Archetypal Progress Principles & Win Conditions
ADV is a special meta with a unique balance between power levels and diverse viability. I’m paraphrasing, but Jimothy says it best: “In ADV, if a pokemon has a unique and valuable niche, you can build and optimize a competitive team around it.” That quality is ADV: a metagame that rewards nuanced meta knowledge, adaptability, and creativity. This diversity in viability is a product of many game design elements, one of which is the delicate balance in archetypal power levels. It’s a good thing that extreme offense is as equally viable as extreme stall, and that both are less optimal and viable than central balance archetypes. The limited presence and viability of both paradigms’ extreme variations keep the other’s in check.
This is how game balance should work: Stall > Offense > Balance > Stall. If you like ADV, then this dynamic is essential. This is why the speed pass ban is alarming, and why refusing to address this balance concern in speed pass discussion is a red flag: Within speed pass lies the possibility for maximal lethality. The shortest path to victory lies in speed pass. It is the limited presence and viability of these high-risk high-reward strategies within the meta that checks and balances the opposite side of the spectrum; stall tactics like perish song, toxic stall, pp stall.
My hope in this analysis is to improve player information by comparing the different archetypes’ methods of measuring value and progress-making, and how they achieve unique win conditions.
Value and Progress Making Paradigms
The broader game modes of viable competitive ADV are stall, balance, and offense. Within these broad archetypes are specified team styles that characterize value differently. and thus, employ different means of making progress. By understanding each of these game modes’, value metrics and win conditions, players can adjust their play and build principles to adapt to their worst match ups and capitalize on their best.
Most of this is just a simplification and generalization of information that most players already understand. I’m hoping to simplify and organize principles in a way that can help improve in-game decision making and more nuanced building. Note that there is obvious nuance to archetypes and the strategies they employ and building is not so rigid.
However, by comparing fundamental archetypal principles in the following chart, you can extrapolate a difference in how these different paradigms measure value and calculate risk. Below, I explain how you can interpret the information on the chart. For ease of reading: Balance is the largest archetype that encompasses the most variety in progress making methods. Balance can deny progress and leverage positional advantage– when it does it becomes semi-stall or offense. Subsequently, the team will use elements from stall’s and offense’s tactics, game plans, and strategies, but will primarily use balance principles of sequencing and incremental damage.
Balance
Balance creates progress through sequential, incremental and mixed sources of damage. For example, on Big 5 TSS Balance, value can be measured in establishing sand, hazards, and status to make progress with offensive pressure and defensive pivoting, using a variety of momentum tactics and strategies to force endgame win condition sequences This is a tried and true battle of attrition– intelligent sequencing, defensive pivots, and offensive spikes pressure amount to a breaking point of an opposing team’s defensive soundness— the loss of a key defensive piece or its minimum HP threshold leads to a snowball of resource loss.
Stall
Stall makes progress through slow and steady resource depletion and progress denial. By leveraging defensive power and delegating offensive power to specific functions like trap or speed control, these teams abuse slow tempo gamestates and capitalize on longevity to win through attrition.
Offense
Offensive structures like mixed offense, double rock spikes, or Smeargle spikes represent the offensive spectrum of the large balance paradigm. Offensive teams leverage, but do not rely on positional advantage and tempo control in combination with hazard pressure, or mixed offense sources and high impact moves like focus punch + boom. Conversely, defensive pieces are limited, with the general goal of outpacing a need for them.
Offense is a spectrum that incorporates many principles of balance, and I would separate these offensive teams from our understanding of Hyper Offense. Just like stall has unique gamestates and progress making paradigms in comparison to semi stall, offense and hyper offense operate differently.
Hyper Offense
Hyper-Offence creates progress in a completely unique way: ”What if instead of sequential damage over time, my team contested for enough safe space to justify glass cannon damage output? How much offense could I consistently output with as little space as I can scrounge up?”
Hyper Offense relies solely on leveraging positional advantage for the removal or disablement of key targets, to gain tempo control in order to support and enable the execution of precise hyper lethal sequences. This is a very different game mode compared to any other style, including offense. Value can be measured in space, or safe, free turns, which can be transformed into massive damage output.
Players more comfortable calculating risk and opportunity thrive in this playstyle that abandons defensive longevity and rewards optimal, precise gameplay’. It feels skill-rewarding to set up and execute powerful combinations that justify going for the precise requirements of positional advantage and tempo control.
‘All-In On Speed Pass’ & It’s Built-In Flaws
I’m isolating ‘All-In On Speed Pass’ teams like Roro and Nal’s Smeargle teams, or my Minun team, because the community largely supports agility pass zapdos teams which function more like mixed offense with agility pass Zapdos as a feature, not the team’s primary function. I would argue further that agility pass Spec. Offense is a very interesting and valuable archetype as well, one I find to be more consistent than maro/yama/azu gameplay.
Flaw 1: Overarching build limitations necessitate specific combinations of tactics and resources that can only be completed viably and optimally, in a limited number of ways. built in momentum swings and little longevity.
Flaw 2: Speedpass is the only archetype whose boost does not immediately provide power to break through checks. This forces speed pass to address counterplay through indirect means like pre-pass trap or removal, and post pass protection. Revealed information is almost always enough to anticipate incoming tactics.
Flaw 3: Speed Pass has built in momentum swings that are its biggest vulnerability. It is hard to stop once going, but hard to get going again once stopped. This is an inherent, built in flaw that dramatically worsens the impacts of the other two flaws. Speed pass can get off its first pass relatively consistently, but its difficult to select the right recipient. Once the initial passer is worn down, subsequent passes are nearly impossible.
“Counterplay is linear and uninteractive ” – Improving Balance Play Vs AIOSP
Piloting balance does not demand high-pace precision gameplay to achieve its win conditions like HO does, particularly AIOSP teams. Instead, balanced decision-making optimizes and rewards clicking the ‘least worst outcomes’. This in turn, extends the duration of turns required to achieve balanced win conditions. It takes many turns to establish hazards and status, and many more to leverage that pressure with offensive power and defensive pivoting. However, just because a game plan takes more turns to execute, does not make piloting it or playing against it any less ‘linear’ than hyper-offense, whose sequences are simply shorter and therefore, more visible.
Balance players understand the mirror matchup and how to take down stall, the second most popular style. This is common knowledge due to resource availability and community attitude. But due to a variety of factors, there is a deeply-woven misunderstanding of HO as an unhealthy, linear, RNG fish. The opposite is true: hyper-offense has a valuable role in metabalance and creates unique game states.
Is The Real Culprit A Combination of Spore + Baton Pass?
While it is true that agility pass does enable the most lethal sequences, there is another culprit to these strategies that is less skill-expressive and enables problematic lines beyond speed pass. If there is any action considered, it should be for the tactic that is over-enabling these counter-teams. Nal And Roro’s team’s both proved that hyper-offense can easily tech against phasing counterplay, and that this is a flaw in balance team-building. And yes, it is also true that both rely on sleep, whose variable duration often determines the success of these teams.
Demonstrating the Power of Spore + BP
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2420716860-4na856x7yq2hbjq0e7jom66ygvamm7kpw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2420723056-vd0dx44xkxlna3y2wpptj89uipbdaefpw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2420726935-9uon0cch4bxluj6o664ri3du8mkklvapw
I can whip together some replays to show the same power of Spore + BP with Tail Glow pass, but hopefully the above is enough to demonstrate that speed is not the inherent problem of this archetype, it’s just the path to maximum lethality. It's Spore + Baton pass that enables Roro's and Nal's teams, and they both employ the tactic differently. However, I do have a few issues with this direction of action. I believe that both Tail Glow and Belly Drum pass, as more flawed variations of Spore + Speed Pass, have valuable and fun niches in the metagame. Furthermore, I can demonstrate a team that doesn’t use sleep as the means of creating space. Instead, it uses encore to great success. So inherently, the problem isn’t ‘free turns + speed pass’; it’s the ease with which hyper-offense can abuse over-reliance on standard balance building principles. It’s also very easy to curate replays to overemphasize the power of a specific strategy,
Gamestate Observations To Make Versus AIOSP Teams
When making decisions in an HO gamestate, I first understand that precise measurement of offense’s remaining available resources and potential unrevealed win conditions is essential to beating these strategies. Second, that my balance structure can outlast any offense structure so long as I endure the initial onslaught. This means more often than not that, even when threatened by gamestates of positional disadvantage and boost + pass sequences, my balance structure can afford to trade, while their resources are limited. This is not much different than understanding counter play to ‘boom to suicune’ hyper-offense teams, which mostly involves predicting boom turns to trade down while preserving essential ‘anti-suicune’ resources for the end
After thinking about my matches versus hyper-offense structures like Jask pass, I realized that my decision making process, using the above measurement system and inferences based on revealed information, can be simplified.
| 1.Must I deny my opponent space to prevent an endgame wincon sequence? -> Often means hitting them if my phaser is denied or threatened. 2.Can I progress my game plan without compromising my balance win condition? -> Often means establishing hazards for damage ranges or a critical toxic. 3. Do I have the opportunity to create space of my own? -> In general, substitute is a very safe move when versus hyper-offense. |
When the answer to question 1 is yes, or when the following gamestate observation is made: “I am unable to further establish progress due to threat of super-effective damage or visible lose-conditions., I observe the game state using the terms I laid out above:
1a) Who has the positional advantage? (Who threatens who?)
-If they have the advantage and tempo control (substitute, for example), a pass or boost sequence is imminent. Proceed to Step 2
-If they have the advantage but lack tempo control, can I deny them or establish my own? Often this means: “is the pokemon against the threat necessary to preserve?”
Examples: Hitting the substitute then switching/subbing, hard switching on protect, Booms, Status.
I only consider defensive switches If the pokemon in during this disadvantaged gamestate is absolutely essential to answer an already revealed/assumed unrevealed Pokemon, or, if i have built-in counterplay to the incoming tech. However, I avoid this gamestate at all costs. This avoidance can largely be achieved in the builder by respecting Hyper-Offense.
2) Am I vulnerable to a boost end game sequence?
-If Yes, and my phaser is weak to their passer: I risk my pokemon to damage the passer as they agility. Follow up Hit/Boom/Toxic/Switch to phaser.
-If Yes and my phaser threatens their passer: switch to phaser while using revealed information to predict offensive double switches and Baton Pass.
-If Yes and they have visible pass protection, I trade as effectively as possible.
Often you just need to leverage your team's natural advantages by hitting the opposing team. This is why, for example, you never switch on a speed-passed Marowak, affording it a belly drum turn, even if the Pokemon in use is weak to it.
Replays Demonstrating Play Principles
Offense vs Speed Pass: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2421779772
Beerlover Balance vs Speed Pass: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2421777091
Stall vs Speed Pass: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2421840986
SemiStall V5 Vs Speed Pass: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2421846551
Beating the Mawile team: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2420714234-enyntithbcw8s96yved4cy5u7yl7rtmpw
-> the critical turn was understanding the opponent's pressure to whirlwind and hitting their sub.
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2421890491
The point of these replays isn't "look i can beat speed pass". I'm showing that archetypes hardly need to make any build adjustments to beat speed pass and other offense variants, although they can, and that simply adjusting play principles like the value of defensive switching is more than enough. I'd also encourage people to show me replays where agility pass steam rolls, and I'm confident I can point out turns where the opponent had the information necessary to make a better click, or I can point out an obvious building flaw.
“Counterplay is limited" – Improving Balance Build & Play Principles
Balance and stall are entirely capable of using the available tools and leverage revealed information to beat hyper offense. It’s up to these players to figure out how to tech teams against their worst MUs while preserving their best. And that’s not done by slapping roar on skarmory + 1 and calling it a day. That is a team-building flaw that both Roro’s and Nal’s teams have demonstrably proven as flawed and punishable.
1.Defensive switching in an offense-pressured game state versus HO is a very costly, situational decision and should be considered as such.
2. You have a larger pool of resources and greater defensive synergy, which means that trading/risking is almost always more beneficial for you. Building with and playing to protect key defensive pieces is essential.
I think this is the crux of the issue here: Roar is the most optimal, widely useful and distributed anti-offense move in almost every scenario, except for one. HO can very easily, and in diverse ways, punish this lazy balance-building principle of 2 roars per team. If balanced players would incorporate nuanced building techniques and update their understanding of the HO game state, they could then practice more accurate and effective decision-making principles.
Summary of Arguments to Defend Speed Pass:
Each paradigm of gameplay has a positive and negative match-up, and optimal builds tech against their worst MUs in ways that preserve their best. The lack of resources on hyper-offense is one issue at hand, Besides Vapicuno’s in-depth resources, there are hardly any quality hyper-offense specific resources, or even teams. And there aren’t nearly as many high level offense players as there are balance and stall. While there are certainly some well-understood play and build principles, like responses to Zapdug, I’ve noticed a consistent difference in players' outcomes against hyper offense in comparison to stall, where navigating balance vs stall teams is well understood. Unlike offense players or theory-wise balance/stall players, who are perplexed at the frustration with these hyper-offense teams, it's evident that not all players feel like they have agency against hyper-offense.
- Speed Pass contains the combinations for maximum lethality.
- Hyper-Offense is an important presence for metagame balance.
- Players can and should adapt their balance and stall builds against hyper-offense lines.
- Counterplay is diverse and players have agency to transform critical turns into positive outcomes.
- Spore + Baton Pass is a better target for tier action, if any must be taken.
Last edited: