What matters more: Great Skill or a Great Team?

[never_again]

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.

what about the other points?
the rating system that you gave is awkward. a 1650 doesnt automatically certify you as a "top player", it just means you put more time into it than the sub1650 group


nothing against pokemonsomethingHSA of course, Ive had very few battles with him because i dont ladder much, and i ran into him in a smogon tour once or twice( i believe i won, lol)

on the other hand, the people at the top of the ou list, whoever owns those alts, such as ipl, MDragon, and panamaxis not only put in the large amount of time but also possess the "skills(which again is mostly experience which leads to know-hows of how to handle certain situations) " and teams necessary to be there.

that is not to say that the people at the top of the ubers leaderboard are complete fools, its just that a 1650 rating in ubers doesnt mean as much as a 1650 in ou, or whatever the benchmark is

an update in the skill v team arguement:

how will a player with great skill maange with a team of : (nonscarf)Heatran, Gyarados, and Salamence fare against anybody with an expert belt starmie on their team?

something to think about

 

[mtr]

what about the other points?
the rating system that you gave is awkward. a 1650 doesnt automatically certify you as a "top player", it just means you put more time into it than the sub1650 group...

how will a player with great skill maange with a team of : (nonscarf)Heatran, Gyarados, and Salamence fare against anybody with an expert belt starmie on their team?

something to think about

Well, after about that point, I couldn't tell the difference between somebody over 1700 and somebody between 1650-1700. While laddering, I played stall, and stall tends to minimize the inside game of both the players, though in Ubers this happens to a lesser extent.

The rating system was a rough estimate, not the Constitution. I agree with you that it is way easier to get fairly high on the Ubers leaderboard than the standard one, and starting from scratch, getting to #50 in a matter of hours isn't extremely difficult.

In OU, the general skill level is higher, I believe, but maybe that's because OU pokemon are not as versatile as Ubers, so good players know everything about what OU pokemon can do and (what distinguishes the good from the not-so-good) the likely team structures for non-stall teams. For example, if an opponent is using a Bulky SD Scizor and also has a Lucario, it's a safe bet that the Lucario has Choice Specs, because it is unlikely for the opponent to be using a Swords Dancer.

 

[Azure Demon]

well only if the uber battler sucks ass and has a really absol weak team

1st of all abosl is a kick ass sweeper especially with sword dance sucker punch combo Or hell with sucker punch super luck so yeah I'm an absol fan and if you haven't used it you dont know the damage it can do.2nd. I say skill because I mean I've beaten people with thought out teams with teams i've just thrown together. It not always the cards your dealt it's how you play the game. perfect example is battles where you play with randomly selected pokes (can't think of the name.lol) but yeah you dont know what numbers your opposing player will choose and you don't know what you will get. The game winning factor is how you play the game.

 

[mtr]

Absol is good, and many UU players use it, along with Azumarill, to check Rain Dance teams. And you are thinking of "roulettes", which are random battles.

But I honestly think that the team vs. skill argument depends on the metagame.

In Ubers, team advantage is way more important than skill. And I'm not talking about the "lol,6 Sunkerns v. Standard Aggro" matchup. I'm talking about stuff like Stall v. Immediate Damage (Stall wins easily), Stall v. Dual Screen (up in the air), Stall v. Setup Offense (Setup Offense wins), Immediate Damage v. Setup Offense, etc.

In OU, team advantage still is pretty big, and between two skilled players, a match comes down to whose team is better first. But then again, most OU teams are structurally similar anyways, so it doesn't matter much.

In UU, I don't know. The last I played of UU was before Donphan and Dugtrio, if that's any indication.

 

[cmurph]

@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)

wait what are you trying to say with this hypothetical scenario

 

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

That only team matters and that is all.

Team matchup in ubers is very very important. I went 2:0 against a very good Uber player I respect and is high on leaderboard and after changing two members of my team I lost the next two games.(he didn't change anything)

My two wins and his two wins were all easy wins.

For that match-up thing, we have a proof - Ninjask. If you have a Phazer/priority than you will laugh at it. If you don't have it than it will screw you up completely.

 

[zorbees]

In Ubers, team advantage is way more important than skill. And I'm not talking about the "lol,6 Sunkerns v. Standard Aggro" matchup. I'm talking about stuff like Stall v. Immediate Damage (Stall wins easily), Stall v. Dual Screen (up in the air), Stall v. Setup Offense (Setup Offense wins), Immediate Damage v. Setup Offense, etc.

I know these are generalizations, but I feel like I have to point it out. Set up offense isn't a guaranteed win button against stall. Stall can lose vs immediate damage (MixPalkia comes to mind). Team matchups are important, but skill obviously still matters.

 

[Gymdude]

Overall, I think that skill is more important than the team. I think it can also depend on what you mean by 'skill'. I don't think of skill as just prediction. I think of skill as the way use use a team to your advantage.

I'll use an example that I came across just yesterday, in which the team I was using ultimately tries to have a late game Empoleon sweep. The opponent's Blissey switched in to Roserade as I used toxic spikes, and at this point I thought it was pretty obvious that Blissey would use flamethrower as toxic does effect Roserade and t-wave can just be nullified by natural cure when I switch out. By using prediction I could have switched to another Pokemon that could have taken the flamethrower such as Vaporeon and then gone from there, but instead, since I knew the way the team worked and I knew that a second layer of tspikes would better benefit the team in the long run, I kept in Roserade to take the flamethrower and got to set up a second layer of tspikes. It still takes an amount of prediction, but it also requires insight on the team itself.

Basically, I think that someone with a low skill level doesn't know how to play to a team's strengths, but someone with a high skill level can still play to team's strengths even if it is just an average team.

 

[cmurph]

That only team matters and that is all.

Team matchup in ubers is very very important. I went 2:0 against a very good Uber player I respect and is high on leaderboard and after changing two members of my team I lost the next two games.(he didn't change anything)

My two wins and his two wins were all easy wins.

For that match-up thing, we have a proof - Ninjask. If you have a Phazer/priority than you will laugh at it. If you don't have it than it will screw you up completely.

I'm sorry if I'm being thick, but how does your tournament example show that? If everyone used the same team then skill/ luck would be the only factors in determining the outcome. To be honest, if you think that teams are the only difference between top tier players and decent, 1500 type players, you are just flat-out wrong. I'll use myself as an example. I've stolen top tier teams from the RMT forum before, and there was one highly successful team that I used that I felt fit my playstyle well. I used it as my primary team for a while, and despite trying pretty hard, never got a CRE above 1535. There are countless people who can relate similar stories. You can argue that team matters more, but to completely dismiss skill is just asinine.

 

[crobatchop]

By now I think everyone (edit: besides sleepy zzzzzzzzzzz) should know the importance of both team and skills.
We really need definition of "team" and "skill". To be honest I don't think the two elements should ever be two, instead not to be split up. Gen. Empoleon is going to use Legacy Raider's teams and win a lot, because the styles might be very different. I think the stickies in RMT is a place to learn how to build a good team. Skills however, means how well you can apply your central stratergy you created during team building. Immediate skills means prediction and momentum, which is pretty much situational. Long-term skills includes planning and judgement, and usually invloves a lot of teamwork.

EDIT: to zzzzzzzzzzz and mtr12 below: now I like how you think. But again it's about how well you can execute a team.

 

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

But the playstyle isn't the skill. It is the consequence of your natural characteristics. For example, I don't like playing stall because that would require lots of concetration (i.e. having Forry in your mind 24/7, something that is always left alive with 100% of HP when the other five members die). In real life, I am pretty disorganized and lazy as well.

For example, I wouldn't be very good in OU immediately, as I would need to take the time to learn all the moves, usual held items on pokes, base speed and that stuff (as I haven't played OU since Platinum came out). In Ubers there are cca 15 pokes that are truly good making it a better metagame for a newbie (sorry for kindof offtopic)

 

[WhiteQueen]

Skills and wits, definitely. Even with a flawless team, if the user isn't capable, the team will still be mediocre at best. A skilled battler can make a mediocre team good.

 

[mtr]

But the playstyle isn't the skill. It is the consequence of your natural characteristics. For example, I don't like playing stall because that would require lots of concetration (i.e. having Forry in your mind 24/7, something that is always left alive with 100% of HP when the other five members die). In real life, I am pretty disorganized and lazy as well.

For example, I wouldn't be very good in OU immediately, as I would need to take the time to learn all the moves, usual held items on pokes, base speed and that stuff (as I haven't played OU since Platinum came out). In Ubers there are cca 15 pokes that are truly good making it a better metagame for a newbie (sorry for kindof offtopic)

Stall actually involves less concentration than Aggro IMO. In Aggro, prediction wars occur on a turn-by-turn basis. Stall is about long term considerations, and making your plan accordingly. For example, I had a Latias against a Deoxys-A without Shadow Ball. I could conceivably stall out the DXA (Ice beam did around 37%), but every turn i stayed in, I was risking a crit or a freeze. Therefore, I switched to Scarf Dialga. This let me keep Latias alive as death fodder against SpecsOgre, which would later allow me to get in Blissey for free, thus enabling a PP Stall of Water Spout. Pretty situational, but it's just an example of the thinking that goes on in a staller's mind.

I'm also way more successful in Ubers than in Standard, but I think that new guys should explore Standard first, because Ubers is a more intense and fast-paced metagame.

 

[afterburn]

I seriously think Skill is more improtant than team building, most players who I've come across with high ladder ratings have admitted themselves that teambuilding is just not what they're good at. A bad competitive player would probably not be able to use a good team to its utmost strength. And it WILL be the trainer's mistakes (ie: misprediction) iniviting his own downfall. Eg: Trainer A ( a novice battler) has his DD Salamence in battle with 75% health while his opponent ( an average battler) has a choice locked heatran in battle locked into earthquake. While Trainer A could have easily Dragondanced predicting a switch he uses his own earthquake. His opponent switches to a Choice Scarfed Flygon who immedeatly threatens Salamence with Outrage. His opponent knowing that Trainer A has a Choice Magnezone in Trainer A's team predicts the switch and KOes with EQ. If Trainer A had taken advantage of the Duo and DDed on Heatran's switch, maybe he just could've won.

 

[Huntofthelion]

I seriously think Skill is more improtant than team building, most players who I've come across with high ladder ratings have admitted themselves that teambuilding is just not what they're good at. A bad competitive player would probably not be able to use a good team to its utmost strength. And it WILL be the trainer's mistakes (ie: misprediction) iniviting his own downfall. Eg: Trainer A ( a novice battler) has his DD Salamence in battle with 75% health while his opponent ( an average battler) has a choice locked heatran in battle locked into earthquake. While Trainer A could have easily Dragondanced predicting a switch he uses his own earthquake. His opponent switches to a Choice Scarfed Flygon who immedeatly threatens Salamence with Outrage. His opponent knowing that Trainer A has a Choice Magnezone in Trainer A's team predicts the switch and KOes with EQ. If Trainer A had taken advantage of the Duo and DDed on Heatran's switch, maybe he just could've won.

That's a very uh... interesting example, especially considering said Salamence could just DD on the Flygon, and if it's going to outrun it health wouldn't really matter. Also why is Heatran running earthquake ?_?

Anyway both are pretty important, but at the highest levels it's almost always team matchup. Obviously if someone plays stupid, more often than not they're going to lose, but most high level players tend to not play stupid.

 

[rainxspear]

Skill is more important, but a good team is good as well, but skill comes first. Being able to predict will help you more than having the best team.

 

[mtr]

A well-constructed aggro team should only use Choice items when absolutely necessary, and stick to Life Orbs and stuff unless it needs a Choice Band for a OHKO or 2HKO on a switch-in or a Choice Scarf to cover a weakness. Having too many prediction-intensive elements makes your team pretty unwieldy, especially when you inevitably miss predictions. When I (or almost anyone...) play aggro, I never use more than 2 Choice items, and that's pretty rare. Even when attacking, you should be able to consistently execute your strategy, and if your strategy hinges on a series of good predictions, that's definitely not consistent.

 

[frogbandit]

If you have at least a mediocre team, skill matters more. I've seen well played NU teams completely obliterate OU teams.

 

[The Plant]

I am absolutely horrible at dp. I don't pay attention and my teams suck. With my main team I'm 1520-1540 on the ladder. I'd suggest setting the "good" standard substantially higher.

 

[Flaming Thunder]

In my opinion, skill is more important.


To be honest, I make good teams, but I just don't have the skill to make out the best potential of them.

 

[cmurph]

I am absolutely horrible at dp. I don't pay attention and my teams suck. With my main team I'm 1520-1540 on the ladder. I'd suggest setting the "good" standard substantially higher.

if that's true then you're not "horrible at dp," hell, you must win at least 75% of the time to get that cre, what about all the people you consistently beat?

 

[Masamune]

Skill is by far the most important. You always get the noobs that just steal RMT teams, and don't find much success with them. Why have a good team if you can't use it?

 

[SpadeMan]

You can have all the skill in the world and a team full of Luvdisc and you will still lose to someone who just started using a standard team.

And I suppose the 'skill' you are talking about comes down to prediction. Thats all that I suppose skill is involed in competitive pokemon. Deciding that this pokemon is weak to this move is not skill, its knowledge.

To put this into a more bleak form:
Say you are knowledgable about the metagame. You know every moveset that is standardised for prticulr pokemon etc. You are using a team of underused pokemon. Your opponent has never played pokemon competitivley, but is using Stndrd pokemon like Slamence, stuff like that.

You will more than not win the battle, but this is not because of skill, because your opponent is not experienced or knowledgble about the Metagame.

 

[Masamune]

You can have all the skill in the world and a team full of Luvdisc and you will still lose to someone who just started using a standard team.

Who the hell in their right mind uses a team full of Luvdisc

 

[SpadeMan]

Who the hell in their right mind uses a team full of Luvdisc

I was trying to prove a point