-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The Concept of "Roles"
- Thread starter Tangerine
- Start date
Just like everything else with the metagame, you can do anything, it's just a matter of how effective doing that would be. Roles can be used effectively, but they aren't able to utilize the full effect of that Pokemon. Things like phys/special wall and attacker, and 2 supporters will usually work. However it's not doing as much as it could.
My post was a bit hostile, but that's because I consider myself an ADV generation battler, so your attack on ADV kind bugged me, though I understand it's popular to rag on ADV(we did it to GSC).
To me it looked like your just telling people to stop using terms like sweeper and wall when talking about individual pokemon. But I guess your saying that people shouldn't be using roles to fill team slots, and I agree with that. Making a team by choosing six pokemon that execute their own role often leads to the dreaded "six individuals" team. However, synergistic strategies often have spots leftover in the team, so in these instances roles can be useful for determining what kind of pokemon the team needs to round itself out.
And remember there are more than just the six roles of wall(phys,spec) sweeper (phys, spec, mix) and tank. You've got all kind of roles including BPer, sleeper, sleep absorber, hazard setup, para, phazer, anti-lead, avenger, priority user, weather-er etc. So really what people should be thinking about is which combination of roles they want to fill their slot with.
To me it looked like your just telling people to stop using terms like sweeper and wall when talking about individual pokemon. But I guess your saying that people shouldn't be using roles to fill team slots, and I agree with that. Making a team by choosing six pokemon that execute their own role often leads to the dreaded "six individuals" team. However, synergistic strategies often have spots leftover in the team, so in these instances roles can be useful for determining what kind of pokemon the team needs to round itself out.
And remember there are more than just the six roles of wall(phys,spec) sweeper (phys, spec, mix) and tank. You've got all kind of roles including BPer, sleeper, sleep absorber, hazard setup, para, phazer, anti-lead, avenger, priority user, weather-er etc. So really what people should be thinking about is which combination of roles they want to fill their slot with.
I think a lot of people get the purpose of roles backwards. People will try to "fit" pokemon in already-created roles, such as "physical sweeper" and "special wall" when they are obviously more complex than that (this is something I did when I started playing back in ADV days).
In my mind roles were created and still exist merely to provide a quick, simple description once the team has already been created. If you look at one of your teams and say, "I need a physical sweeper" then you have already taken the wrong approach, since such a general term cannot possibly take into account the intricacies of each individual pokemon. Things like coverage and typing and even ability are almost always more important.
The one exception to this is Blissey, who completely ignores both its own and its opponent's typing and pretty much universally walls special attacks. Rather than the detailed, intricate pictures painted of the other pokemon, Blissey is a giant pink glob of paint on the canvas.
To sum up, I don't think I would call the roles outdated, since they function just as they always have: as arbitrary terms coined by the pokemon community to make discussion faster.
P.S. excuse my dumb metaphor from earlier.
P.P.S. Nice name/avatar, TVboyCanti ^__^
In my mind roles were created and still exist merely to provide a quick, simple description once the team has already been created. If you look at one of your teams and say, "I need a physical sweeper" then you have already taken the wrong approach, since such a general term cannot possibly take into account the intricacies of each individual pokemon. Things like coverage and typing and even ability are almost always more important.
The one exception to this is Blissey, who completely ignores both its own and its opponent's typing and pretty much universally walls special attacks. Rather than the detailed, intricate pictures painted of the other pokemon, Blissey is a giant pink glob of paint on the canvas.
To sum up, I don't think I would call the roles outdated, since they function just as they always have: as arbitrary terms coined by the pokemon community to make discussion faster.
P.S. excuse my dumb metaphor from earlier.
P.P.S. Nice name/avatar, TVboyCanti ^__^
With the advent of the physical/special split, and the prevalence of some 500 Pokémon, a particular Pokémon's "role" has changed from a radio option to a checkbox poll.
As in, they still have "roles," but each role is a basic job of which there are many. Vaporeon has the "takes physical hits" job checked off, the "heals the team" job checked off, the "passes Substitutes and stat-ups" job checked off, the "deals powerful Special Attacks" job checked off, and the "can consistently inflict status effects and get away with it" job checked off. Some of those overlap with things like Gliscor and Blissey, some overlap with Gengar and Drifblim. What makes Vaporeon unique is the combination of jobs it can perform consistently. That's what makes it different from Swampert and Suicune, even though they're all "bulky waters."
Find out what jobs are necessary for your team, find out how much you want those jobs to be guaranteed to be executed, and build your team. Don't oversimplify things, you'll only fuck yourself in the end.
As in, they still have "roles," but each role is a basic job of which there are many. Vaporeon has the "takes physical hits" job checked off, the "heals the team" job checked off, the "passes Substitutes and stat-ups" job checked off, the "deals powerful Special Attacks" job checked off, and the "can consistently inflict status effects and get away with it" job checked off. Some of those overlap with things like Gliscor and Blissey, some overlap with Gengar and Drifblim. What makes Vaporeon unique is the combination of jobs it can perform consistently. That's what makes it different from Swampert and Suicune, even though they're all "bulky waters."
Find out what jobs are necessary for your team, find out how much you want those jobs to be guaranteed to be executed, and build your team. Don't oversimplify things, you'll only fuck yourself in the end.
I have always opposed to using this term in things like RMTs. It seems people have been under the perception of "i need 1 phys sweeper 1 spec sweeper 1 phys wall 1 spec wall 1 cleric 1 something else" a long time - I even saw this recommended way back in the RS Bot days. It's outdated, if it even were ever relevant.
I use certain Pokemon because I want to use that certain Pokemon, be novelty or not. If I'm going to use Kangaskhan, it's not because he is a "physical sweeper". It's because he is Kangaskhan. It could be because I need a Sleep absorber, or something with 101 Subs, or because he is really cool, but definitely not because he's a "physical sweeper".
In D/P, moreso than in every other generation, there should be no concept like this. You can say Blissey is a great Special wall, but this is only one of her purposes (others being status absorption, status spreading and using Aromatherapy), and it isn't even universal (Focus Blast and recovery moves on Special Pokemon basically neutralize its role).
If you want to call a Pokemon a role or something, fine with me. I can see it used to compare two Pokemon for doing a specific thing, but it quickly becomes apples and oranges and as always it depends on the team which is better for what. For RMTs, they should have no relevance.
I use certain Pokemon because I want to use that certain Pokemon, be novelty or not. If I'm going to use Kangaskhan, it's not because he is a "physical sweeper". It's because he is Kangaskhan. It could be because I need a Sleep absorber, or something with 101 Subs, or because he is really cool, but definitely not because he's a "physical sweeper".
In D/P, moreso than in every other generation, there should be no concept like this. You can say Blissey is a great Special wall, but this is only one of her purposes (others being status absorption, status spreading and using Aromatherapy), and it isn't even universal (Focus Blast and recovery moves on Special Pokemon basically neutralize its role).
If you want to call a Pokemon a role or something, fine with me. I can see it used to compare two Pokemon for doing a specific thing, but it quickly becomes apples and oranges and as always it depends on the team which is better for what. For RMTs, they should have no relevance.
So are you saying that "sleep absorber" is not a role? After all, kangaskhan is not the only pokemon that absorbs sleep. Snorlax, Suicune, Machamp, Heracross, Zapdos, Hypno and Honchkrow all match the role of sleep absorber.
Roles are an important part of team building, and you all use them when you are rounding out your team and going through your threat checklist or whatever you do when you tech your team against the metagame. But like you say, they aren't as simple as "wall" and "sweeper".
So, should we begin to compile a list of more in-depth descriptions that suit particular groups of Pokemon? Or are we going to favor the thread's argument and not address Pokemon by any terms anymore, because they're outdated? I am fine with accompaying Pokemon with further, detailed descriptions.
To be honest, the most significant point I see from this discussion is something slightly in a different direction.
While this discussion on "roles" should be telling us is that roles are outdated (as roles were initially arbitrary designations anyway), the real point is that the phrase "completely outclassed as a <insert role here>" is actually useless.
Every Pokemon can very easily fill a VERY specific niche (this niche is actually a specified "role"), and therefore each Pokemon is not exactly "completely outclassed" by another one.
I see people in the RMT forum constantly saying stuff like replace Feraligatr with Gyarados or replace Medicham with Heracross or replace Starmie with Deoxys-S.
Well...while in the general roles perspective, Gyarados might be a better physical sweeper, and Heracross might be a better physical attacker, and Deoxys-S might be more proficient at killing Garchomp / Gyarados than Starmie, each of the "outclassed" Pokemon have their own specific niches. Feraligatr can Swords Dance and has access to a more powerful Ice attack than Gyarados; Medicham can OHKO Gliscor and Gyarados without Choice, unlike Heracross; Starmie can Rapid Spin and lure out Blissey much more effectively than Deoxys-S.
Basically...the concept of roles is just too vague and leads to irresponsible statements like "x is outclassed by y." There are very few Pokemon that are actually completely outclassed by other Pokemon (stuff like Kricketune comes to mind...though give me a half hour and I bet I could come up with a niche for that).
Roles I guess are decent for narrowing the metagame down for newer players, but should be dropped as soon as these newer players become somewhat decent, as they lead to bad habits. Players start thinking in terms of these generic roles as opposed to the specific needs that their teams need.
"A Pokemon that can OHKO Gliscor, Gyarados and Blissey without Choice and resists Rock and Fighting" (Medicham) is the type of niche you should be thinking about when building teams, not "physical sweeper that is Fighting" (common thought always leads to Heracross here).
It may seem counterintuitive, but these general roles actually limit your team building skills, in the sense that they will consistently lead you towards the same few Pokemon. Specified niches might only have one Pokemon at the end of the tunnel, but this is not limiting, as that specified niche is different for every team, and can change drastically simply with one team member changing something so basic as 60 HP EVs, and thereby now getting OHKOed by Pokemon X.
While this discussion on "roles" should be telling us is that roles are outdated (as roles were initially arbitrary designations anyway), the real point is that the phrase "completely outclassed as a <insert role here>" is actually useless.
Every Pokemon can very easily fill a VERY specific niche (this niche is actually a specified "role"), and therefore each Pokemon is not exactly "completely outclassed" by another one.
I see people in the RMT forum constantly saying stuff like replace Feraligatr with Gyarados or replace Medicham with Heracross or replace Starmie with Deoxys-S.
Well...while in the general roles perspective, Gyarados might be a better physical sweeper, and Heracross might be a better physical attacker, and Deoxys-S might be more proficient at killing Garchomp / Gyarados than Starmie, each of the "outclassed" Pokemon have their own specific niches. Feraligatr can Swords Dance and has access to a more powerful Ice attack than Gyarados; Medicham can OHKO Gliscor and Gyarados without Choice, unlike Heracross; Starmie can Rapid Spin and lure out Blissey much more effectively than Deoxys-S.
Basically...the concept of roles is just too vague and leads to irresponsible statements like "x is outclassed by y." There are very few Pokemon that are actually completely outclassed by other Pokemon (stuff like Kricketune comes to mind...though give me a half hour and I bet I could come up with a niche for that).
Roles I guess are decent for narrowing the metagame down for newer players, but should be dropped as soon as these newer players become somewhat decent, as they lead to bad habits. Players start thinking in terms of these generic roles as opposed to the specific needs that their teams need.
"A Pokemon that can OHKO Gliscor, Gyarados and Blissey without Choice and resists Rock and Fighting" (Medicham) is the type of niche you should be thinking about when building teams, not "physical sweeper that is Fighting" (common thought always leads to Heracross here).
It may seem counterintuitive, but these general roles actually limit your team building skills, in the sense that they will consistently lead you towards the same few Pokemon. Specified niches might only have one Pokemon at the end of the tunnel, but this is not limiting, as that specified niche is different for every team, and can change drastically simply with one team member changing something so basic as 60 HP EVs, and thereby now getting OHKOed by Pokemon X.
I don't see roles as outdated at all.
Generally speaking, we put pokemon on our team to do certain things. I put Infernape on my team to sweep. Thus, he is my sweeper. I put Blissey on my team to wall special attacks and cure my team of status. Thus, she is my special wall and cleric.
Just because Infernape can do other things but sweep doesn't mean that he isn't my sweeper. If I used Encore + U-Turn, he would by a supporter, not a sweeper.
Each pokemon fits in a role depending on what you put it on your team to do - the roles might just be really specific, like "Perish Trapper" Mismagius or something.
Generally speaking, we put pokemon on our team to do certain things. I put Infernape on my team to sweep. Thus, he is my sweeper. I put Blissey on my team to wall special attacks and cure my team of status. Thus, she is my special wall and cleric.
Just because Infernape can do other things but sweep doesn't mean that he isn't my sweeper. If I used Encore + U-Turn, he would by a supporter, not a sweeper.
Each pokemon fits in a role depending on what you put it on your team to do - the roles might just be really specific, like "Perish Trapper" Mismagius or something.
See, that's the problem right there..."generally speaking."
If you want to build good teams...you shouldn't be thinking in general terms at all.
You are saying your Pokemon beats (or stops) this specific set of Pokemon, or these specifics sets of Pokemon, and then you choose your next Pokemon accordingly.
You should never build a team "generally speaking."
Teams that are built with general roles in mind tend to centralize towards one standard team that might be good, hell it might be great, but it has a limited ceiling for sure.
Roles reinforce this "generally speaking" idea, and are therefore outdated. You should choose Infernape because it defeats Skarmory, Blissey, Hippowdon, Celebi and Swampert, and build off its problem with Garchomp (Yache and Scarf sets) and Tentacruel (since Ape rarely carries Earthquake), not because it is a "sweeper."
If you think about Infernape in such general terms, you will miss specific points that are vital for your team to take the "next step."
If you want to build good teams...you shouldn't be thinking in general terms at all.
You are saying your Pokemon beats (or stops) this specific set of Pokemon, or these specifics sets of Pokemon, and then you choose your next Pokemon accordingly.
You should never build a team "generally speaking."
Teams that are built with general roles in mind tend to centralize towards one standard team that might be good, hell it might be great, but it has a limited ceiling for sure.
Roles reinforce this "generally speaking" idea, and are therefore outdated. You should choose Infernape because it defeats Skarmory, Blissey, Hippowdon, Celebi and Swampert, and build off its problem with Garchomp (Yache and Scarf sets) and Tentacruel (since Ape rarely carries Earthquake), not because it is a "sweeper."
If you think about Infernape in such general terms, you will miss specific points that are vital for your team to take the "next step."
I agree with aldaron here that we cant have that mindset of "general idea"
Say I build a team of Infernape, Blissey, Skarmory, Swampert, Starmie, Garchomp. Why? Because generally speaking I have a mixed sweeper, special sweeper, physical sweeper, mixed tank, defensive wall, and a special wall. However I did not look at the roles of these pokemon and the niches they fill. As it turns out Gengar absolutely destroys me because I have no sleep absorber, I have no revenge killer, I have nothing to boost speed. Basically I generally assumed my team had every spot filled and therefore it would be good. But it wasnt. Now if I had filled the roles specificly such as sleep absorber, revenge killer, ect. I might have had a better chance at seeing what my team needs to survive. I could have seen how my team was built and the foundation of it.
tl;dr: Making a team with the mindset of just sweeper, wall, tank is bad as it gives you no way to tell you what your team specifically needs.
Say I build a team of Infernape, Blissey, Skarmory, Swampert, Starmie, Garchomp. Why? Because generally speaking I have a mixed sweeper, special sweeper, physical sweeper, mixed tank, defensive wall, and a special wall. However I did not look at the roles of these pokemon and the niches they fill. As it turns out Gengar absolutely destroys me because I have no sleep absorber, I have no revenge killer, I have nothing to boost speed. Basically I generally assumed my team had every spot filled and therefore it would be good. But it wasnt. Now if I had filled the roles specificly such as sleep absorber, revenge killer, ect. I might have had a better chance at seeing what my team needs to survive. I could have seen how my team was built and the foundation of it.
tl;dr: Making a team with the mindset of just sweeper, wall, tank is bad as it gives you no way to tell you what your team specifically needs.
Right, and the same way goes with every single Pokémon. The thing is that the concept of 'roles' sumarises the function of a Pokémon. People who have taken the next step know that Blissey does not only deal with CM Raikou, Togekiss and Specsmence, but it also serves as a status absorber with Natural Cure, and in many situations, as a staller, too.
I think I'm in the middle of the opinions said here. Saying a Pokémon 'fits a role' might seem outdated and confusing for people who haven't taken the next step. But for people who have, it just sums everything up.
See, that's the problem right there . . . you're arguing my choice of words instead of what I actually said. I agree, teams should not be built "generally speaking", whatever that means . . . but I don't see what that has to do with what I was talking about.
I'm not talking about building teams with roles in mind. I said that people usually have good reasons for using the pokemon they use. Also, what is a "limited ceiling"?
You mention a "generally speaking" idea, which I assume has something to do what I said earlier on account of the fact that you put it in quotation marks . . . but you don't explain what the "generally speaking" idea is or why it's outdated. Recall that I said roles are defined by what you do with the pokemon, not used to make a team.
Calling Infernape a sweeper hardly prevents me from using him otherwise. Also, what is the "next step" that I can't make because I think of pokemon in terms of what they do?
The bottom line: general roles mean nothing because you shouldn't be be using Infernape because it can "sweep," but because it can beat a specific set of Pokemon.
EH, I guess I'll continue it.
Also COAlex, the most detailed you got in your roles was "Perish Trapper" Mismagius. My entire point is that designating Pokemon like this is pointless. PerishTrapper Mismagius should be "beating Blissey and Cresselia" Mismagius. Roles are outdated because they are not nearly specific enough. Every move, every move combination, and every EV spread should have excessively specific reasoning behind it.
Also COAlex, I quoted your words because that is exactly what you said =/ You even follow that statement with infernape is on your team to sweep...therefore he is a sweeper. That is very generally speaking, hence the quotation marks.
EH, I guess I'll continue it.
That right there, my friends, is exactly the wrong perspective to have when team building. Never, ever add Infernape to your team because he "sweeps and thus is a sweeper." Add him on the team because he beats specific Pokemon your team cannot beat, and make absolutely sure to account for every single Pokemon.COalex said:
Also COAlex, the most detailed you got in your roles was "Perish Trapper" Mismagius. My entire point is that designating Pokemon like this is pointless. PerishTrapper Mismagius should be "beating Blissey and Cresselia" Mismagius. Roles are outdated because they are not nearly specific enough. Every move, every move combination, and every EV spread should have excessively specific reasoning behind it.
Also COAlex, I quoted your words because that is exactly what you said =/ You even follow that statement with infernape is on your team to sweep...therefore he is a sweeper. That is very generally speaking, hence the quotation marks.
I call Garchomp a sweeper because my expectation is that he will function as a sweeper for my team more than he'll be doing anything else. That has nothing to do with whether or not my team is actually well-built, obviously I know that Garchomp deals with threats X/Y/Z and fills in certain holes for my team, but saying "sweeper" in an RMT thread or whatever is easier to do since everyone knows what Garchomp is capable of anyway. Only people that are bad at pokemon will seriously be hindered by Garchomp being called a sweeper, unless I'm missing something.
lmao that post actually made me laugh out loud Blame Game.
So let me get this straight, you are saying the term "sweeper" is fine, when speak generally...well no has argued that lol.
I'm speaking specifically about using terms like "sweeper" in the team building process, you're talking about speaking generally, lol.
The entire point from the team building perspective is that you better not be putting Garchomp on your team just to sweep, you better be putting him on because he beats specific Pokemon.
The entire point of my posts are to mention that you should never say "I need a physical sweeper, or I need a physical wall now." I am saying you should actually specifically mention each Pokemon you need to beat, and then add it for those reasons. You can designate Garchomp as a physical sweeper as much as you want, I don't really care lol. What I care is if you limit team building to roles, as COAlex did.
This quote is still sticking out at me:
You can use roles to basically designate certain Pokemon, but you should never use roles to build a team.
So let me get this straight, you are saying the term "sweeper" is fine, when speak generally...well no has argued that lol.
I'm speaking specifically about using terms like "sweeper" in the team building process, you're talking about speaking generally, lol.
The entire point from the team building perspective is that you better not be putting Garchomp on your team just to sweep, you better be putting him on because he beats specific Pokemon.
The entire point of my posts are to mention that you should never say "I need a physical sweeper, or I need a physical wall now." I am saying you should actually specifically mention each Pokemon you need to beat, and then add it for those reasons. You can designate Garchomp as a physical sweeper as much as you want, I don't really care lol. What I care is if you limit team building to roles, as COAlex did.
This quote is still sticking out at me:
It's completely wrong. You shouldn't add Pokemon on your team to fill roles. He added Infernape to sweep, not to beat these certain Pokemon specifically. He then adds Blissey to wall special attacks...but that is so general. What special attacks, and from what Pokemon?Coalex said:
You can use roles to basically designate certain Pokemon, but you should never use roles to build a team.
No good player ever does this to my knowledge so I guess the point of this thread is to address novice battlers. I don't think COAlex was saying "I put Infernape on my team because I need a sweeper," he's saying "if Infernape is on my team and he sweeps, then he is my team's sweeper." Basically this entire argument is pointless, I think everyone agrees with you that nobody should be going "Hm I need a sweeper, I'll pick... ooh infernape, he sweeps, I'll use him." we were just confusing the point of your posts I think.
You guys are jumping to conclusions and thinking that just because people use "general terms" in their RMT instead of saying "I put this pokemon on my team because it counters ABCDEFG bla and does this this and this bla bla", that people are thinking in terms of the former while they are building their team. They are only writing this way because good battlers and builders don't need these things explained to them, and the battlers that do shouldn't be rating teams.
Why can't I use Infernape as a sweeper? What if I would rather kill my opponent than beat specific pokemon? "Account for every single Pokemon", as you say, is an outdated philosophy. On the other hand, using Infernape to sweep forces your opponent to react to you and puts you closer to your goal of killing all six of his guys.
But "beating Blissey and Cresselia" Mismagius is cumbersome and lengthy and doesn't describe what Mismagius does. CM Mismagius handily beats Cresselia and Blissey as well - your description doesn't encompass what it really does.
I don't say "oh - I need a Perish Trapper" before I put it in . . . I don't think anybody does that.
I don't add pokemon on my team to fill roles, I add pokemon on my team to do things. I put Blissey on my team because I use a variety of fast sweepers that hate being paralyzed or burned - and I need a pokemon to easily switch into almost any special attack. Blissey does both these things, so I put it in my team. If this is a mockery of the teambuilding process, I apologize.
Could you explain that a little more? I can certainly use roles to build a team and designate Pokémon at the same time. Weezing walls physical attacks, therefore Weezing is a physical wall. However, Donphan, Skarmory, Slowbro, etc. also wall physical attacks, thus they are physical walls too.
I can eleborate and say Weezing is a physical wall that counters Gyarados with Thunderbolt; Gliscor is a physical wall that counters Heracross with STAB Aerial Ace; Foretress is a physical wall that walls Staraptor and sets up Spikes/Stealth Rock/Toxic Spikes; etc. These are roles that these Pokémon can play. If Spiritomb walls Gallade then Spiritomb is a physical wall in the most general sense of the word. A Pokémon is a physical wall if and only if it can wall physical attacks; therefore it is a role. If a role is absent form a team, a team becomes weak in that respect.
Ex: My [example] team consists of Weavile, Foretress, Smeragle, SpecsMence, Blaziken, and Weezing whereas Weavile is a revenge killer, Foretress is a physical wall/spiker/spinner, Smeragle is a lead with Focus Sash, Spore, Mean Look and Baton Pass/Sleeper/Speed Passer, SpecsMence is a special sweeper, Blaziken is a physical sweeper, and Weezing is a secondary physical wall/Gyarados Counter/Hazer. My team lacks the role of a special wall such as Blissey, Cresselia, etc. With the lack of this general role, my team is weak, and therefore is not effective.
I have designated that Blissey is a special wall, that Snorlax is a special wall, that Regice is a special wall, that Tentacruel is a special wall, that Spiritomb is a special wall, etc, but I haven't used any of them in my team.
So by your logic, my team should not be built by roles: physical attacker, physical wall; special attacker; special wall; cleric; spinner; revenge killer; utility; etc. You haven't stated what it should be built out of. Infernape to sweep Foretress and Heatran with Flamethrower and Earthquake is still a role. Weezing to wall Gyarados and counter it with Thunderbolt or possibly Will-o-wisp is still a role, is it not?
In an earlier post, you said "Add him on the team because he beats specific Pokemon your team cannot beat, and make absolutely sure to account for every single Pokemon." Surely you've read Jump's announcements that you cannot counter every single Pokémon. As I said above numerous times, it can be a role to counter a specific Pokémon your team otherwise have trouble with. Spritomb for Azelf, Weezing for Gyarados, etc, etc.
So unless you define your definition of a role, you're pretty much disproving yourself. Being super-specific is still a role, but a specific role, as mentioned above.
But don't get me wrong, I fully support you that we should be more specific in our roles, because being general leads to assumptions, and you know how to spell assume. [/cliché]
We should build our teams with specific roles, not simply roles, and not simply concepts either, but specific roles. Like the Weezing situation I like using.
Not flaming you or anything, because I fully 100% support your views. We need to start saying "Bulkydos Counter" instead of "physical wall" in our RMT threads. I'm merely reinforcing your views in a harsh way. =D
xD
I think it was more implied on building your team based on the belief that certain roles are required.
i.e. I must have a phys. sweeper, sp. sweeper, phys. wall, spec. wall etc
That's a common misconception, as a team doesn't necessarily need something like say a physical wall to work well...
I think that, these terms should only be used to describe the functions a pokemon would have in the team when trying to explain what they do for the team or elaborating for RMT's (Blissey being a special wall, cleric, w/e). A pokemon can and SHOULD have more than one role, yes, and every pokemon is unique in how they do it. But these terms can still be used to describe pokemon in a general manner.
However, no, they should not be used when team building. The player should be more focused on dealing with specific threats or holes in their team rather than being worried if they have a mixed sweeper or not.
i.e. I must have a phys. sweeper, sp. sweeper, phys. wall, spec. wall etc
That's a common misconception, as a team doesn't necessarily need something like say a physical wall to work well...
I think that, these terms should only be used to describe the functions a pokemon would have in the team when trying to explain what they do for the team or elaborating for RMT's (Blissey being a special wall, cleric, w/e). A pokemon can and SHOULD have more than one role, yes, and every pokemon is unique in how they do it. But these terms can still be used to describe pokemon in a general manner.
However, no, they should not be used when team building. The player should be more focused on dealing with specific threats or holes in their team rather than being worried if they have a mixed sweeper or not.
Unless you're seriously good and generally speaking, every team should have a special wall, every team should have a physical wall, etc. Otherwise you get completely stopped by their sweeper. You don't really need anything to sweep, as stalling is effective as well. Not every team needs a Gyarados Counter, or a revenge killer, or whatever else.
I think that beginners do it just as they start off so that they have a blueprint for the team. If they didn't sperate their Pokemon, they could have a team with Electivire, Garchomp, Blissey, Infernape, Machamp, Heracross, and Breloom. They would just choose their 5 favorite OU Pokemon, use Blissey, and call it a team. Beginners give them roles to make sure that they can wall a special sweeper, a physical sweeper, and can sweep with a special sweeper and physical sweeper. The team mentioned above has 4 physical sweepers, a tank, and a wall. If the same beginner labeled their roles they could make a team which is much more balanced. I think that it is essential for begginers to do this so that they have a somewhat balanced team.