How competitive is Pokemon? Is it at all?

I feel as if Pokemon in of itself isnt shaped to be a competitive game, but its the community trying to portray it as one. The competitive field feels as if its mandating you to use staple Pokemon on a team in order to play it properly. Dont get me wrong, I had a blast playing on Showdown and its great for making a mock team before going through the hassle of breeding and messing up a Pokemon and wasting all that time on it beforehand. Its just that, it isnt viable as a competitive game IMO. It seems much more luck based than a competitive game should be. Considering that the average moves that most players run either have a 75%-90% chance to hit and missing can decide the battle for you, its pretty silly when people insist that it takes skill. There is some skill involved where it comes to building a team (Ill get to this later) and when it comes to switches and tactics (such as baton passing and stalling), but as Ive done before, you can eliminate this entire tactic by sheer luck (Freezing a +6 Def, +3 Sp.atk/Sp,Def Espeon before it could baton pass to Mega Charizard Y). And in a game where luck is the biggest factor, I fail to see how it can be said that its a competitive game. You just need to use prediction and hope the enemy doesnt see through it or overthinks it as if youre doing advanced calculus when in reality; youre just having an average battle.

On the topic of team building as I addressed that Id get to later, weve all heard this argument before: I cant use the Pokemon I like because they arent good!! That is as well a viable complaint as much as it can come off as whining. On one hand, there are multiple tiers and every single Pokemon belongs in a tier to match it with others to increase its viability, but only in that tier. In defense of that common complaint, theres a problem when you want to use (Yes this is me and my dilemma that I have, no need to try to read into it.) Quagsire, Emolga and Ampharos in the same team. Sure you can do it, but then the viability clause rolls in. are you sure you want to use Emolga on that team? You know it will be a waste of a slot when you could just use Zapdos! But I want to use Emolga though. So you want to lose? Mk. No game that has a competitive field should really be that way.

In like practically every other game thats run at real events such as Evo, MLG, LCS, Internationals, LAN, etc., there are things that all have their own niche and can fit in and prevent someone seeing the same things constantly over and over again, bringing in new ideas and an ever growing community of ideas and strategies. It doesnt make sense that people say Pokemons competitive is legit when its a straight plain of gaming. You can almost expect Rotom-W on every team in OU and attempt to trick a choice item on you and volt switch away or skip the first step altogether and just volt switch away or Gliscor on every team and be a stealth rock setter or Breloom to use Spore then Substitute/Swords dance. And I understand completely that part of the game is running counters to this such as Kyurem-B with Substitute and Mold Breaker Excadrill for Rotom-W, but the problem isnt the countering, its the lack of originality and viability of alternate builds on said Pokemon. There are few Pokemon that have multiple fluctuating builds and gimmicks to use on them compared to other games. Theyre, like I said before, just a flat plain of similar things which in the end, could be seen as the fault of Gamefreak for trying to keep balancing in the game. In the end, the game feels as if they run a major Adapt or lose sort of thing going around which isnt something that a game should have if it wants to be considered competitive. And I know people are going to blame smogon for this, but in reality, youd be stupid for not using Spore on Breloom and not using Gliscor to set up stealth rocks but use it offensively.
 
PKMN have a fucking World Championships with a GF ratified version of the doubles metagame ffs. wat the hell are you talking about.

and just because everything isn't usable doesn't mean it's non competitive.
 
So what's the point of this? You don't think we should play competitive Pokemon because it doesn't seem like a fun competitive game to you?
 
No, it's just that I don't think Pokemon is meant to be competitive. Its fun the way Smogon has engineered it in a nice competitive fashion, but at it's root, its a non-competitive game

And also, a competitive game should not contain this many inherent luck facotrs
 
But for example, if I play Mean Bean Machine against my friends to win, and I am better than them because they are average it does that mean that it's enough to make the game "competitive"? Competitive gaming is a slippery slope in of itself and Pokémon is nowhere close to even fitting the criteria for one.
 
Sometimes I look at some Pokemon moves like SR or Taunt (or even the whole dream world stuff) and think "GF just had to be thinking of the competitive scene because there is no way anyone would use this in vanilla."

Anyway, it's hard to gauge the "competitive viability" of Pokemon from just ladder matches. SPL or other smog tourneys are where you see the true face of Pokemon, and I've seen players use outrageous or unknown sets and totally rock with them. I've heard that this is the same case with other e-sports, like say SSBM where a lot of people use Fox.

Think about Chess, each piece type had its own respective movement, so you know all the possible ways it could move, but
the idea is to outsmart the opponent, who at the same time is trying to outsmart you. I'm not saying Pokemon is on the same level as chess of course, but bear with me here.

And the main idea of Pokemon is battling.... Becoming the very best like no one ever was. Everything you have in the competitive scene you also have in vanilla Pokemon. GF for sure tailored the game to be played with others. It's why there is no home-console main series games and the home-console games we do have are about tournament-battling (stadium, colosseum, revolution)

Not every character in every competitive game is usuable, it's just that Pokemon is an RPG and needs low-powered mons for early game. Think DQ slime. It's a shame you can't usually have team of your 6 top fav mons but a skilled player can usually make us of Pokemon like Emolga/quagsire due to their niches.
 
Skill is the deciding factor over luck for the most part, and that's good enough to call it a competitive game for me.
 
But for example, if I play Mean Bean Machine against my friends to win, and I am better than them because they are average it does that mean that it's enough to make the game "competitive"? Competitive gaming is a slippery slope in of itself and Pokémon is nowhere close to even fitting the criteria for one.

What exactly is the "criteria" for a competitive game?
 
I feel sometimes that if smogon took the trouble of balancing the game enough to ban certain strategies and pokemon in different tiers, it could go a step further and create a metagame where everything is viable and creativity is endless. In addition, game changing events such as critical hits or low accuracy moves would be absent. I sometimes wake up wanting to play with Porgyon-Z, Articuno and Altaria but to do that I have to dedicate more time playing more tiers and then leave out the rest of my favorites instead of playing with them all.

There is several ways to go about that and Smogon has given some thought and effort to make it happen, for example a budget based metagame, given lower tiered mons moves their sorely miss and make them more attractive, etc.

For me a metagame where you can only choose one pokemon from each tier would be a fun thing to do and would promote more skill and understanding of the game as a whole instead of dedicating yourself to playing and studying the same 50 mons for the next 3 years or s0...


Edit: Submitted a metagame idea based on the above.
 
Last edited:
But for example, if I play Mean Bean Machine against my friends to win, and I am better than them because they are average it does that mean that it's enough to make the game "competitive"?

yes.

Competitive gaming is a slippery slope in of itself and Pokémon is nowhere close to even fitting the criteria for one.
No. anything people feel is worth competing over is competitive. There's no slippery slope, there's no rationalization. It's an objective definition of the term. And stop your cringe-inducing eulogies. You haven't laid forth any such 'criteria' itself, except luck... which is balls because it's is an inherent part of any competitive sport, and especially online gaming (referred to as "e-sports")
 
For me a metagame where you can only choose one pokemon from each tier would be a fun thing to do and would promote more skill and understanding of the game as a whole instead of dedicating yourself to playing and studying the same 50 mons for the next 3 years or s0...
http://www.smogon.com/forums/forums/other-metagames.206/
Seems like a cool idea but I already have an OM and I don't feel like making another. You should though. P*keb*ttle's metagame is budget-based and they are now public.
 
Sometimes I look at some Pokemon moves like SR or Taunt (or even the whole dream world stuff) and think "GF just had to be thinking of the competitive scene because there is no way anyone would use this in vanilla."

Anyway, it's hard to gauge the "competitive viability" of Pokemon from just ladder matches. SPL or other smog tourneys are where you see the true face of Pokemon, and I've seen players use outrageous or unknown sets and totally rock with them. I've heard that this is the same case with other e-sports, like say SSBM where a lot of people use Fox.

Think about Chess, each piece type had its own respective movement, so you know all the possible ways it could move, but
the idea is to outsmart the opponent, who at the same time is trying to outsmart you. I'm not saying Pokemon is on the same level as chess of course, but bear with me here.

And the main idea of Pokemon is battling.... Becoming the very best like no one ever was. Everything you have in the competitive scene you also have in vanilla Pokemon. GF for sure tailored the game to be played with others. It's why there is no home-console main series games and the home-console games we do have are about tournament-battling (stadium, colosseum, revolution)

Not every character in every competitive game is usuable, it's just that Pokemon is an RPG and needs low-powered mons for early game. Think DQ slime. It's a shame you can't usually have team of your 6 top fav mons but a skilled player can usually make us of Pokemon like Emolga/quagsire due to their niches.

Yeah, I get what you mean, but even if not for early game.

What if I took a Mightyena, Zangoose, Dragalge, Weezing, Tropius, and Hydreigon into battle? These Pokemon are all mostly lategame type of Pokemon, and they will simply be destroyed in a match against a vanilla team.

And the way GF made it, even if I wanted to use those six Pokemon and I had decent skill, I go against another skilled player with their standard OU's, I'll get wrecked. That and the luck factor make this seem not inherently competitive.
 
What about smash bros melee? I'm going to assume you think that Smash Bros Melee is a competitive game, but if i tried bringing Pichu vs a Fox main of equal skill i would get absolutely slaughtered. It's impossible to balance ~400 pokemon (guesstimated # of FEs) in a competitive environment, but the fact that a wide enough variety of them (probably ~80?) are viable, even if not all to equal levels, is good enough for me when it comes to a competitive game. It's not like every team is the exact same or slightly different flavors of the exact same—that's when you start getting to centralization, and Pokemon is nowhere near that. Even in a centralized game, it can be competitive. Every chess team is the exact same!
 
I-I never played melee, and only casually played brawl. I understand what you are trying to say though.

While it is true, that not all teams are same, those 400ish FE's and the few ok NFE's that exist only contain probably 80-100 viable Pokemon for OU. That seems a little less, at least to me.
 
I think what you're trying to argue here is that Pokemon is not strategic (which I disagree with), since essentially any game can be competitive if you're competing with another person in it. Even single-player arcade games are competitive in the sense that you're trying to beat the scores of other people who've played the machine. Luck doesn't make a game non-competitive; poker competitions are quite popular, for instance. They're also somewhat strategic, in that you have to read your opponent, assess whether you can afford to take a loss, what your odds of winning are, and make the necessary plays to win. Snakes and Ladders is purely luck, but you can still compete in it. It's just not strategic.

Pokemon still requires careful planning to be successful, both when building teams and actually battling. You need a strategy, such as wearing down the opposing team with entry hazards, luring out common counters to your main sweeper, and breaking through their team. Every turn, you have to decide what move will put you in the most favorable position, bearing in mind the most favorable move for you opponent to make as well. An untimely critical hit, miss, or secondary effect could certainly put a stop to your current strategy, but that doesn't make the game itself nonstrategic. If anything, it adds another level of strategy in that you have to be able to constantly prepare for secondary win conditions. You need to be able to adapt to game-changing luck at any moment.

Furthermore, luck adds risk-management to the list of strategic planning. An obvious example would be using a 100% accurate move over a 70% accurate move if either will KO your opponent's Pokemon. That's certainly not high-level thinking there, but weighing the cost of which to use if only the latter will KO while only the former will be effective if your opponent switches can certainly be. What move is your opponent likely to make? Which will put you in a better position if you mispredict? Can you afford to even risk the miss in this situation? Serious consideration and planning goes into every move in Pokemon, so I'd say it's certainly strategic, luck included.
 
Yeah, I get what you mean, but even if not for early game.

What if I took a Mightyena, Zangoose, Dragalge, Weezing, Tropius, and Hydreigon into battle? These Pokemon are all mostly lategame type of Pokemon, and they will simply be destroyed in a match against a vanilla team.

And the way GF made it, even if I wanted to use those six Pokemon and I had decent skill, I go against another skilled player with their standard OU's, I'll get wrecked. That and the luck factor make this seem not inherently competitive.

Would you consider Yugioh/Pokemon/magic/any-card-game uncompetitive then? In them, a large portion of the competitive aspect is in how you make up your deck, and they draw players from around the world to their international tournaments (competitive Pokemon does too, but that's besides the point of the analogy).
 
theres a problem when you want to use (Yes this is me and my dilemma that I have, no need to try to read into it.) Quagsire, Emolga and Ampharos in the same team. Sure you can do it, but then the viability clause rolls in. are you sure you want to use Emolga on that team? You know it will be a waste of a slot when you could just use Zapdos!

One of the reasons that this is a competitive game is that these pokemon are considered as mathematical structures when considering viability. If you want to use any one of them on a team, you can probably find a way to make that work for you in some tier. But because it's competitive, you have to optimize, and that means optimizing preparation too. You can't just pick a team of six pokemon and expect to outplay everyone. You need to consider scenarios beforehand. The nature of competition is in understanding a game and taking actions to use your understanding to make physical improvements. There's plenty of variety and niche in pokemon, between typing, base stats, ability, and movepool even pokemon which dominate others most of the time can lose out in team building if you are inventive and perceptive enough.
 
Also, you have to use strategy and stuff to compensate for less than stellar luck. I've had an Empoleon flinched to death by Jirachi's Iron Head but I could still pull out the win
 
No, it's just that I don't think Pokemon is meant to be competitive. Its fun the way Smogon has engineered it in a nice competitive fashion, but at it's root, its a non-competitive game

And also, a competitive game should not contain this many inherent luck facotrs
Who said it was supposed to be competitive? What's wrong with Smogon playing it competitive? They aren't making it competitively, they're playing it competitively. If you don't like playing Pokémon competitively, then don't. But don't try to make dozens of thousands not play competitively. The luck in it is competitive. Poker is, by your definition, MADE competitive, but you gamble, usually with less chance than Focus Miss hitting. But it's still competitive, or it can be fun. So can Pokémon.
tl;dr: Don't tell us Pokémon isn't competitive; it can be competitive or it can be playing for fun. The choice is the person's, not yours.
 
Why talk as if all competitive Pokemon battles are the result of Smogon?
It isn't.
People outside Smogon had been playing Pokemon competitively for over a decade.
Pokemon even has it's tournaments with separate rules from Smogon, officially.
Pokemon officially hosts this competitive tournament for us.
Game Freak had publicly addressed that they are aware of the competitive side of Pokemon.

Why do you think you still can argue?
 
And in a game where luck is the biggest factor, I fail to see how it can be said that its a competitive game.
I wouldn't say luck is the BIGGEST factor in winning. yes, hax can happen, but in general its up to you, the player, to act accordingly (which chances are you willing to take, what are the odds of it coming out favorably, are there better or more reliable options)..

And yes team matchup can happen as well, but again, it is very possible to overcome this with planning and reading your opponent, and
properly countering their plans, though obviously the player with a good matchup needs to do this less, it is very possible to win despite bad matchup, if you play better than your opponent. (unless your team has something it just flat-out gets swept by... but you should teambuild to prevent anything like that)

so to be honest i'd argue that 'luck' actually adds to the skill required in that you need to be able to plan ahead effectively. you need to build your team so that it doesnt have glaring weaknesses that are impossible to play around in battle, and make sure you know exactly how you will beat said threat. you need to maximize your chances of winning, while minimizing your opponent's chances, and also be able to make backup plans in case of a crucial miss/freeze etc.
all in all, more skilled players do their best to control the "luck" involved, which is part of how they can succeed. in this way, skill and luck can coincide. so yes it is competitive, even though hax can take away someone's chance of winning, it doesnt do this to the point where skill is eliminated (except for swagger /evasion/moody/ baton pass which smogon has done its best to get rid of as problems). and that is why skill outshines luck, and the meta remains competitive
 
I think op is showing favoritism to certain mons. It's like saying that you want all your favorite sucky football players on a team and then you try to have them obtain the world cup, but in the end they get slaughtered by teams with the best players.
 
I think op is also showing a lack of general knowledge in Pokemon.

I seriously don't think most competitive moves are 75% to 90% in accuracy.

A luck dependent team is simply not a good team.
 
Pokemon is definitely being played with the intention of competition, you can't really argue that, that's a fact. Skill definitely increases your likelyhood of winning to a significant extent, especially if you count teambuilding as part of play, even if luck plays a big role too. And the skill involved would by many be considered strategic and/or tactical, because it involves planning and taking into account known and expected circumstances on the short and on the long term.

What exactly are we arguing? Whether pokémon is balanced so that each pokemon is viable? No, it's not. Does that make it less "competitive"? What is the definition of the quality that is "competitive" we are arguing about pokemon having?
 
Back
Top