ethan06 I've been using eggy emporium's version (essentially the same software, just...the one I had bookmarked on my computer, lol). The disadvantage of the eggy emporium's version is that you have to take a screenshot in order to share the team, where it looks like with yours you can share a direct link.
---
EDIT: Ninja'd by Age of Kings
I've been lurking for a while so that I could see where the convo was going, and to gauge other perspectives on this team. Finishing a team is so much harder than starting a team, because the last pokemon we choose will need to fill gaps left by other teammates. I understand MythTrainerInfinity's point about starting testing: that's the best way to identify the gaps that need to be filled, and we really have been theorymonning for a long while. I'm itching to start practicing with the team too.
However, I agree with Age of Kings: if we don't have an idea of what 6 pokemon (full sets + items) we will be using, then we could end up with 4+ different flavors (mine, AoK's, ethan's, MTI's, + everyone else that chooses to participate), and we won't be able to compare information easily between contributors, since each team will be different. If we start with a unified core team and build an experience base using this, we can more easily eliminate variances/outliers based on player's skill/experience level/playstyle. We can figure out what strategy works most consistently and where the trouble spots are. This is especially important for players like me, since my experience level is lower than others.
For example, I know I struggle with properly identifying / predicting around Trick Room teams in particular, so data (battle vids, descriptions of personal experience with the team, etc) that I would contribute would be skewed because of this, regardless of how prepared our team is for TR. A more experienced player, like MTI, could use better prediction and compensate if our proposed team has an exceptional weakness to TR, potentially skewing the data in the other direction. We collaborate here, and I describe my difficulty with TR, and MTE answers with how he was able to handle it.
If we are using the same team, then I could more easily learn something from our combined experiences, and we'd both have a better idea of the team's objective ability to handle TR. If we are using different flavors (talonflame vs. thundurus/tornadus, significantly different sets, etc), then it'd be much harder for me and others to compare information. Magnify this confusion over the 12 people who've commented on this thread, and the 4,201 people who've viewed this thread, and we'd quickly lose cohesion, grow frustrated, and lose interest in the project.
Once we start building community knowledge and understanding on a unified team core, we can start varying the sets in order to fix flaws identified in the original iteration and hone it into a truly fearsome showing on Battle Spot for the Smogon community. :)
At least, that's what I think.
---
Now, to the proposed pokemon:
I'm interested in thundurus. I'm more in favor of prankster vs. defiant, since it seems to have more of the stuff our team needs. However, I'm not sure if this is being proposed instead of talonflame (one or the other), or in addition to talonflame (both together on our team). Their roles are similar enough that I'm not sure if our team can support both. I'm also undecided as to which I'd prefer (talonflame or thundurus) at this point. I'll need to think about it a bit longer before I post an opinion on the two. Also willing to listen to further arguments on this.
I don't think having both tornadus and thundurus is a good idea, though. Tornadus just doesn't seem like it's as strong an option as either thundy or talonflame are, and I'd prefer thundy+talonflame over thundy+tornadus.
Having said that, (and of *course* PGL is down when I want to research the current usage stats, grr), as of the 17th, 2 of the top 12 pokemon used have intimidate (#2 hitmontop and #7 landorus-t). That means there's a lot of opportunity to punish intimidators (especially lead intimidators like hitmontop) with a competitive or defiant pokemon, so I think there is space for one on our team.
Here are the options if we want to choose a defiant or competitive pokemon:
We don't have to go with a competitive/defiant pokemon, especially since 2 of our 3 decided teammates are special attackers, but it does seem like an interesting option to me. I'd love to hear further opinions on this.
Another option that we might be interested in is another intimidator for our team (lando, gyarados, salamence, etc).
---
EDIT: Ninja'd by Age of Kings
I've been lurking for a while so that I could see where the convo was going, and to gauge other perspectives on this team. Finishing a team is so much harder than starting a team, because the last pokemon we choose will need to fill gaps left by other teammates. I understand MythTrainerInfinity's point about starting testing: that's the best way to identify the gaps that need to be filled, and we really have been theorymonning for a long while. I'm itching to start practicing with the team too.
However, I agree with Age of Kings: if we don't have an idea of what 6 pokemon (full sets + items) we will be using, then we could end up with 4+ different flavors (mine, AoK's, ethan's, MTI's, + everyone else that chooses to participate), and we won't be able to compare information easily between contributors, since each team will be different. If we start with a unified core team and build an experience base using this, we can more easily eliminate variances/outliers based on player's skill/experience level/playstyle. We can figure out what strategy works most consistently and where the trouble spots are. This is especially important for players like me, since my experience level is lower than others.
For example, I know I struggle with properly identifying / predicting around Trick Room teams in particular, so data (battle vids, descriptions of personal experience with the team, etc) that I would contribute would be skewed because of this, regardless of how prepared our team is for TR. A more experienced player, like MTI, could use better prediction and compensate if our proposed team has an exceptional weakness to TR, potentially skewing the data in the other direction. We collaborate here, and I describe my difficulty with TR, and MTE answers with how he was able to handle it.
If we are using the same team, then I could more easily learn something from our combined experiences, and we'd both have a better idea of the team's objective ability to handle TR. If we are using different flavors (talonflame vs. thundurus/tornadus, significantly different sets, etc), then it'd be much harder for me and others to compare information. Magnify this confusion over the 12 people who've commented on this thread, and the 4,201 people who've viewed this thread, and we'd quickly lose cohesion, grow frustrated, and lose interest in the project.
Once we start building community knowledge and understanding on a unified team core, we can start varying the sets in order to fix flaws identified in the original iteration and hone it into a truly fearsome showing on Battle Spot for the Smogon community. :)
At least, that's what I think.
---
Now, to the proposed pokemon:
I'm interested in thundurus. I'm more in favor of prankster vs. defiant, since it seems to have more of the stuff our team needs. However, I'm not sure if this is being proposed instead of talonflame (one or the other), or in addition to talonflame (both together on our team). Their roles are similar enough that I'm not sure if our team can support both. I'm also undecided as to which I'd prefer (talonflame or thundurus) at this point. I'll need to think about it a bit longer before I post an opinion on the two. Also willing to listen to further arguments on this.
I don't think having both tornadus and thundurus is a good idea, though. Tornadus just doesn't seem like it's as strong an option as either thundy or talonflame are, and I'd prefer thundy+talonflame over thundy+tornadus.
Having said that, (and of *course* PGL is down when I want to research the current usage stats, grr), as of the 17th, 2 of the top 12 pokemon used have intimidate (#2 hitmontop and #7 landorus-t). That means there's a lot of opportunity to punish intimidators (especially lead intimidators like hitmontop) with a competitive or defiant pokemon, so I think there is space for one on our team.
Here are the options if we want to choose a defiant or competitive pokemon:
thundurus - We were thinking of using prankster instead, so this option is likely out
tornadus - Not in favor: too much overlap with talonflame, and I would prefer tflame over tornadus
bisharp - Frail, too much overlap with heatran, however has priority and typing is useful
wigglytuff - low stats, fairly well-known now thanks to Ray Rizzo's use in VGC, has potential though
milotic - In favor of this: identified problems include lack of priority and lackluster defense, though it has superb special defense, and could work well even without hitmontop's wide guard support, since it has the best chance to eat special spread moves of all proposed options, especially with assault vest. Note that Ray Rizzo's original wigglytuff spread used assault vest to better tank hits. This frees hitmontop up to potentially use other moves, like feint to break protects and opposing wide guards. It has scald, which acts as a backup burn chance on physical attackers and ice beam to backup or free thundy from having to use HP ice (could use something else instead)
gothitelle - Lower sp.def, sp.atk than milotic, less useful typing, better def than milotic, could bluff a shadow tag set, though this seems like an inferior option without shadow tag, which I don't think our team needs.
meowstic-f - No. Lower defenses mean this is more easily removed from the field than other options, and its base sp.atk is lower, so less offensive presence.
Others: primeape, farfetch'd, empoleon, purugly, braviary
tornadus - Not in favor: too much overlap with talonflame, and I would prefer tflame over tornadus
bisharp - Frail, too much overlap with heatran, however has priority and typing is useful
wigglytuff - low stats, fairly well-known now thanks to Ray Rizzo's use in VGC, has potential though
milotic - In favor of this: identified problems include lack of priority and lackluster defense, though it has superb special defense, and could work well even without hitmontop's wide guard support, since it has the best chance to eat special spread moves of all proposed options, especially with assault vest. Note that Ray Rizzo's original wigglytuff spread used assault vest to better tank hits. This frees hitmontop up to potentially use other moves, like feint to break protects and opposing wide guards. It has scald, which acts as a backup burn chance on physical attackers and ice beam to backup or free thundy from having to use HP ice (could use something else instead)
gothitelle - Lower sp.def, sp.atk than milotic, less useful typing, better def than milotic, could bluff a shadow tag set, though this seems like an inferior option without shadow tag, which I don't think our team needs.
meowstic-f - No. Lower defenses mean this is more easily removed from the field than other options, and its base sp.atk is lower, so less offensive presence.
Others: primeape, farfetch'd, empoleon, purugly, braviary
We don't have to go with a competitive/defiant pokemon, especially since 2 of our 3 decided teammates are special attackers, but it does seem like an interesting option to me. I'd love to hear further opinions on this.
Another option that we might be interested in is another intimidator for our team (lando, gyarados, salamence, etc).
Last edited:
