The Phases of a Single Game

[Lemonade]

you are a cool guy so go do it

JK, if I fly any closer to the sun my wings will burn off

Chess has them. Go has them.
From thy slumber, awake! From you I snatch the hollowed airs with talk, for seek I cred from all to hold his strength.

Pokemon undoubtedly has stages in each battle. However, this interpretation has not really been discussed. I believe there are merits to this thought, so I'd like to start some theory on it. I shall discuss my ideas on the three "stages" of battle. They are named incepetis, IMR, and FIE. I will then go on to further break up each stage. Finally, I will offer some further implication-type thoughts. This may seem like me blabbing, so make sure to add in "I think" to a lot of this stuff!

Incepetis-(you all shall begin; ie, the opening play)

This phase starts from Team Preview. I think players should draft a tentative strategy from TP. If the opposing team gives off a Trick Room vibe, you should keep in the back of your mind a thought to prevent TR from going up. If you have a weather team and are facing another weather team, begin creating a plan, specific to the opponent's team, on how to get rid of the opposing weather starter. However, make sure these ideas are loose and subject to change, since you don't actually know anything about the opposing team other than the Pokemon present. Don't over-think! If you have Taunt on Deoxys-S so you can stop opposing hazard leads from setting hazards, use Taunt! Don't start playing mind games with yourself; if you stop using Taunt because "Ferrothorn is probably going to attack," you're better off picking another move.

Anyway, there are definitely some goals you should accomplish while the game begins (obviously, specificity differs on what kind of team you run).

Do what the lead is designed to do: True leads don't exist anymore, but you nonetheless probably have a general course of action when you start a game out. For stall teams, it might be set up all hazards. For offense, it might be get Stealth Rock and dual screens up. Whatever it is, do it; you'll have the "advantage." If you fail to open properly, either you are cleanly sweeping the opponent, or the opponent has been pushing you around. The latter is bad: not only are you in a weaker position, you will have a hard time when mid-game starts. If you're a stall team trying to set up hazards mid game, the opponent can take advantage of your lack of momentum and eat you.

Gain a basic understanding of the opponent's team: This knowledge is helpful as the match progresses. Optimally, you will be able to identify the variant of a potentially threatening Pokemon. For example, if SD Scizor destroys you but Choice Band variants are pushover, you might try to find out what variant an opposing Scizor is. However, this identification will most likely happen late incepetis or early IMR. Also, remember not to over-predict and draw conclusions; "the forth move on Azelf is Grass Knot." There must be a reason he's switching Azelf into your 50% Ferrothorn!! If nothing else, pay attention to what moves the opponent has.

Gain a feel for the opponent's play style: This one is more important to preface with "this is not set in stone!!" Some opponents purposely play randomly in incepetis so they can surprise you later. However, it is important to understand how the opponent acts. Do they switch often? Are they reckless and bold, setting up on uncertainty, or are they more protective? How much do they predict (although this last question is a bit shaky because they might not want to over-predict). Remember: nothing is set in stone.

Well, that's all nice and good. At some point, however, incepetis will become what I like to call IMR.

IMR-in media rerum (in the middle of things) (ee-mur)

At some point, of which I am still unsure, incepetis moves to IMR. All I know is there is a point where predictions—more or less perfect—begin, and you start to prepare for your team's ultimate goal. For example, if your team is based around a Volcarona sweep, you will inevitably start trying to eliminate Heatran and Gyarados, among others. This is what I define IMR as: the span of turns in which you execute the bulk of your team strategy. If it's stall, you phaze like hell and annoy the opponents with Encore SubSeed Whimsicott to the point where the opponent can't afford to switch more than twice. If you run offense, all the Sharpedo counters are gone or damaged beyond repair so the shark can come in and play. Baton Pass is perhaps the easiest: boost, pass to Espeon, Stored Power the rest of the way through.

It's a lot broader, but there are still goals to reach. You pretty much want an understanding of how the opposing team functions, and how the opponent plays with it. I must stress this: do not worry about the opponent suddenly pulling a flying rat's ass out of his ass. If a player can really truly fool you into thinking they play a certain way when they don't, kudos. Don't worry about it. Slowly, your understanding of the opponent should increase, and you want net positive momentum. Then, it will overflow into FIE.

FIE-finiri iam et (and now things come to an end) (FIE rhymes with pie)

Late-game is perhaps the only thing briefly alluded to in current talk: the late-game sweeper. However, it is a bit (just a bit) more involved than that. This, in the optimal battle, is the easiest thing imaginable. On an offensive team, bring in Sharpedo and press Waterfall 1-6 times. Everything, even walls, should be weakened beyond repair. On a stall team, stand around for a few turns. Ie, IMR has set up the situation so nicely that the last part of your strategy can be executed without hitch.

Unfortunately, games are rarely perfectly played. Thus, FIE needs to be played with even more diligence. Concentration is key, because a slip up could mean the loss of a key component. Prediction should be spot on, but you should also take risks like "can I survive this hit to set up that Dragon Dance?" (Out of stuff to say….ummmm…yeah! C:}

Alright. That was a lot. But I'm not done yet. I'm going to do a quick little summary of "example" optimal phases for different kinds of teams.

Offensive-non weather:
Incepetis: get up Stealth Rock (and Spikes if you like that), do some U-turns/Volt Switches. Prepare to KO walls soon. Perhaps identify problematic Scarfers and devise methods to wear them down / KO them.
IMR: start predicting more and damaging their defensive Pokemon. Your wallbreakers want to have finished their job, so them being KOed is not too big of a problem. If you are stacking, the first run-through needs to be completed. Scarfers need to be pretty much gone unless you can KO them with priority.
FIE: come in with your Moxie DD Scrafty or something and sweep. BAM.

Offensive weather (most of the above also applies):
Incepetis: IMO hazards are important for every kind of weather. Get them up. Passively keep your weather up, though you may have to play around that. Don't get caught by the opponent's method to eliminate your weather starter!
IMR: start running your sweepers through, forcing things out, predicting. You should win the weather war sometime in this.
FIE: smash stuff

Baton Pass:
Incepetis: get the boosts you need and start passing. Hopefully, avoid Taunt and stuff
IMR: attain max boosts before you are forced to retaliate. If something dies, start up your chain again. Make sure you don't neglect the opponent's actions.
FIE: finishing sweep

Stall:
Incepetis: get your hazards up, identify and avoid the opponent's stallbreakers
IMR: phaze, annoy, hopefully eliminate or cripple the opponent's stallbreakers
FIE: stand around

(I need some more examples possibly and more detail).

So now, some questions

• Is it even viable to think of Pokemon battling in the way? Like, is Pokemon not developed / involved enough like chess and go are to have discussion about the stages of a battle?
• What can this kind of take on competitive battle do? Will it help break down battles better? Will battles become more systematic?
• What is the defining border between phases, or do such borders even exist. If not, how do we identify when the battle has shifted between phases?
• Can we identify the strength at which one has played each phase? Does the success of successive phases depend upon the previous ones?
• Are there more or fewer phases than three? Maybe specific for play style?

Et iam, ire! Enim locutus sum satis.

 

[Joeyboy]

Really awesome post man, well done! I found this profoundly interesting as, like you say, these "phases" get thrown around in conversations yet they continue to have loose if any definitions. I believe you have summarized these extremely well using accurate examples and ample explanation(again kudos :)

I'd like to get your's(and everyone else's) opinion on a certain matter, which phase is the most important? Of course the answer can change game to game but I would like to know which one players find holds the greatest weight. Do you believe is is Incepetis(love it btw) as without early momentum the opponent will keep the advantage or is it of the least import because at that stage you have time to regain lost footing and make up for your mistakes?

In my opinion it would seem IMR is the phase where games are won or lost most often. As it is the middle stage players will undoubtable begin to predict and unfortunately OVER-predict. Players believe they have learned enough of their opponent to begin playing more aggressively and can sometimes make fatal mistakes. IMR is the transition phase; the game is underway and both players must execute their strategy or lose. I believe IMR is the most important phase due to the high risks involved.

 

[Taylor]

We are likely to have, at some stage, used the word "phase" to describe a particular checkpoint of any given match in where both players influence the next turn and beyond through prediction, gaining or losing the advantage in the process. This is more of a strategy guide to me though than anything, as each turn is too critical in this generation for "phases" to be used in a competitive environment.

 

[Lemonade]

Really awesome post man, well done! I found this profoundly interesting as, like you say, these "phases" get thrown around in conversations yet they continue to have loose if any definitions. I believe you have summarized these extremely well using accurate examples and ample explanation(again kudos :)

I'd like to get your's(and everyone else's) opinion on a certain matter, which phase is the most important? Of course the answer can change game to game but I would like to know which one players find holds the greatest weight. Do you believe is is Incepetis(love it btw) as without early momentum the opponent will keep the advantage or is it of the least import because at that stage you have time to regain lost footing and make up for your mistakes?

In my opinion it would seem IMR is the phase where games are won or lost most often. As it is the middle stage players will undoubtable begin to predict and unfortunately OVER-predict. Players believe they have learned enough of their opponent to begin playing more aggressively and can sometimes make fatal mistakes. IMR is the transition phase; the game is underway and both players must execute their strategy or lose. I believe IMR is the most important phase due to the high risks involved.

thanks. I'm agreeing with you on that phase being most important, potentially more on that later.

We are likely to have, at some stage, used the word "phase" to describe a particular checkpoint of any given match in where both players influence the next turn and beyond through prediction, gaining or losing the advantage in the process. This is more of a strategy guide to me though than anything, as each turn is too critical in this generation for "phases" to be used in a competitive environment.

It is a strategy guide, but it is one that needs refining since I kind of just thought it up when I had nothing to do. You do bring up a good point; battles take much less time than chess or go matches, which means each "phase" is not really that substantial as those in long types of games like chess and go. However, early-game, mid-game, and end-game strategy all exist in one battle and I am thinking that fleshing out these kinds of things could make something.

Only skimmed this but first thought came to mind is that this is pretty stupid considering it should all be in hindsight. You don't know what is what until it actually happens because no one actually fucking sits there thinking "okay...I'm entering ________ phase." What you think might be mid-game will actually be late game because you just got swept randomly.

I am so glad someone has the other extreme covered! How else is an idea going to get somewhere? And you're absolutely right. No one does actually fucking sit there thinking "okay...I'm entering ________ phase" because that's not the point! I agree it is pretty stupid if people actually use the names of phases in their thinking. You're not supposed to know what is what, you're supposed execute what you want to do. And I also must thank you for reminding me to bring something up! You should start the game in a mindset of getting something done and not being pushed around by the opponent. Your "incepetis" plan, so to speak. Then, the battle progresses a bit, you know some about your opponent, and you actually start predicting more than one turn ahead. In fact, you might actually make a plan of what you're trying to do and execute it for your late-game strategy. Then all of the sudden, the perfect opportunity comes and you sweep. Woo, all is good. You don't go thinking "it's mid-game, this is what I do." You go "I've set up my hazards, I need Heatran gone, I'll do this and this and this." It is pretty common to think rather than respond in most strategic games.

 

[Gehenna]

This is a well thought-out, descriptive description of how a battle should be played. You don't have to think in phases, you just have to have a goal: eliminating Gliscor for a Terrakion sweep, deciding whether it will benefit you in the long run to set up those Toxic Spikes. I really like this method of thinking while battling, and I wish more would adopt it/support it.

 

[Wyrms Eye]

I think this is an interesting angle on looking at the structure of Pokemon battling. I think you've done a good job fleshing out your interpretations oof the key stages, and you've done so in what appears to me to be a pretty concise and clear manner. I thought perhaps I might chip into the discussion by looking at the questions you posed in the concluding sentences of your first post:

So now, some questions

• Is it even viable to think of Pokemon battling in the way? Like, is Pokemon not developed / involved enough like chess and go are to have discussion about the stages of a battle?
• What can this kind of take on competitive battle do? Will it help break down battles better? Will battles become more systematic?
• What is the defining border between phases, or do such borders even exist. If not, how do we identify when the battle has shifted between phases?
• Can we identify the strength at which one has played each phase? Does the success of successive phases depend upon the previous ones?
• Are there more or fewer phases than three? Maybe specific for play style?

I think I'm going to start with the third rather than the first because the answer leads into the first's answer. I think the thought of defining the border between the phases you've constructed is very blurred and easily will not be as clear cut. The fact is, the change between any phases will always be a transitional issue, and whether the transition is slow or fast is dependent on every match. It also will be extremely hard to define where the transition starts, as a "trigger point" may not be as defining in the match, although some such as a key pokemon fainting will often be a pretty good signal. But as you consistently mentioned, nothing is set in stone. Identifying phases I fear is always going to be something that is always going to be done in hindsight, where we have much more information available to us.

With this hindsight issue, I don't think it's a viable move to think of Pokemon battles in this way during a battle, but certainly it could be somewhat applied to team-building and review of battles as and when deemed necessary. I do though think that matches have stages, just not obvious to us during battle. I think therefore the comparison of Pokemon matches to Chess is a very accurate one, because they widely use terms such as the opening and end game in a manner to describe phases in their games, but again I would suspect in a very similar manner with the application of hindsight. In actual fact, the way you described the battle is frighteningly similar to how chess goes, you open up by positioning your pieces, you then begin to work yur chosen strategy into operation whilst adapting to the opponent before capitalising on an opening or a weakness exposed and pressing home your advantage, making sure not to waste the momentum for fear of a counter-offensive.

On your fourth point, I think it's something that is difficult to determine. When you say measure success, are you trying to put a value on the success or just give a general indication? It's almost impossible on the former because of the subjective manner that the measurement can be made on, but the latter can be done fairly succinctly, but albeit again open to interpretation. I'm fairly open to the idea that it helps to be successful in previous phases to maximise our chances in subsequent ones, but again it is not a necessary thing, because the shift in momentum can be very drastic indeed, especially a key misplay which allows the opponent to gain the upper hand in an exchange. Luck also can invariably kill off any success in previous phases, and it is impossible to account for luck because we all know it seems to find the best moments to crop up.

On the fifth point, to be blunt, I think three general phases are more than enough. The rule of threes is a powerful tool, and it is keeps it short and succinct. There may be sub-phases, but they'd be more accustomed to being points in the primary phases.

I'm going to skip answering the second, partly because I think it is answered in the previous arguments to some degree, although you may disagree with me on this.

So, to conclude this all, I think the phases do exist, but are hard to define concretely, can only be seen with hindsight, and even then is a transitional approach from one phase to the next. Success is judgemental, and measurement has to be general rather than trying to assign values because of subjectivity. Even though successful in previous phases, it is by no means a guarantee of success in subsequent phases.

I hope that makes as much sense as it did when I wrote it out, and I hope the length did not put people off too much.

 

[Honus]

While I agree with Aeroblacktyl that all of these phases are relative in a match because of the sheer unpredictability of competitive Pokemon and the outcome of a match is determined by both players, so you can't sit their and lay spikes for Inceptis while your opponent gets to +3 [unless you have Quag, but that's beside the point]. It seems like your phases apply only to games in which a team can actually perform as it should, for the most part, instead of having to divert from overall strategy for any reason.

That being said, this is a cool thread and I really like the concept of "phases". I think that while matches can take wild turns, having the strategies you outlined for each respective phase in mind can pay off and help plan out your "path to victory". I really love the concept of Inceptis [and the name!] because it helps me understand why Pokemon like Deoxys-S are such a driving force in the metagame; because their sheer unpredictability gains you an early disadvantage which carries over into the next phase of battle.

Really awesome post man, well done! I found this profoundly interesting as, like you say, these "phases" get thrown around in conversations yet they continue to have loose if any definitions. I believe you have summarized these extremely well using accurate examples and ample explanation(again kudos :)

I'd like to get your's(and everyone else's) opinion on a certain matter, which phase is the most important? Of course the answer can change game to game but I would like to know which one players find holds the greatest weight. Do you believe is is Incepetis(love it btw) as without early momentum the opponent will keep the advantage or is it of the least import because at that stage you have time to regain lost footing and make up for your mistakes?

In my opinion it would seem IMR is the phase where games are won or lost most often. As it is the middle stage players will undoubtable begin to predict and unfortunately OVER-predict. Players believe they have learned enough of their opponent to begin playing more aggressively and can sometimes make fatal mistakes. IMR is the transition phase; the game is underway and both players must execute their strategy or lose. I believe IMR is the most important phase due to the high risks involved.

I think that Inceptis and IMR are the most important phases to attain control during, as offensive teams will use them to prepare for FIE and weaken the opponent, and B/W is a pretty offensive metagame. They're equally important, in my eyes, because one leads to the other. How you observe your opponents playstyle and take precautions to put pressure on your opponent [and vice versa] will effect how you play during the phase of IMR. I do agree about your point on IMR being so important because it leads into the final stage of battle and challenges teams to conserve their Pokemon needed for victory while holding their opponent down, but as long as FIE actually "happens" and is more than a sweep, then both players usually have a shot at victory.

Finally, I think that for Stall, maintaining Pressure and forcing your opponent's momentum to remain stagnant are probably the most important tactics during IMR. If you can maintain control of the weather and limit the switchins of your opponent's best stallbreakers, then you will look extremely good going into FIE.

 

[Drab Emordnilap]

Is it really necessary to use Latin acronyms instead of English? We already have terms that we use in our own language; why not just say "opening", "midgame", and "endgame", for instance?

 

[Nix_Hex]

You can call it whatever you want, he used Latin to add some flavor to the thread. As stated above you're not supposed to be thinking "I'm entering (Latin acronym) phase now," you can easily remember which actions belong to which phases if you read the guide.

 

[ssbbm]

some other things that stall has to do during fie is to have pp control (this is most important against other stall teams) and to have a live spinner