Skill Level

I say that people are overlooking team-building. For the first few years after I started playing competitive, I was terrible, and I couldn't understand why. But then I realized: I had just been throwing 6 Pokemon together and hoping for something to happen. I'd like to think my prediction skills were decent, but I was much, much better at theorymon for the simple fact that my teams were bad.

Having had this epiphany, I built a new team, something that I hoped wasn't just six Pokemon thrown together. However, this failed as well, more often than not. Why? I had a Salamence counter, a Garchomp counter, an Infernape counter, a Lucario counter, a Heracross counter, a Gengar counter, a Gyarados counter, etc., but I had become so dedicated to countering standard threats that I had forgotten to add some threats of my own. I lacked offensive capabilities to hurt the opponents, and I was still weak to random stuff like Scizor.

So after realizing all of this, I *think* I finally built a decent team, and my win to loss ratio increased dramatically, I like to think.
 
In all honesty, team-builidng has some things to do with it, but it's basically knowing what to DO with the team and against other teams that seriously matters. Your opponnent's team could have Salamence / Lucario / Heatran / etc... and you may have just Pokemon that are somewhat used in OU or even BL Pokemon (I use two in my current team). The fact that being able to out-predict your opponnent will show what the results could show, even if it's a close loss.

The simple fact is is that you have to have experience in order to win. You can't just jump into a metagame and expect to climb to the very top instantly. No, you need to have, like Aeroblackyl said, common sense and some input. Think of it like this: You have Gengar out and your opponnent has, we'll say Cresselia. You know that Cresselia is weak to Shadow Ball, but you know a Blissey might be behind. So some people may charge towards Shadow Ball and end up getting introduced to Blissey while Focus Blast will at least make Blissey think about what the hell is going on next...

...It's just my opinion anyways.
 
Luck is not the answer, because that doesn't separate the good from the bad.

Personally, it's not prediction, and it's not even really team-building except as a subset of the real thing.

My answer is long-term thinking. I play in such a way that my opponent loses no matter what they do, and I have the smallest chance to lose possible. This is why team-building is so important to me: If my team loses to Choice Band Garchomp Earthquake no matter what I do, I have a bad team, and no amount of prediction, luck, or long-term thinking will stop that. If I at least have a chance to win against any enemy team, then I would prefer using that team than one that has half the chance to lose against 90% of the teams, but instantly loses to the other 10%.

This is also the reason that I seem to be stalling needlessly at the end of some of my battles. Why would I switch to my weakened Blissey against your Articuno and use Toxic for the KO when I could just PP stall with Skarmory? If I switch to Blissey, I've giving you one more turn to possibly freeze with Ice Beam before I get in the winning Toxic. If I let Skarmory die, then I've just increased my chances of winning. If you never freeze or CH my Roosting Skarmory, then you simply cannot defeat my Blissey regardless (it's better to win the battles with the sheathed sword and all that).

The reason I rank long-term thinking over prediction is simple. Let's say I have DD Dragonite, and if I get in a single DD at this point in the battle, I win. I'm not going to switch to Dragonite against your CB Rhyperior even if I predict Earthquake or Megahorn. If I have the choice, I'm switching to Jirachi (situations where I don't have a choice are where switching to Jirachi means they can set up with something else and thus beat my non-DDed Dragonite, thus losing me the game). That way, if I'm right and you EQ, I just switch to Dragonite and Dragon Dance, winning the game. If I'm wrong and you Stone Edge, then I've just saved Dragonite for the sweep later in the game.

In other words, needlessly predicting can lose you a game that you had won for sure if you just thought long-term.
 
10% Team Building/50% Prediction/0% Luck/40% Long Term Thinking

Team Building: How well you are able to cover your Pokemon's weaknesses plays a huge role. If I use a team with 5 normal types, and zero defensive walls, and zero phazing moves. My opponent passes Speed and Attack to Lucario then I am pretty much fucked. Now let's say I am a good player, and decide to add both a phazer, and a pokemon that counters the Physical Lucario set; that separates a good player from a bad one because the good player will find a way to fix their weaknesses.

Prediction: This separates good players from bad players. A good player will not only be able to outpredict smart players (who make logical choices), but they will also be able to "dumb down" their prediction against bad players (who make completely irrational decisions). Being able to adjust your prediction level and to scout your opponents level of prediction seperates the good from the bad, and the good from the great.

Luck: Let's say I am facing Obi or Aldaron. They have way more experience than I do, and are probably a hell of a lot better. Now let's say I use Ice Beam something and it freezes a member of his team. Then he misses me five times in a row while my garchomp gets in 4 SD's and a Sub. Then I can decimate anything on his team all because he had shit luck. Luck plays an important role in the game, BUT it does not influence your skill level since you are not using any skill to win.


In short: Team Building and prediction affect Skill level. Luck does not, because it does not require any skill to get lucky.


Edit: Obi makes an amazing point. I have done something similar to your situation, although I always considered it a form of prediction.
 
Thank you... :)

But really, I find it odd that people say that skill level is about 5%-10% luck. Since when did luck contribute anything to skill? If anything it might make someone seem skillful (like making a lucky shot in B-ball or something), but that doesn't mean you are actually good.

Like in my example. My opponent misses 5 times in a row, letting me get in 4 SD's and a Sub... You can hardly call me a skilled player when I rape my opponents team, because I only won because my opponent missed 5 times in a row.
 
No... you are simply predicting that your opponent is doing something that is rather strange. Let's see if I can come up with an example

1. Opponent sends out Gyara
2. I send Celebi
3. Opponent switches to Heatran and uses Fire Blast
4. I switch to CB Rhyperior
5. I know that my opponent will expect me to use EQ, but I use Stone Edge because I figure they will try to get a free DD with Gyara
6. My Opponent becomes skeptical and switches to their defensive wall. They used Long-Term thinking, but also prediction.

My opponent has predicted that I would try to out predict them and KO their Gyarados but they decided to play it safe like Obi.

This is similar to Obi's example, however it relies on prediction. If that is the case than Obi's example of Long-Term thinking is technically a form of prediction, or the two coexist...

Yeah sorry if I am not making sense but I dont really know how to explain it.
 
Kira said:
No... you are simply predicting that your opponent is doing something that is rather strange. Let's see if I can come up with an example

1. Opponent sends out Gyara
2. I send Celebi
3. Opponent switches to Heatran and uses Fire Blast
4. I switch to CB Rhyperior
5. I know that my opponent will expect me to use EQ, but I use Stone Edge because I figure they will try to get a free DD with Gyara
6. My Opponent becomes skeptical and switches to their defensive wall. They used Long-Term thinking, but also prediction.

My opponent has predicted that I would try to out predict them and KO their Gyarados but they decided to play it safe like Obi.

This is similar to Obi's example, however it relies on prediction. If that is the case than Obi's example of Long-Term thinking is technically a form of prediction, or the two coexist...

Yeah sorry if I am not making sense but I dont really know how to explain it.
Click to expand...

So, it's basically playing conservatively? That's what your example seemed to be to me.
 
Since when did luck contribute anything to skill?
Click to expand...
You can design the way your team is to be played in such a way that the way that you minimize the effect of bad luck on yourself and maximize your own chances for good luck on your own side to be crippling while not depending on it to win. This is usually realized by playing offensive with a speed advantage.
 
goof sucks.

Blah blah blah skill team building luck blah. 100% bullshit. And that garbage 10% whatever / 50% blah? Pure garbage.

Competitive Pokemon is solely about winning. Since DP has a rather high "random" variable built into it, we can make the assumption that "winning" entails winning on average, not necessarily when specifically asked to (for example, a tournament battle).

Winning on average means being able to win against all players; new, old, "skilled," "unskilled" (whatever those terms mean), "lucky," "unlucky" (as though it possible for players to have different luck), experienced, unexperienced, prepared, unprepared.

My point is that defining "skill" is pointless in DP. Literally anybody, however you define "skill," can defeat anyone else. What winning comes down to in DP is reducing your chances of losing by as much as possible, and that entails 2 variables: experience and team building.

You make your team to be able to prepare for as much as possible without having "required pieces." What I mean by this is that your team is fluid; if it loses one part to a surprise like a Choice Scarf or a Focus Sash kill, it can still survive and execute its strategy.

You then become experienced enough to reduce your chances of losing as much as possible. An example of experience in DP is this scenario: Heatran has just killed your Metagross. Heatran is also vicious against your team, as you only have 1 counter, who is weak to 3 of your opponent's Pokemon. Do you bring in CB Dugtrio, or your "counter," Suicune?

Newer players might make the mistake of bringing in Dugtrio, because they think Arena Trap will help eliminate their main hurdle in the attempt to win, and prevent them from risking Suicune. The problem with this in DP, of course, is the advent of Choice Scarf. Experience tells us that Heatran is more likely to have a choice scarf than the average Pokemon, and that Flamethrower will OHKO Dugtrio, so making the switch to Suicune, even though they will then switch also and you won't get your kill, is the correct move.

"Skill" shouldn't even be worried about. All we care about is winning, and winning in DP comes down to reducing your chances of losing, in other words, preparation (team building ability) and experience (knowledge of the metagame).

And Jesiah's sarcastic comment about the player putting HP Electric on his lead to counter Gyarados should absolutely not have been sarcastic.

Does that make you a better player? Of course it does, provided it has decreased your chances of losing.
 
Keep the useless one-liner "remarks" to good arguments out of this damn thread. That's bordering way too closely on strawmen.

Great posts by MoP, Obi, and Aldaron.
 
Here's my first post in this thread.

Something I've noticed in this thread is that people keep saying the same thing with different definitions/terms/whatever. Again, I'll say that luck plays no role in deciding which player is better (though, like it has been said, it does play a role in the outcome of a battle, though hax doesn't make you better than your opponent).
Surgo said:
You can design the way your team is to be played in such a way that the way that you minimize the effect of bad luck on yourself and maximize your own chances for good luck on your own side to be crippling while not depending on it to win. This is usually realized by playing offensive with a speed advantage.
Click to expand...
Playing without too much risk will net you less reward. But either way, luck is indiscriminate, and cannot differentiate between a good or great player. Minimizing the chance that hax will decimate you is either skill in building teams (like using Battle Armour on Lapras, or Thunderbolt > Thunder on Jolteon, for some simple examples), or being able to operate decently when your Curselax is killed by a critical hit. "Luck" is the same for all players. What you do with the luck you're given depends on your team building and prediction/in battle skills.

Aldaron and others have mentioned experience.
Aldaron said:
You then become experienced enough to reduce your chances of losing as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I don't play X number of hours to get X amount of experience to have X chance of winning against player X. If I play for 7 years, will I be as good as Aeroblacktyl (Or MoP, or whoever he is; assuming we have the same skill in team building)? If you (I'm not directing this at a specific person, save the reader) say "yes", by your logic, someone who started playing a week ago would never win against someone who started playing when Shoddy started (assuming that they each play one game per day, and again, assuming that the two have the same skill in building teams). I think that experience and intelligence contribute to your abilities in building teams, and in prediction (I've been using that word where I probably should have been using something wordier, like "performance during a battle"), which both decide to what degree you can "minimize your chance of losing", like Aldaron said. Obi's "long term thinking" is a term I'd run in with "performance during a battle", and "prediction". Long term thinking is an aspect of prediction, so I don't see why they need to be mentioned separately. Aldaron wonders what the terms "skill" and "unskilled" mean. Well, skill is the result of "how much" intelligence you have, plus how much experience you have, in this scenario and in my understanding. A lot of this thread seems to be trying to find the right terms, but they often overlap. So, to be totally repetitive, and... repeat... my "flowchart", here it is:

How much experience you have plus how much intelligence you have influences how good you are at team building, and your performance in the "heat" of a battle. The more/higher your skill in team building and in battle, the lower your chance of losing will be. "Long term thinking", and "prediction", if the terms must be separate, are included in "skill in the heat of a battle". Natural tendencies and favourites, I suppose, are factors, but I'm unsure if they can be squished in with intelligence, or not. Either way, I guess I just mentioned them.
 
See, the actual issue with this whole thread is that, everyone is assuming the state of intelligence of a person.

For example, if they were half retarded, in special ed, sometimes mistakenly diagnosed with down syndrome, they're never going to learn.

However, someone that is COMPETENT. And I like using this word a lot cause not many people seem to comprehend it, which is kind of ironic in itself, but I digress. Anyhoo, being competent means that you adapt. How is Pokemon not like any other thing you do? If you're playing sports and someone keeps on shutting you down, are you going to do the same thing for 7 years, or are you going to change it up? If you're getting raped every other day, are you going to continue to let it happen or start putting spikes up your ass for the intruders? Pokemon is the same thing. Of course if you're an idiot, you'll never learn after 7 years. But the competent battler will adapt. Like I said in an earlier post, it's more that everything's due to common sense.

As for team building, it's like a sports team and you're a general manager. If your formula fails for 5 straight years, and you only have your job because you used to be a great All-Star guard and is a big name in a super big market (anyone get where I'm going with this), you eventually learn that you gotta change some shit around. Now if the team is right, you'll have a chance every single game. They'll be some off nights, if nothing goes your way, like missed shots (or critical hits, freezes), but in the long term (long term thinking here!!!!!!!), you're bound to succeed.
 
My favorite part about pokemon is how it doesnt require any mechanical skill at all (can you push a button?) and that its mostly a thinking man's game. With this in mind, I don't imagine it would take too long time/practice to develop a "high" level of skill in pokemon. I'm guessing if someone played on Shoddy for 24 straight hours, theyd be decent.

Of all the competitive (video) games I play, its interesting that I find pokemon the one that requires the least amount of mechanical skill, yet, its the one that I'm best at, or consider myself to be.
 
Long-term thinking is not another word for prediction, and it definitely isn't a subset of prediction.

Prediction is "His Scizor is going to use X-Scissor, not Iron Head, Quick Attack, or Brick Break.". It's starting from now and working forward to victory. Long-term thinking is the opposite. You begin by assuming you are about to win, and work backward from there. "If my Rayquaza gets a Dragon Dance in and his Groudon has taken ~10% damage, I will win. To do this, I'll need to make sure my Rayquaza isn't going to die from LO recoil, so I want want to switch it into that Scizor no matter what move it's using. That means I may need to sacrifice Palkia..."

In other words, prediction and long-term thinking approach are better described as opposites than one being part of the other. Prediction is saying what your opponent probably will do, long-term thinking is trying to find as close to a guaranteed path to victory as possible within the limits of what you and your opponent can do. To be guaranteed in your prediction, you need a lot more knowledge (you need to know how a person thinks better than they do) than in long-term thinking (what are the moves, items, and EVs of each Pokemon, and often times they don't have to be exact [his Kyogre is not going to outpseed my Jolly DDQuaza no matter what, so its stats are irrelevant]).
 
Aeroblacktyl said:
However, someone that is COMPETENT. And I like using this word a lot cause not many people seem to comprehend it, which is kind of ironic in itself, but I digress. Anyhoo, being competent means that you adapt. How is Pokemon not like any other thing you do? If you're playing sports and someone keeps on shutting you down, are you going to do the same thing for 7 years, or are you going to change it up?
Click to expand...
So if a person is competent, and plays Pokemon for the exact same amount of time as you, and has the exact same skill while building a team, that they are precisely as good as you? In my opinion, experience =/= skill, though it is a factor in determining it.

Obi said:
Long-term thinking is not another word for prediction, and it definitely isn't a subset of prediction.
Click to expand...
I suppose not, using a definition of prediction that applies only to the coming turn. But I think that "prediction" applies to anything involving forecasting an outcome, whether that outcome is of the game, or of the next turn (I guess it depends on your intellectual capacity). I understand that the steps are flipped (and I should try that), but isn't it still predicting, following my definition? You can't say for certain that your Magnezone will be able to kill their Skarmory, clearing the way for your DD Dragonite, it might throw it's Shed Shell at you, and bring in a Dugtrio. So some measure of "educated guessing" would be helpful in winning.

I think that the wording, "long term thinking" really sticks to "prediction" for me, where something like "having a game plan" might not. "Having a game plan", however, contributes to "performance during a game", which influences your ability to minimize your chance of losing.
 
I agree with mop. prediction is not the endall determination of what makes you good

the line between prediction and luck really start to fade when youre against someone really good and you're both just trying to outpredict. you both know the other knows what your options are, so you pretty much have to choose one at random (whatever gives you a gut feeling)

if you know a person's playing style well enough to outpredict them, that's experience, not logic/problem solving/whatever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top