Bottom up team building via "roles"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great idea. I have to say though that I feel that if the focus here is teambuilding, just listing out every mon under every role might not be the way to go. Rather we can begin with a given role and build around the mons in that role before moving on to another. Something along the lines of cooperative role-based core building.

For example, wallbreakers work well with pivots. List out some wallbreakers; Mega Medicham, Kyurem-B, Mega Mawile etc. and then list out pivots which pair well with them respectively along with reasoning as to why. Something like
  • Raikou pairs well with Medicham and Heracross by forcing out their flying type checks and pivoting off a slower mon. Also obtains a great advantage against SkarmChans cores.
  • SubPass Celebi can successfully get Mega Mawile behind a Sub thanks to great type synergy paired with Mawile's Intimidate especially in scenarios such as when Tyranitar switches in on the Sub turn for a trap attempt.
  • Talonflame can U-Turn off a predicted Rotom switch to bring in Kyurem-B who can set a free Sub.
Once a pair is selected, a third role can be selected based on the specific pair and the appropriate teammate can be added and so on.

As mentioned in the OP, some roles listed are irrelevant with respect to viability, at least to be included for standard reference . As for the relevant ones, I'm sure most of us can immediately list out the small pool of viable Defoggers and are aware that Excadrill and arguably Starmie are the only competitively viable spinners. Though other lists may not always be pre-loaded in the back of our minds, it often just takes a little bit of digging before they are found.

Anyway what my take here is that categorization, though a convenient reference, has no role in conception and formulation which together shape the heart of teambuilding.

If we build complementary role combinations step by step, we need not worry about what belongs to a role until we need something from that role, in which case we can begin elaborate brainstorming to possibly even find great and creative niches which we otherwise might not have if we just used a list which we mass loaded at the beginning.

I don't know how much sense I make because I'm relatively new here and haven't participated in any such threads, though interested in doing so. I just came across this and didn't think categorization, especially at the initial stage, is necessary.
 
Last edited:

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Great idea. I have to say though that I feel that if the focus here is teambuilding, just listing out every mon under every role might not be the way to go. Rather we can begin with a given role and build around the mons in that role before moving on to another. Something along the lines of cooperative role-based core building.

For example, wallbreakers work well with pivots. List out some wallbreakers; Mega Medicham, Kyurem-B, Mega Mawile etc. and then list out pivots which pair well with them respectively along with reasoning as to why. Something like
  • Raikou pairs well with Medicham and Heracross by forcing out their flying type checks and pivoting off a slower mon. Also obtains a great advantage against SkarmChans cores.
  • SubPass Celebi can successfully get Mega Mawile behind a Sub thanks to great type synergy paired with Mawile's Intimidate especially in scenarios such as when Tyranitar switches in on the Sub turn for a trap attempt.
  • Talonflame can U-Turn off a predicted Rotom switch to bring in Kyurem-B who can set a free Sub.
Once a pair is selected, a third role can be selected based on the specific pair and the appropriate teammate can be added and so on.

As mentioned in the OP, some roles listed are irrelevant with respect to viability, at least to be included for standard reference . As for the relevant ones, I'm sure most of us can immediately list out the small pool of viable Defoggers and are aware that Excadrill and arguably Starmie are the only competitively viable spinners. Though other lists may not always be pre-loaded in the back of our minds, it often just takes a little bit of digging before they are found.

Anyway what my take here is that categorization, though a convenient reference, has no role in conception and formulation which together shape the heart of teambuilding.

If we build complementary role combinations step by step, we need not worry about what belongs to a role until we need something from that role, in which case we can begin elaborate brainstorming to possibly even find great and creative niches which we otherwise might not have if we just used a list which we mass loaded at the beginning.

I don't know how much sense I make because I'm relatively new here and haven't participated in any such threads, though interested in doing so. I just came across this and didn't think categorization, especially at the initial stage, is necessary.
Note (to all as this seems to be a point that is very commonly missed in the op):

The categorization listings a single part of the idea. They are there for simple convience as a quick reference

The bulk of the content comes after the easy poke bank is sorted out, and that is HOW to combine these mons (ie wallbreaker + pivot, type synergy, etc.)

Let us not just skim OPs for something like this, at it causes confusion and it is a waste of time
 
Note (to all as this seems to be a point that is very commonly missed in the op):

The categorization listings a single part of the idea. They are there for simple convience as a quick reference

The bulk of the content comes after the easy poke bank is sorted out, and that is HOW to combine these mons (ie wallbreaker + pivot, type synergy, etc.)

Let us not just skim OPs for something like this, at it causes confusion and it is a waste of time
I was by no means criticizing the OP nor did I misinterpret the gameplan in any way. What I'm pointing out is that it's been five days and thirty posts and the thread hasnt gone past pre-categorization which is not an integral part of teambuilding and arguably unecessary as it could limit creativity. A reference is always good as an optional convenience but need not be a standard.
Also, listing OU mons under roles seems like a one-man job which could have even been readily compiled at the beginning. Having tens of veterans identically list out the same defoggers and stealth rock users is basically too many cooks. Based on the rate of progression in the thread so far I hope it doesn't take too long to move on to the more refreshing aspects of teambuilding
 
Last edited:

Monte Cristo

Banned deucer.
"- Attackers: Can hit the opposition hard, but not necessarily sweep through well made teams, generally characterized as Pokemon meant to come in at any point in the game and stay out for a small number of turns"
just wondering why wallbreakers (not stall breakers, but your definition makes them very close so you can put this under stallbreakers as well)are left out from this group, we've all used generic wallbreakers and I think most of us here think they deserve a spot somewhere in this, idk tho, could be misguided

"
- Sweepers: Can sweep using a wide array of attacks or buffs, generally characterized as Pokemon meant to come in mid to late game as well as stay out for multiple consecutive turns
* Dragon Dancers
* Swords Dancers
* Nasty Plotters
* Calm Minders
* Should I include Choice Scarfers here too? Not sure about this. In previous gens, Scarfers particularly on Hazards teams, were certainly viable sweepers, but I'm seeing this purpose less emphasized and the "checking sweepers" purpose more emphasized for Scarfers nowadays."

is late game sweeper a possibility to add here? for instance after the initial layer of support- char Y doesn't even need set up, it just wrecks a lot of teams, albeit not them most effective method.

there's also mons that boost speed such as the almighty RP lando-i, but idk if that's worth putting in for just that minority of pokemon :/
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I'll get to advancing this thread to the next logical step in a bit; I'm taking a lot of random trips lately so smogon related projects are suffering a bit of a bottleneck :P

Promise I'll get to it soon; in the meanwhile please continue to state your opinions on what I asked in the OP, every (constructive) opinion helps a little =]
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
I've been meaning to write something about this for a while and I feel as if this is a decent place to start, as it has always been an important part of my understanding of teambuilding. Even though it is not particularly scientific in its approach I think it can be a valuable tool.

In this game you can simplify each Pokemon on the opponent's team as something that falls onto a scale of offensiveness or defensiveness. Supporting Pokemon can be a bit of an enigma, but generally will not change the overall composition of the team. Of couse the goal of the game is to reduce the opponent's team to nothing, and the way in which a team tries to accomplish this can be understood as either defensive or offensive. Where offensive Pokemon rely on overwhelming attacking power to destroy the opponent faster than they can destroy you, defense relies on overwhelming defensive power to lose health slower than the opponents do. Now you may be clever and point out that these are mathematially the same thing, the tactics employed are wildly different.

So, each Pokemon on the opponent's team can be assigned a value for where it falls on a scale of either offense, or defense. Where something like Chansey, whose main tactic is to spam softboiled as much as possible to simply outlast the opponent sbjected to sporadic or residual damage, and accomplishes this with its ridiculou defenses, receives a nearly fully defensive rating. Conversely something like Greninja, who relies on its speed, coverage and power to attack the opponent before it can attack it, and do as much damage as possible. Naturally, Greninja's defensive tactics are minimal, it will never be employed in a stalling manner, but it still exerts some defensive abilities, in that it can take some weaker resisted moves, and as such it receives a nearly maximal offensive rating.

What separates the two roles so greatly are their tactics. The difference between trying to move first and KO a Pokemon as its way of winning and trying to heal as much as possible to eventually suffocate the opponent as a way of winning are so wildly different that the countertactics are wildly different. Attempting to beat a Chansey, the way you would a Greninja, with resistances to its moves, a choice scarf, priority, raw speed, a focus sash, or what have you would make little sense at all. Attempting to beat a Greninja with Taunt, Life Orb and Swords Dance with no care for speed, or Pursuit trapping also makes little sense.

what this means for team building is that if you can simplify the opponent's team into a sum of its defensive and offensive tendencies, then to defeat this team you need a sufficient amount of counter tactics to both their defense and offense. Again, if the opponent had 3 very defensive Pokemon, and 3 very offensive, and you brought 6 stallbreakers, the 3 offensive Pokemon would roll you over. So, what should always be considered in a team is how well it can perform against any combination of defense, or offense. A hyper offensive team, with 6 fast attackers, none of which are heavily equipped to break down stall will find itself always losing to stall. A simply remedy is inserting some kind of overwhelming offensive precense, among other anti-stall techniques. This makes the team generally worse against offense than it once was, but, it's necessary to be consistently effective.

So how this is useful is by examining every single role that we can come up with, and classify their abilities vs offense and defense. This of course totally glosses over aspects like type synergy, and metagaming, but the idea is that the roles are firstly examined then it is up to the builder to select the right mon in that role. A Dragon Dancer, for example is generally more effective agaisnt offense, the +1 attack and +1 speed are dangerous to offensive teams that can not stand up to +1 attacks, and rely on speed to revenge kill. Fully defensive teams on the other hand are generally built to take +1 attacks, and are less threatened by Dragon Dancers, but that is certainly not to say that they aren't a threat at all. A Dragon Dancer itself is of course a pretty offensive role, so it can be classified as mostly offensive, mostly anti offense with some anti defense and defensive characteristics. A Stallbreaker is nearly the opposite, as it is a mostly defensive Pokemon, relying on perfect typing or healing combined with anti defensive tools, like Taunt. A stallbreaker can be seen an anti defensive, defensive Pokemon, as it relies on defnesive attributes, and is generally not useful against offense. Again, this isnt to say that it is useless against offense, but its tendencey is clear.

When teambuilding you can look at your team, and look at how defensive, or offensive it is, and try and patch up weaknesses to anti-offense or anti-defense. That or notice how weak your team may be against defense or offense and then throw some countertactics on it. For example, someone making an offensive team can make sure htey wont struggle against opposing offense by being able to deal with these threats, and having some of their own.

Offensive Anti Offense:
- Choice Scarf users
- Priority users
- Speed boosting sweepers
- Focus Sash users
- Exceptionally fast attackers
- Sashed Stealth Rock leads
- Offensive Prankster Thunder Wave users (who could that be ????)
- Offensive Assault Vest / Intimidate use
- ???

How this ties into the thread is that building from roles is a good idea, but I think what role to choose, what mon in that role is best can use this way of thinking to find what is correct. Just when DO you need a choice scarf user? When you're weak to offense, when you're weak to speed boosting sweepers.

You can classify sets in accordance to role and also relation to offense and defense

Bisharp @ BlackGlasses
Ability: Defiant
EVs: 4 HP / 252 Atk / 252 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Knock Off
- Sucker Punch
- Iron Head
- Pursuit

Role: Pursuit trapper, attacker
Style: Offensive
vs. Offense: Sucker Punch contributes to anti offense as priority, Pursuit can be used to eliminate certain offensive threats, Defiant contributes vs offense as it threatens a sucker punch sweep or serious damage otherwise
vs. Defense: Pursuit contributes vs defense being able to trap certain defensive Pokemon or breka them down, Defiant contributes vs defense at least forcing them to keep their counter completely healthy, Knock Off contributes vs defense making some irrepairable damage against certain counters

Overall this Bisharp is an offensive utility attacker that has tools to deal with both kinds of Pokemon, but specializes in neither. Subsequently it should not be added onto teams that need a single answer to fast sweepers, or a way to break down stall indepedently, but something that can contribute to dealing with both of these threats.

Diggersby @ Focus Sash / Life Orb
Ability: Huge Power
EVs: 4 HP / 252 Atk / 252 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Swords Dance
- Earthquake
- Return
- Quick Attack

Role: Wallbreaker, Sweeper
Style: Offensive
vs. Offense: Quick Attack is Diggersby's way to threaten offense teams, and with Swords Dance is becomes a fairly scary prospect. A Focus Sash can be used as it greatly increases Diggersby's ability to set up against offensive teams.
vs. Defense: Obviously being so strong Diggy's main use is to roll over defensive cores, it's quite good at this with a Life Orb, but still effective without

Diggersby can be classified as offensive with a heavy anti-defensive bias, and a more balanced style with a Focus Sash. Choosing a Focus Sash or Life Orb for Diggy can be determined by examining what your team is like against offense or defense.
 
Last edited:

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
^ great, love that

However, I'm afraid that that is an exceptionally large scope creep; namely it probably applies better to another topic

My best guess for what that topic is probably additions directly to the pokedex analyses, particularly because you are adding "vs. offense" and "vs. defense" on the set level, whereas this topic is just classifying roles and assigning pokemon to them (so basically the scope difference is set vs. pokemon level)

Ash Borer, I recommend you make a separate topic for this, asking for the "vs. offense" and "vs. defense" to be either directly added to the set analyses or somehow edited to incorporate them explicitly

My best guess is we'll be able to link this general roles + pokemon that can play those roles topic somehow within the analyses via a tag + hyperlink model.

Remember, and I'm clarifying this because some people have been confused, this specific topic is not meant to be the end all for team building. It is merely one small component of a hopefully large set of threads that will eventually combine into a team building resource.
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Just wanted to mention this isn't dead; I'm simply traveling a lot nowadays (not sure if I mentioned this here or not).

I should be back in the swing of things soon enough.

EDIT:

I'll get to advancing this thread to the next logical step in a bit; I'm taking a lot of random trips lately so smogon related projects are suffering a bit of a bottleneck :P

Promise I'll get to it soon; in the meanwhile please continue to state your opinions on what I asked in the OP, every (constructive) opinion helps a little =]
ah I did mention it

still, just wanted to chime in
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top