Threat List and Unifying Strategy: Incompatible?

Footnote

Footnote

I've been looking at a lot of RMTs lately, and I've noticed something. Almost every team either makes an effort to counter everything on the threat list, or it has a unifying, central strategy, but not both. I hypothesize that it's very difficult to accomplish both of these things. Not only is it difficult, but the teams that can pull it off tend to look remarkably similar to one another. Having a counter for everything on the list tends to limit your pool of Pokémon to the point that it becomes difficult to form a single strategy.

Jumpman16's threat list is a great asset and should be taken into consideration for every team built. However, I'm also in full agreement with Surgo's qualifier of a unifying strategy. I perceive this issue to be a very real one, so I'm trying to start a dialogue. Is there a solution to this problem? Does there need to be a solution? Is there even a problem at all?

I look forward to hearing everyone's opinion on this matter.
 
It's possible to have a unifying strategy and take care of threats at the same time. Look at my Poison Spikes / Stealth Rock / Sandstream team that I came up with and you'll see that I had a unifying strategy and did a decent job of covering my ass against the threats that we see in the metagame. It just takes a great deal of thought and planning to put together your team like pieces to a puzzle.
 
Yeah it takes a really long time to put together a team that follows both requirements. Sometimes though when you are building a team you have to see that some stuff is going to beat you while you are making it and theres nothing you can do about it if you want to stick to your original plan.
 
The biggest issue comes with "having a central unified strategy" that isn't torn apart by a single pokemon... mostly when the team gets too specific, focusing on a move or pokemon, rather than an actual "strategy."

A "Sand Storm" team, or a "Tyranitar" team will most likely be less successful than a team that focuses on the strategy behind Sand Storm and the clever usage of Tyranitar therein.

A team that's looking to counter Rhyperior and Tyranitar and Salamence and Gyarados and Gengar and Blissey, etc, etc... is not going to be as successful as a team that balances taking out "defensive tanks" and stopping "speedy sweepers"...

The metagame will certainly help define which pokemon will undoubtedly need to be on the threat list... but with such a huge increase in both physical AND special powerhouses in D/P, your best bet is to perfect your strategy while keeping your weaknesses covered...

Because while it might be important to counter the 40 or so expected threats this new generation brings.... your opponent is still stuck with only 6 spots...
 
It mostly depends on what "unifying strategy" is... if it requires themed team such as weather, baton pass, trick room, or mono-type teams then of course they'll fall somewhat apart once you apply the threat list litmus test because there are certain things that they aren't good at handling.

If you simply view unifying strategy as assembling a team that works well together, covers their weaknesses, and compounds their strengths, by making the best of their movesets and type coverage, then the threat list doesn't affect your results at all. When I first planned my team, I started out with things I felt like I wanted to use and the rest fell into place when I considered what types work well with each other, so there would always be a backup somehow.
 
I very much doubt that, footnote. Check my team out in like 5 minutes, and I have the threat list almost completely covered, and I still have a unified strategy. You just have to remember that not only that one Poke is the attacker or finisher; A few things or most things should be, just in case.
 
I don't think about a threat list until I've finished the first draft of my teams. I find I end up countering a lot "by accident" but usually have a glaring weaknesses, which requires tweaking my team to solve. That's the challenge for me, trying to plug the holes without compromising the team strategy.

They're not incompatible ideas, it just requires a lot of work to get the balance right.
 
Blah, blah, blah.

Start with the sweepers you want and then build defences for them. Bam unified strategy of getting your favorite sweepers onto the field to wreak havok. The other four pokemon cover the threat list.
 
I think the list is a bit long winded. I would recommend trying to cover attacks and attack combinations rather than pokemon. For example, you want something that resists water, but is not weak to ice. Or, you want something that resists rock, but is not weak to ground.

You can counter things by "juggling" your team. This entails that you identify a matchup that would be favourable to you, and switching via other pokemon to reach that matchup taking as less damage as possible. For example, you have a Blissey against a 40% Metagross, you switch to Magnezone for the meteor mash before switching to Aerodactyl on the earthquake.

My strategy has always been to discover my opponent's weakness and exploit it before my defensively vulnerable teams are exploited. You can spend however long you want trying to fill every defensive hole, but that is useless if you don't know how to use your team =[ Skill (or lack thereof) is a weakness that really can't be covered...
 
I could post some long, wordy essay on team building and strategy and "the grand scheme of things" but I don't really feel like it so I'll just say that if you're actually surprised a good team takes more than two minutes of effort in DP then "lol"
 
I put stradegy over countering threats. There are so many surprises, you'll never be able to counter everything.

edit: if you suddenly feel like you want to write that essay, please do so Jumpman. ^^
 
Incompatible? There may be the potential there, but it really all depends on what someone believes is a central unifying strategy. I make teams that start the opponent off on the wrong foot, but against certain Pokemon, that's quite a difficult thing to accomplish.
 
I think we've got a lot of good, well-thought-out opinions here.

yawn said:
It mostly depends on what "unifying strategy" is... if it requires themed team such as weather, baton pass, trick room, or mono-type teams then of course they'll fall somewhat apart once you apply the threat list litmus test because there are certain things that they aren't good at handling.

If you simply view unifying strategy as assembling a team that works well together, covers their weaknesses, and compounds their strengths, by making the best of their movesets and type coverage, then the threat list doesn't affect your results at all. When I first planned my team, I started out with things I felt like I wanted to use and the rest fell into place when I considered what types work well with each other, so there would always be a backup somehow.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Perhaps in addition to 'unifying strategy', we should talk more about 'good synergy', which can be just as good, if not better.

ADH said:
It's possible to have a unifying strategy and take care of threats at the same time. Look at my Poison Spikes / Stealth Rock / Sandstream team that I came up with and you'll see that I had a unifying strategy and did a decent job of covering my ass against the threats that we see in the metagame. It just takes a great deal of thought and planning to put together your team like pieces to a puzzle.
Click to expand...

Phuquoph said:
I don't think about a threat list until I've finished the first draft of my teams. I find I end up countering a lot "by accident" but usually have a glaring weaknesses, which requires tweaking my team to solve. That's the challenge for me, trying to plug the holes without compromising the team strategy.

They're not incompatible ideas, it just requires a lot of work to get the balance right.
Click to expand...

You two are right. It can definitely be done. My question is, how diverse are the teams that do it? I'm seeing a lot of Sandstorm/Stealth Rock teams. And by a lot, I mean a whole lot. How many teams (literally, how many possible combinations) can successfully fulfill both criteria to the satisfaction of the majority of team raters?

Jumpman16 said:
I could post some long, wordy essay on team building and strategy and "the grand scheme of things" but I don't really feel like it so I'll just say that if you're actually surprised a good team takes more than two minutes of effort in DP then "lol"
Click to expand...

Jumpman, thank you for not posting the essay right now (although I would love to see it if you ever do decide to post it). I'm not really referring to the amount of time necessary to build a successful team. I myself take many hours building a team over the course of days, and I derive a lot of enjoyment from it.

I'm worried more about the fact that many RMTs that have a game plan are lambasted by nitpickers because they have an incomplete or flawed threat list. Now, I'm not against some constructive criticism, but I'm seeing a lot of posts (many of them mean-spirited) by regulars on RMTs that point out un-dealt-with threats without giving much helpful advice. It seems to me that this behaivior is viewed in a positive light here, and this is part of what concerns me.

The first question to ask is, "Can you have a successful team without dealing with every threat on the list?" From the responses on this thread, I think most of us agree that the answer is 'Yes'. Jumpman, you yourself wrote something similar to this when you posted the threat list.

"I don't expect anyone to commit all that to memory, and I definitely don't want you to feel as if every team you make must be impervious to all of these threats lest it be worthless."

But despite this, I'm seeing RMT teams ripped apart for not having a complete counter for one or two things on the list.

I think a lot of us are so caught up with the idea that we have to have a legitimate counter to switch to that we analyze this to the exclusion of the team's strategies. This is where the irony comes in, because by doing this it is we who are taking the lazy way out. It's much easier to run down a list and point out a team's flaws than it is to actually analyze the team well by running through some likely scenarios. As we know, not everything needs a full 'counter'. Sometimes it can be advantageous not to swich, even if it means a sacrifice of one Pokémon on our team. Some good contingencies can make up the difference.

Should we use the threat list when making teams and rating them? Of course. Should we use it as the only rubric by which we judge a team? I don't think we should.

EDIT: By the way, there are many users who do post helpful, team-strategy-related advice on RMTs. I'm not implying that there are no exceptions.
 
The two aren't incompatible at all.

The threat list just lists common Pokemon who may be serious, well, threats, in the coming metagame, while the point of unifying strategy is to make your team a cohesive unit.

I agree with Footnote in that I think people are too bent on this idea of Counter X beats Standard Y, and the fact that there are so many powerful standards makes it feel like entire battles could be decided just by teams more frequently than is comfortable for most people.

The trick here is to find broader solutions to problems you may face. I've only posted two teams to this board, but they are both my attempts at subverting the guaranteed counter concept (which is already diminished by the presence of hard-hitting, truly counterless threats like Heracross). My Trick Scarf team was designed to limit the opponent's options and to reduce pretty much every threat into the same position from which I could effectively counter it. My recent Quick Claw team, while horribly unreliable most of the time, also constantly puts pressure on the opponent that no matter what their best circumstances may be, having 6 Quick Claws means the team is always, always a potential threat.

These teams are largely experimental, and I usually like to go off the deep end when it comes to this sort of team-building, but I do these to make a point. The threat list is practical, yes, but there's so much potential out there for countering, if only you would stop worrying about not being able to counter Pokemon Y 100% of the time.

To simplify, rather than using one pokemon to counter/wall one pokemon, use one strategy to counter/wall the opponent.
 
What I think we need to do is first define our central strategy and create a team accomplishing it. Then we apply our threat list to the team, seeing if any holes appear, and tweak it while still keeping the central strategy. In battle, we focus on letting the plan run as a whole rather than react to each pokemon separately.

So yes, they can coexist through a little effort, as said before.
 
Jumps wrote this on his "How to bla bla" thread:

I definitely don't want you to feel as if every team you make must be impervious to all of these threats lest it be worthless. That isn't my point in making this announcement, and that isn't the point of competitive pokémon in general. Despite the apparent completeness of that threat list, I merely ask you to sweep your eyes over the bolded names and keep them in mind during and after the team-building process. The process, if not already ingrained in your mind, will get easier and easier with every team you make.
Click to expand...
And he's right, he's so F%$&( right. The thing is that both concepts (Unifying Strategy and Threat List fully-covered) are like oil and water, lol. When you try to put them together, you think that you've actually done it, but then, the mixture separates again! I see it that way, specially when someone reads your RMT and posts: "omg, SpecsMence eats your arzorz!" or "wtf, PursuitHera lols at you". That really fucks up the "Threat List Fully Covered" thing, don't you think?

To sum up, I'll say that "you can make a team with your own strategy AND cover most of the threats, or at least the ones you think that are important to wall, but you must know what your weaknesses are, and try to eliminate them as fast as you can when you see them, otherwise you're srewed".
 
Darn, and I like reading Jump's long essays.

And I do agree with you, Footnote, in that people are being too nitpicky with RMT's. Some people decide not to rate at all and say, "Please Read this" (Link to Surgo's Treatise and Jumpman16's RMT announcement). "Your threat list is flawed". In every bad RMT there at least 5 equally bad responses, and I think this is a habit that Smogon needs to break.

But I do disagree that covering threats/unifying strategy can't be done, but it is up to the creativity and intuition of the creator that the two become one. Pokemon isn't easy.
 
Yeah, the title of my thread really should have been: Threat List and Unifying Strategy: Often At Odds With One Another? or Threat List and Unifying Strategy: Too Limiting? or even Are We Being Too Lazy With Out RMTs? because I don't really think the two are incompatible. That was an unfortunate shorthand on my part. Live and learn, I guess.

To reiterate, I don't think it's impossible to have a cohesive team that takes care of most, or even all, threats. I think that you can base an entire team strictly off of countering the threat list. But, there are many other perfectly legitimate ways to design a team while still taking those threats into account. I'm just worried that we may be quashing that potential creativity by being slaves to the list.

Of course, some posted RMTs are just bad.
 
The list is not something anyone should ever need to be a slave to. But TBH, if you could not possibly hope to beat any one of the pokes on that list then, it is a bad team.

An additional point I think I should make is that you do not have to a have a specific pokemon to counter a pokemon.. It doesnt matter how you stop a pokemon, so long as your team is capable of doing so. For instance, in my RS team, I have no true counter to Raikou.. I need to kill it with Dugtrio, but I dont want to spend enough EVs to take Modest HPs, so I developed a strategy where I calm mind up along side it with Celebi, break its sub (I had to change my ev spread to make this work) then I can pass to Dugtrio safely. Alternatively, I can switch to Gengar and Explode, if it is modest Raikou it will be slower, if it is timid (and it kills my Gengar before it explodes) then it wont be able to OHKO Dugtrio.

And also I would like to say that I do believe a lot of people are indeed being too lazy with their RMTs.

Have a nice day.
 
I guess total adherence to the threat list is less essential now than in advance due to its sheer size. But without it the first page of this board would consist entirely of:

Omgomg RMT!
- my team
- You're 6-0'ed by GDos
- kthx locked.
 
A good discussion, like I've come to expect of you, Footnote.
I agree that both the threat-list and a unifying strategy is important but seeing the entire list posted in every RMT is unnecessary. Rather than post what you think you can counter you should highlight the parts of the list where you have trouble. These are the areas you need help with, right?

I think a good way to build your team would be:
1) Pick a few Pokémon, movesets, basic strategies or whatever you really want to use.
2) Build your team to support those, i.e. make a unifying strategy.
3) Look at the threat-list to fill the holes and solve some problems and weaknesses in your team.

You don't have to completely fullfill everything in every step but the more the better :]
 
Okay, reposting.

I think Jumpman's threat list is too extensive. Tell me how you counter Baton Pass without being forced to run a (P)hazer or a Taunter? Why should you worry about a Ninjask attacking you when you have a Heracross counter? Also, Blissey and most walls are countered by attacking them from the side of the spectrum they don't boost.

Also, why worry about Staraptor and Tauros? First of all, they are Borderline and are easily counter by a Normal/Flying resist. They can run Close Combat/Earthquake, but they are also usually Choice Item'd. Really, the threat list should focus on Pokemon that can 6-0 a team with little to no set-up.
 
Well, part of the reason that those specific Pokemon are on the threat list is how they can go apeshit on certain aspects of the team. Take this Tauros set for example.

Tauros @ Leftovers
Nature: Adamant (+Atk -SAtk) or Jolly (+Spd -SAtk)
EVs: 4 HP / 252 Atk / 252 Spd
Trait: Anger Point
-Return / Body Slam
-Zen Headbutt
-Earthquake / Stone Edge
-Pursuit

It may only have 299 - 328 attack normally, but bring it in against something like Strong Luck Absol and you have a good chance of getting an automatic +6 attack. Leftovers makes it hit less hard but increases flexibility and gives it some lastability after surviving a critical hit.

And Ninjask is a threat too, Ninjask leading can hit lots of opposing leads hard. It's the fastest Pokemon in the game and has a decent movepool and can work either as a CB or a Thief / BP set to lure out Skarmory to wall it, steal its Beautiful Skin, and BP its +speeds to a Magnezone, who suddenly outspeeds a lot (give it enough speed to get to 300 with +1) and can do some damage.

You counter Ninjask with Stealth Rock mainly, but having an Extremespeed or other Quick Attack-like move on your team hits it nice and hard too.

I digress, though, there's good reason for them to be on the threat list.
 
Staraptor and Tauros are unlikely to 6-0 a team, but what if they kill/weaken whatever Pokemon you have preventing a 6-0 from Gyarados, Infernape, etc.

Ninjask is also unlikely to 6-0 a decent team, but his Baton Passing can set up something that will.
 
I honestly didn't want to do this, but a lot of the things that you guys described, like

1) Pick a few Pokémon, movesets, basic strategies or whatever you really want to use.
2) Build your team to support those, i.e. make a unifying strategy.
3) Look at the threat-list to fill the holes and solve some problems and weaknesses in your team
Click to expand...

and

To reiterate, I don't think it's impossible to have a cohesive team that takes care of most, or even all, threats. I think that you can base an entire team strictly off of countering the threat list. But, there are many other perfectly legitimate ways to design a team while still taking those threats into account. I'm just worried that we may be quashing that potential creativity by being slaves to the list.
Click to expand...

Because I think this team does both pretty well, huh?
Also, you can't call Staraptor or Tauros or even Ninjask B/L without a clear and visible metagame. Staraptor can easily own your Skarm with as little as Stealth Rock damage, or Tauros is not going to lose to much unless your normal resist is really, really solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top