Even the Wi-Fi metagame is overflowing with overpowered Pokemon. You can't just say there are more threats than ever without even having a static tier list.

This is why I am not thrilled this needs to be decided so hastily. We don't know what the BW OU tier will look like when testing is over so having mechanics decided on the initial list is not very logical.

 

[undisputed]

It doesn't need to be decided right at this moment, but I do think that Gen 5 is kind of a free for all. I have to accept there are some teams I will win against just based on what's on my team, and there will be some games where I know once Pokemon X shows up, its good game no matter what stage I'm at. Every game has been more "Team advantage" than I've every Gen 4 game I've ever played. I have yet to actually play a game where I was like "wow, I really needed to think in order to pull that win out." Instead it's more like "wow, Genosekuto came out and I don't have Full health TTar left? gg" I don't know if any one else has had this problem, but when I watched one of my friends that was pretty high on the LB play, he had the exact same problem.

 

[eric the espeon]

The significant loss of scouting as a skill seems to me like simply a change in the required skillset in that you no longer focus on not giving away information, but instead aim to do as much damage as possible, whereas the gain (not having to make simple guesses about the foe's team, "does he have that sweeper hidden or not") directly removes an element of luck and reduces the impact of team matchup, which helps balance individual games and makes it easier for skilled players to win more.

We don't know what the BW OU tier will look like when testing is over so having mechanics decided on the initial list is not very logical.

However, we need to know what mechanics we are using before starting testing if we wish our testing to be relevant to the game we play. Deciding whether to hide teams or use the natural format of gen five should take place before the testing. This is especially important if something is suspect because of it's ability as a lead since the lead subgame is hugely affected by this change.

 

[Kevin Garrett]

The significant loss of scouting as a skill seems to me like simply a change in the required skillset in that you no longer focus on not giving away information, but instead aim to do as much damage as possible, whereas the gain (not having to make simple guesses about the foe's team, "does he have that sweeper hidden or not") directly removes an element of luck and reduces the impact of team matchup, which helps balance individual games and makes it easier for skilled players to win more.

Having a hidden sweeper isn't an element of luck. It is more an element of strategy. It is only an element of luck when a player can't execute their strategy well enough to sort out the opponent's team. My whole philosophy of battling is based on a system of advantages throughout the course of a game. If a player has to make a guess, "Do I use this Pokemon now to help get me out of this or save it for possible unknown X," then they don't have the advantage in the game. Therefore, with this new system of previewing, from the way I see it, it is a possible luck element added against the skilled player. Skilled players will usually win against average and bad players no matter what, even if they are at a team disadvantage. That doesn't include luck. What I'm thinking about more is good players against other good players. LonelyNess said the second game on ladder against a good player is better because they know each other's teams. That is terrible reasoning for having previewable teams because in my experience (and I'm sure it's not just me), the second battle is only better to the one who lost the first game. The first game is where one player took advantage of situations in the game and executed their strategy properly. The other player, maybe not so well.

However, we need to know what mechanics we are using before starting testing if we wish our testing to be relevant to the game we play. Deciding whether to hide teams or use the natural format of gen five should take place before the testing. This is especially important if something is suspect because of it's ability as a lead since the lead subgame is hugely affected by this change.

I don't mean to suggest that we wait to decide this. I think people should take more than the current ban list into consideration. I don't need to point out the grossly overpowered Pokemon that are not on the initial list. The end goal is to have as balanced of a tier as we possibly can. It is under that assumption that we should be choosing this mechanic. I agree, right now, I would love previewable teams with Darkrai, Deoxys, Shaymin-S, and so on. But that won't be BW OU after a few months.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Having played both, I'm a bigger fan of team preview.

They require different sets of skills but I think the skillset required by preview is just a more competitive one. It encourages long term thinking and opens up predictions from the very beginning of the battle. It's really comes down to personal preference and I prefer preview.

 

[Fireburn]

Having played both, I'm a bigger fan of team preview.

They require different sets of skills but I think the skillset required by preview is just a more competitive one. It encourages long term thinking and opens up predictions from the very beginning of the battle. It's really comes down to personal preference and I prefer preview.

I agree with this entirely.

 

[locopoke]

This is why I am not thrilled this needs to be decided so hastily. We don't know what the BW OU tier will look like when testing is over so having mechanics decided on the initial list is not very logical.

It actually is in our best interest to decide on mechanics immediately. We've been playing for over a month now, I think we have a good enough feel on BW to decide which mechanics we're going to use. It's important that we decide on this now, as tournaments and suspect tests could be influenced by a lack of this mechanic.

I've already posted my 2 cents on this subject on the first page. I think the best way to decide this is with a vote, plain and simple.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Having played both, I'm a bigger fan of team preview.

They require different sets of skills but I think the skillset required by preview is just a more competitive one. It encourages long term thinking and opens up predictions from the very beginning of the battle. It's really comes down to personal preference and I prefer preview.

This.

 

[6A9 Ace Matador]

If we do impliment this I believe games will feel a lot less competetive, because if you have a threat that it looks like your opponent is likely to do badly against, you know then to play it well, not take risks or let it die early, (and the effect this creates on game play is huge, it means you can make better predictions because your opponents moves will mostly be targetting the problem Pokemon) and make the most out of it by using your knowledge of the opponents team to make double switches etc. to get it in. At least in DP your opponent could have a threat and you could bluff, go to checks and such. In this, both players are just going to have to both be playing guessing games, and for the player with the problem pokemon, it won't matter if he guesses right or wrong mostly, since he can afford to play it safe most likely.

so my biggest issue with this is that it potentially means one player has late game momentum from the offset of the battle.

 

[Erazor]

If we do impliment this I believe games will feel a lot less competetive, because if you have a threat that it looks like your opponent is likely to do badly against, you know then to play it well, not take risks or let it die early, (and the effect this creates on game play is huge, it means you can make better predictions because your opponents moves will mostly be targetting the problem Pokemon) and make the most out of it by using your knowledge of the opponents team to make double switches etc. to get it in. At least in DP your opponent could have a threat and you could bluff, go to checks and such. In this, both players are just going to have to both be playing guessing games, and for the player with the problem pokemon, it won't matter if he guesses right or wrong mostly, since he can afford to play it safe most likely.

so my biggest issue with this is that it potentially means one player has late game momentum from the offset of the battle.

We need to get out of the gen 4 mentality. Face it, gen 5 is obviously going to require a new 'competitive' mentality, and we should all just accept this new mechanic as part of the game.

For me personally, this doesn't remove skill, this just brings a different type of skill into the game.

 

[Jibaku]

After thinking about this for a while, I prefer team previews. It reduces the effect of team match ups by encouraging long term thinking before the battle starts. This helps against reckless play which was easily done in DPPt, and thus preventing one side from holding absolute control of the other just because he or she lost the lead match up and doesn't know what else to expect while being puppetstrung.

Two cents

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'm not trying to pick on you locopoke, it's just that your post was the shortest and earliest in the thread, and all the other posts with your position have essentially the same argument. I just want to voice my dissenting opinion on the topic.

It decreases the importance of team match-ups and brings more mind games into the mix.

I don't see how a choice between 1-of-6 pokemon brings more mind games into the mix when compared to a choice between 6-out-of-about-150 competitively viable pokemon. When you have team-reveal, the only mind game is "when will he bring out this pokemon?". Without team-reveal, you have other mind games like "what pokemon does he have?", "can he still counter me?", "should I sacrifice this mon not knowing what his last ??? is?", "I already KOd one Steel-type, does his team look like there's another or can I use Outrage now?" etc. It adds long-term thinking into the mix because you're forced to play the odds and consider everything they could possibly do, rather than everything their 6 pokemon can do.

And why should the importance of "team match-ups" be decreased? You never really specify what this means or why it would be a good thing. To me, team matchups are a huge part of how the game is played, so much more strategy goes into building your team than actually playing the games. Do you want to cover everything or just power through people? Does this pokemon mesh well with that one? Can they work together somehow? Team building SHOULD be difficult in my opinion, it adds more to the game. "Long term thinking" doesn't just apply to in-battle situations. Can you guys honestly tell me that you put more thinking into your 5-minute, 30-turn tournament battles than your 6-pokemon, 6-EV Spread, 6-item, 24-move tournament ready team (which I'm sure you put in several test matches before the tourney match itself)?

Both players knowing each other's teams forces a higher level of play. One person can't play recklessly and end up scoring an easy win because he has one Pokemon that the opponent is weak to. I'm in full support of making this part of competitive play from here on out.

But likewise, with team-reveal that one person can still play recklessly and get a win because you know the opponent's counters. "Oh I only have to kill Skarmory and then I'm free to sweep with Doryuuzu. Good to know that I can sacrifice anything I want now as long as that one Pokemon dies". It eliminates any need for safety while playing because they can't surprise you with a counter mid-game. It decreases the need for long-term thinking because you already have your objectives laid out in front of you before you start the battle, there is nothing that can come up in the middle of the match that can change what you need to do to pull off a win (barring the rare massive hax match). You have a blueprint to follow on how to beat your opponent and there is basically nothing your opponent can do besides hope that they're faster. "I took out that lead Weavile, now I sweep with DDMence turn 3!" That doesn't lead to competitive pokemon battles in my view, but having to scout your opponent's team to make sure it's safe for that Mence does.

Team reveal makes strategies more linear, rather than a path that branches off with new possibilities at the end of every turn. It takes options out of matches rather than putting them back in.

The only surprises in a game with team reveals are the movesets of the pokemon, and most of the time that is irrelevant because most pokemon are dealt with in the same way no matter what their moveset is. Swords Dance Scizor is not much different than Choice Band Scizor, and you can be damn sure it's not running a surprise Special Attacking set. I know that there are some exceptions to this rule, but they are far outnumbered by the pokemon that can only one style of competitive set.

What I'm thinking about more is good players against other good players. LonelyNess said the second game on ladder against a good player is better because they know each other's teams. That is terrible reasoning for having previewable teams because in my experience (and I'm sure it's not just me), the second battle is only better to the one who lost the first game. The first game is where one player took advantage of situations in the game and executed their strategy properly. The other player, maybe not so well.

I agree. Team preview inevitably favors the worse player because it removes almost every curveball a more experienced player can throw at them. It completely removes any concepts of scouting and bluffing, while also weakening strategies like luring and saving for a "last pokemon" mentality. It might require a different skill set to play with team reveal, but I think it is clearly a less competitive one (especially in the precedent of our competitive policy).

 

[Ulevo]

I agree with the sentiments of Jabba, Fireburn, SDS, Jibaku and others regarding team preview. While I do agree with Kevin that team scouting and the ability to save your key threat until the appropriate time while maintaining advantage is indeed a skill, it relies too heavily on team match up to maintain the advantage now. There are too many threats, Dream World or otherwise (you must also consider the fact that we may very well be playing Dream World as OU down the line, or some variant like it involving multiple Dream World Pokemon) for a player to maintain advantage on a ladder consistently against every team they may face in order to hold that key Pokemon, and scout safely. Particularly when you consider the power creep everyone has been mentioning.

Scouting has been a fundamental skill since the beginning of competitive Pokemon. That is thrown out the window outside of scouting move sets, which isn't really anything.

I wanted to touch base on this particular comment, since I disagree with it.

I believe that with team preview, we will see a shift in OU considerations. Many OU Pokemon in Gen IV and previous fell within or in between two extremes; those with successful, but streamline, cookie cutter sets, such as Breloom, and those with multiple successful sets, such as Salamence. A lot of the former mentioned Pokemon could usually do well because, while they did have said successful combination of stats, typing, moves, items, abilities, et cetera, they did not need to be concerned about concealing their sets because the Pokemon itself was concealed until it was revealed in a match.

Assuming you used a Phazer to scout the opponents team and revealed that they had Pokemon x, a lot of what depended on how well you could handle said threat was your ability to determine what set they were running. If you predicted wrong, it could often cost you the match. Decisions such as mis predicting a Dragon Dance Tyranitar for a Choice Scarf Tyranitar, or a Choice Scarf Jirachi for a Calm Mind Jirachi.

However, assuming you revealed through your Phazer Pokemon y, which undoubtedly had an extremely high probability of running a set posted in the C&C, how well you handled that Pokemon boiled down to how well your team was equipped to handle that threat, and how you handled that particular set within the match.

I feel within a team preview environment, Pokemon that are capable with running multiple, effective sets, as well as those capable of forming newly effective sets, will see much more use in Gen V by comparison to Gen IV where many notable, powerful but one-trick-pony Pokemon could do well provided they were kept concealed.

This is not necessarily bad or good, just a consequence in the metagame shift. I personally like it.

 

[6A9 Ace Matador]

We need to get out of the gen 4 mentality. Face it, gen 5 is obviously going to require a new 'competitive' mentality, and we should all just accept this new mechanic as part of the game.

For me personally, this doesn't remove skill, this just brings a different type of skill into the game.

The different type of skill you mention is just going to be who makes the better guesses when playing in a late game enviroment from the offset. What I'm arguing is that this does indeed make the games less competetive, because the player who knows his pokemon x is going to be a problem for the opponent will be able to make easier predictions with it, and will also play as best he can with it. Having played a number of wifi games I found having a threat may even force your opponent to lead with something nuts just to avoid his normal lead being set up on, which you can take advantage of too, but it's still guessing however you put it..

 

[Ulevo]

The different type of skill you mention is just going to be who makes the better guesses when playing in a late game enviroment from the offset. What I'm arguing is that this does indeed make the games less competetive, because the player who knows his pokemon x is going to be a problem for the opponent will be able to make easier predictions with it, and will also play as best he can with it.

The advantage goes both ways. By being informed on Pokemon x, the opponent has equal opportunity to make preparations to use his reserves wisely to prevent the threat from doing its job.

This is a shift in necessary skill to win, not a depravation of it.

Having played a number of wifi games I found having a threat may even force your opponent to lead with something nuts just to avoid his normal lead being set up on, which you can take advantage of too, but it's still guessing however you put it..

While this scenario cannot always be prevented, it is mostly the consequence of poor resource management and team building. As the team preview styled metagame evolves, generalized leads capable of executing their roles in multiple situations will secure their positions on teams while more specialized leads with specific, notable weaknesses (i.e. Smeargle) will be phazed out (no pun intended) because they rely on surprise element to execute their strategy.

Again, this is a shift in the necessities of the metagame, not a loss of competitive depth.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

The advantage goes both ways. By being informed on Pokemon x, the opponent has equal opportunity to make preparations to use his reserves wisely to prevent the threat from doing its job.

He was saying that it's a disadvantage that's being passed to both players because it takes away options to exploit, it makes the worse player in the game not have to worry about as many things when trying to beat a better player. When you put both players at the same disadvantage, that means the worse player gets an overall boost.

This is a shift in necessary skill to win, not a depravation of it.

It is a shift in skills, but the skills involved with team reveal involve fewer decisions and lowered consequences for making a bad choice. Different != better.

Can someone who supports team reveal respond to my point about the skill set for that style being more linear than the skill set needed for hiding teams? Team reveal is less punishing, and easier to pick up. That's why I don't want it, because it means that there is a ceiling where good players can not get any better. When I spend a lot of time playing, I want to see some improvement or else it doesn't seem worth it to me.

Again, this is a shift in the necessities of the metagame, not a loss of competitive depth.

It's a shift in our competitive policy as well, and deserves to be treated as such. We've already gone out of our way to say that we don't mind making slight tweaks in the name of competitive balance.

 

[cim]

It's a shift in our competitive policy as well, and deserves to be treated as such. We've already gone out of our way to say that we don't mind making slight tweaks in the name of competitive balance.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't a "slight tweak". While battles with stuff like classic Sleep Clause can't happen on a DS, at least they're "close enough" that there is not much drastic change to how the game of Pokemon is played with its implementation.

Changing this will put a permanent rift between simulator and Wi-Fi play that affects every single standard battle.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Is that a bad thing? If so, why? And is it really worth the loss in competitive battling skills that comes with it? I'm sick of people saying "omg rift between sim and wifi!" without explaining why the overwhelming results of the poll on simulator mechanics should be ignored.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Yes, it's absolutely a bad thing. You might want to note that Wi-fi is BY FAR the most active part of the site, and having Smogon adopt a stance that cannot be effectively replicated on the actual games is iffy.

Sleep Clause is a "slight tweak" because the result (don't spam sleep moves) doesn't drastically change the way that the game is played. This is far from a "slight tweak", as it puts a definitive and major rift between the playstyle and metagame of simulators and Wi-Fi players.