What matters more: Great Skill or a Great Team?

[EspyJoel]

The team is very important as if you don't find what team type you are best with, you'll never be able play to your fullest potential, but you can get two people who are best with one type yet one may struggle to hit the leaderboard and the other get top 20 or whatever. Basically I think the team is very important but overall its more skill.

 

[Ulver]

Skills are the most important as long as the team is workable. A workable team might not be the best in the world compared to a super OU dream team but a skilled player would knock a lesser player with a super OU dream team down by just making smart choices and switches and winning mistake by mistake.

 

[thebattleax]

Great skills are needed to make a great team, and is also needed to outpredict the foe. I'm going to say great skills are more important.

 

[The Big Narc]

Without a doubt team. If your team matchup's good enough predicting usually wont even be needed to win.

 

[Jubilee]

Great skills are needed, every pokemons good ( besides NFE's ) and in the right hands of a skilled player all teams can be great so skill is needed more imo

 

[Darkerkrai]

Having a retardedly great team means nothing if you play every Pokemon like a retard.

 

[The Big Narc]

Having a retardedly great team means nothing if you play every Pokemon like a retard.

Examples like this are ridiculous. The most skilled player cant win with 6 magikarps and the best team in the world based on someone who doesnt know stuff like type matchups will usually lose.

The simple fact is that when someone good posts an rmt a lot of people start to use that team (or something similar) and a lot of them can get their rating higher. Learning how to predict well can only get you so far, however.

 

[Darkerkrai]

Examples like this are ridiculous.

Having a retardedly great team means nothing if you play every Pokemon like a retard.

This is an example? Hm, go figure.

The most skilled player cant win with 6 magikarps

I think the team matters more because if you had a team of Spindas, skill isn't gonna matter much.

Statements like this are ridiculous. If you can say, "A skilled player can't with a team of shitty Pokemon", then I can say that the crappiest player can't win with a team of 6 Scizor.

The simple fact is that when someone good posts an rmt a lot of people start to use that team (or something similar) and a lot of them can get their rating higher.

So... they can win just as many matches as the players that know how to use the team?

Learning how to predict well can only get you so far, however.

Skill in this game only consists of prediction? What is the the world coming to?

 

[The Big Narc]

Statements like this are ridiculous. If you can say, "A skilled player can't with a team of shitty Pokemon", then I can say that the crappiest player can't win with a team of 6 Scizor.

You clearly didnt understand what I was saying. I was pointing out how obvious it was that a great team can be lost with by a bad player.

So... they can win just as many matches as the players that know how to use the team?

Um, no. But they can certainly to well with it (its not hard to learn how to use a team).

Skill in this game only consists of prediction? What is the the world coming to?

Mostly, yes. What else?

 

[zarator]

Skill obviously is important, but I think team matchup generally counts more. When you have mastered the basics of prediction, double switching, late-game thinking (what stops my X sweeper from beating down my opponent? How can I remove his counter/counters?) and game mechanics, team matchup generally decides the game. No matter how good of a player you are, if you play a team revolving around an Empoleon sweep (let's say it's the Surf/GK variant) and the opponent happens to have Blissey, Vaporeon and Latias all on the same team (uncommon but possible scenario, it happened to me sometimes), if the skill levels are the same, you'll have an hard time pulling that Empoleon sweep. Almost every team has some kind of "trouble Pokémon" to fear, and if the opponent is as skilled as you and packs all of those "trouble Pokémon" on the same team (as in the example outlined above), you'll get your ass kicked 90% of the time.

So, while skill is important, when you finally reached some kind of "competence", the team matchup is crucial. However, there may be scenarios where this team matchup can still comes down to skill. Let's say your opponent reveals a Gengar in the early stages of the game, and you know Gengar is a troublesome Pokémon for your team. It is your duty not to make your opponent realize how important his Gengar actually is by removing it earlygame (for example, if you switch a Scizor in their LO Gengar, few people will expect an outright Pursuit, and will go for the switch getting murdered in the process).

While team matchup is important, skill and experience goes a long way balancing the odds. The team matchup itself is a teambuilding consequence, but knowing what sort of team you are up against revolves around skill. That being said, team building is generally the deciding factor in most "normal-conditions" scenarios.

 

[lati0s]

Statements like this are ridiculous. If you can say, "A skilled player can't with a team of shitty Pokemon", then I can say that the crappiest player can't win with a team of 6 Scizor.

Even an amazing player couldn't win with six scizor, as it would be destroyed by any team wit a heatran, zapdos, overheat rotom, magnezone etc.

more to the point, if you want to use extreme examples, a bot that chooses a random move each turn that uses a well designed team would probably win against a great player using 6 magikarp

 

[Ash Borer]

skill is more important to a degree. There is a point where teams matter more but if I was using nu's I could probably beat my 5 year old cousin who is using all ubers.

 

[keelhauled]

I think, the team is merely a foundation, for example, you could give a 5 year old a tournament winning team, previously unbeaten, and they still wouldn't be able to win with it, because they would lack the necessary skill to know what moves to make, and when to switch etc, however, the scenario could be switched around, and giving a terrible team to a champion, they would be severely hindered by the bad team, and would not be able to win with it, purely down to the weakness in the team.

Overall, its hard to judge which is more important, since both have major advantages, which makes them like a Knife and Fork to an extent, you Can use them individually, but it will be much easier to eat your steak if you combine them.

 

[JLei2k]

I think there is a separation between opinions here. I think the OP is asking between 2 competent players what is more important and more people answered team in response to that question if they interpreted it that way. I wonder if people don't read the OP. He is asking what is the difference between a good or "skilled" player and an average player.

Others seem to interpret the question as competent player vs. retard which in case one is just vastly more skilled than the other one because the retard can not comprehend anything in which case skill is more important obviously. But then again a mediocre player can beat a 5 year old.

Kids read the OP before posting.

P.S. I know average is very subjective. I view an average player around high 1400-1500 (in ladder terms) while others consider that above average.

 

[Grammarian]

I think there is a separation between opinions here. I think the OP is asking between 2 competent players what is more important and more people answered team in response to that question if they interpreted it that way. I wonder if people don't read the OP. He is asking what is the difference between a good or "skilled" player and an average player.

Others seem to interpret the question as competent player vs. retard which in case one is just vastly more skilled than the other one because the retard can not comprehend anything in which case skill is more important obviously. But then again a mediocre player can beat a 5 year old.

Precisely what this topic was meant to be about. Everyone is talking in terms of extremities such as a 5 year old playing or a team of Spindas... But that is not discussing the issue. READ THE OP!

Like what has been previously mentioned here, when both players have met a certain level of "competence", team match ups will usually be more significant. When the incompetent player battles a competent player, then the latter can usually defeat the former, but we must be wary of what the definition of a competent player is. The same caution must go to defining a "good team".

 

[Gingivitis]

So who would win, a player with great skills with a poorly made team against a player with not so great a skill with an extensively tested and proven team?

And what qualifies as "great skill" anyway? And a "great team" as well (nothing like 6 magikarps in a team, we all know how ridiculous that is)?

 

[crobatchop]

My Opinion: (If you don't want a bunch of text then read here: Team is [chemical?] potential energy and skills is how well you execute it [or e.g. trying different metals and place them into acids, you get different rates of reaction, just that you have to decide when you should make little bubbles and when to have explosions... whoops a bit of Science terms)

First, let's look at the meaning of Team and Skill.
Team means the every detail of the Pokemon you are using, which includes gender, EV spreads, moveset, item, and so on. By means of having a good team in the colourful DPPt is not a team that can handle every threat already, since the ridiculous amount of Pokemon that exists in the metagame means you can not guarantee a win just because of the matchup. By means of using a-counter-for-all isn't very good imo, say your Gliscor answers fighting types, but then say that killed a Tar then forced to switch out with a significant loss of HP. Now their Luke has a SD up, Gliscor is not your safest switch already, and that is the reason why I quitted using balanced teams. A good team should be one that can put pressure on most other teams, and it will change. There's a time where Scarftrans are so popular, and now SubToxic sets are increasing. So a team will not be staying good forever. I am pretty sure if I don't get updated often I will be beaten so many times.
Skill, which is Predictions and Judgments, is actually the thing that will be consistent. Your worries during the game might change, but the thinking is still the same. Apart from Stall, where you "answer"the opposing team, many times you might be in a situation considering the risk and reward, and of course thinking about what your opponent would give in and risk as well.
You should be able to update your mind soon enough, but may be not the team. So I choose that Team is more important, because it needs to get revised often and intelligently, while skills would be really hard and slow to develop.
Edit: What I mean is, While important, skills is something that needs time and hard work, while revising teams is a lot more straightforward, and by using the same effort improving a team will be better than improving the skills, although there is a maximum. (lol I spent about a month to prepare my next rmt) Assuming that you study the metagame good enough, team is probably more important.

(No reason to read this stuff down here: my 100th post lol)

 

[KurashiDragon]

If two people of the exact same skill lv fought it would obviously be the one with the better team. That said if you never built a good team in the first place you wouldn't get many wins. That said I guess skill beats teams overall. This is simply because of the fact that skillful players can do better with a suckish team than a newb player could do with a great team.

 

[never_again]

I guess this is true in OU. I don't know, I haven't been on the OU ladder much in a while, though that will change. In Ubers, here's what I've came across:

Below 1000: The guys who think FEAR is hot shit and embarass themselves. And the guys who use Roar of Time on Dialga.
1000-1300: Random crap thrown together with little synergy, like Lugia and Tyranitar. The actual sets are copied from smogon.
1300-1400: Generic Kyogre/Palkia/Rayquaza teams, guys who still haven't discovered themselves as Ubers players.
1400-1525: People know what they're doing, can make teams, can think coherently.
1525-1650: People are solid players, can compensate for team disadvantage, can incorporate long-term thinking into dueling, have well optimized teams that suit their playstyle, etc. I unfortunately have not progressed beyond this category, mainly because of...
1650+: Theorymon, Train Man, Gen Emp, etc. The stars of numerous warstories. The innovators of Ubers who have incredibly fine-tuned teams. The guys who end my ladder runs when I get to around ~1600/1620.

In OU, I've seen things like Flygon and Skarmory together on 1400+ teams, and I almost asked the guy: how the hell did you get that far with that thing? I never had the patience to ladder much, mainly because of the slow pace of OU laddering.

how high up someone gets increases porportionally with how much time someone puts into something. and I am disappointed i wasnt mentioned in that all star cast of yours.

that ranking system is so wrong, a below 1000 player could just be starting out
hell, half the uber ladder is alts, so a high class player that just starts out immediately goes under the Roar of Time fans?

a 1400 rating doesnt mean that someone only uses generic stuff, more often than not it means that they havent put into as much time as the 1650+ high flyers

as a side note, Lugia and Tyranitar isnt a combination that has no synergy to speak of, its jsut two things that happen to be on the same team.

Not many things stop a Tyranitar besides Groudon, so it is only natural to pack a Lugia to answer to Groudons

what about a Kyogre and a Mewtwo? where the synergy there? the rain helps out Mewtwo's HP Waters?

also, a 1650+ in ubers is like a 1500 in ou play just because the Uber leaderboard is so easy comparatively


EDIT: if JLei2k or w/e thinks a 1500 is average, who am i to argue?
a 1650 would then correspond to a 1550, but you get the picture, its very hard to compare the 2 ladders(and uu), because it is quite obvious a 1650 in ubers doesnt come close to being equal to a 1650 in ou

in ou it is very hard to have every threat accounted for
in ubers a great team and experience can take you much further than the same amount of experience with a reasonably good team can in ou

as to the topic at hand, a great team with experience using that team will beat skill

the only time skill comes into question is when the two teams are evenly matched, not that: "the other guy is more skilled than me, but even if i sack my Breloom I still have more ways around his Swampert because my team is well constructed to take out bulky fools like Swampert" or, "i can stay in with his gyarados since if it gets a dragon dance, my team can still beat it with a scarfer or a combination of intimidate +resistance"

but if your team isnt well built to handle things like Gyarados, no amount of great skill will dig you out of a Gyarados dragon dancing on a Scizor locked into pursuit or something

 

[boredomisbliss]

good skill + average team definitely matters more than average skill + good team. recently, because ive been bored / been making a new team, ive been pulling out a lot of old ones. an by the way, these were crappy teams. one of them had a subroost aerodactyl and another had a physical sub-ttar. and while i was battling i was greeted by an unpleasant surprise when i learned that latias was scarf with psycho boost instead of tbolt. or heatran had scarf instead of sub.
except the dumbest part is i still won more than half the battles. if you are good enough you end up reexploring ways to use other teams. also you dont make dumb decisions like keeping latias in on things you know dont have pursuit. breloom is an excellent example, dont spore the first thing, and if the target has natural cure then spore them again.


an example of good team + average skill = doesnt work is when people copy rmts off the pros. do they get pro ratings? no

 

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

@you who think that skill matters: make a tour where everybody will use the same team. For that tour disable crits/hax. You will see that you are wrong. (of course, don't pick people that are new, pick those experienced (WoW word???) that know everything in the game, but don't have the same rating)

 

[iss]

@you who think that skill matters: make a tour where everybody will use the same team. For that tour disable crits/hax. You will see that you are wrong. (of course, don't pick people that are new, pick those experienced (WoW word???) that know everything in the game, but don't have the same rating)

Except that different people have different playstyles (and they work with the player). So it is definitly skill.

 

[HSA]

I guess this is true in OU. I don't know, I haven't been on the OU ladder much in a while, though that will change. In Ubers, here's what I've came across:

Below 1000: The guys who think FEAR is hot shit and embarass themselves. And the guys who use Roar of Time on Dialga.
1000-1300: Random crap thrown together with little synergy, like Lugia and Tyranitar. The actual sets are copied from smogon.
1300-1400: Generic Kyogre/Palkia/Rayquaza teams, guys who still haven't discovered themselves as Ubers players.
1400-1525: People know what they're doing, can make teams, can think coherently.
1525-1650: People are solid players, can compensate for team disadvantage, can incorporate long-term thinking into dueling, have well optimized teams that suit their playstyle, etc. I unfortunately have not progressed beyond this category, mainly because of...
1650+: Theorymon, Train Man, Gen Emp, etc. The stars of numerous warstories. The innovators of Ubers who have incredibly fine-tuned teams. The guys who end my ladder runs when I get to around ~1600/1620.

In OU, I've seen things like Flygon and Skarmory together on 1400+ teams, and I almost asked the guy: how the hell did you get that far with that thing? I never had the patience to ladder much, mainly because of the slow pace of OU laddering.

Cool way of rating ubers ladderers. Sadly the highest i have been able to get is 1660 which means , I would be in the high 1525-1650?

BTW ,I actully have a team that can beat stall now.

 

[1059860]

Well, if you have a good team but has bad skill of knowing which move or what switch to execute at what time or under which situation/against what Pokemon, then it doesn't matter how good your team is, right? Plainly saying... You don't know how to use it!

However, people with a weaker team, such as full UU, but has good skills still have a good chance to win, don't they? I see a lot of UU players playing again OUs and win.

Sometimes, even NFEs or even weaker teams, used correctly by a skilled battler can be more effective than a person with a solid OU team but cannot use it correctly due to lack of skills.

 

[mtr]

Cool way of rating ubers ladderers. Sadly the highest i have been able to get is 1660 which means , I would be in the high 1525-1650?

BTW ,I actully have a team that can beat stall now.

Nah, you're definitely a top player. The only reason I could beat you sometimes is because of team advantage, which is huge in Ubers. The best I could go is 1625, sadly. Also, your team (the old one) is pretty famous for its zero-setup style, as I've found out.

@Flyingsolo: My "all-star list" had 3 people. Sorry for not putting you on there, but I was just giving examples off the top of my head.

Synergy is definitely more difficult to pull off in Ubers than in Standard. There's nothing like Metagross/Salamence or Celebi/Heatran or Gliscor/Empoleon. But it is way easier to make pokemon fit a role in Ubers. A great example of this is Bulky Mewtwo, who I've seen being used very successfully.