This is something I wrote up a while ago and never got around to posting it for various reasons. It is basically a collection of my thoughts about competitive battling. I'm posting it here for several reasons
1.) With XY almost here, I don't feel like this should ever be counted as a 5th gen article because it's going to apply to Gen 6
2.) I personally don't feel this belongs as an article
3.) This is pertinent to the interests of OU players on this site
kd24's Guide to Competitive Pokemon
Teaching someone how to play is such a tricky subject. Honestly, it's really a matter of whether you "get" it or you "don't". Some players are just naturally talented and immediately come onto the scene with comprehension and game skills. Other players have the potential to mature and can develop those types of skills and can learn to "get it". And some players will never fully understand the competitive singles world outside of type charts, resistances, and other basic concepts.
I certainly don't fit under the naturally talented portion. My first competitive ADV teams featured no EVs and threats like a Choice Bandless Crobat with Sludge Bomb and Sandstorm Shuckle. I learned pretty quickly what was right and what was wrong but I never had a solid grasp on competitive battling for the longest time.
So I consider myself to be a player who has matured overtime and who has a solid, tight knowledge of the game. Since I am that kind of player, I think that makes me a good candidate for teaching, just because I can use my own trials and experiences as a base. This article is intended for everyone to read. It is not, however, intended for everyone to prosper from. Some people will already get this. Some people will never understand it. That's okay, because I don't expect either of those groups to make an effort to read this. This is a article for players who know they can get better and need the step in the right direction.
Planning
When I was starting out, I think the biggest problem for me was trying to think too far ahead which is entirely the wrong way of doing things. There is a certain instinct you need to follow, but the most important concept is judging position. I think my favorite "retarded moment" which explains this concept on my behalf was in a UU test match vs 6A9 Ace Matador who had his Charizard in versus my Exeggutor. I had a fairly health Milotic and I knew that it was a Belly Drum Charizard that swept the rest of my team. In this situation, I switched to Milotic. I thought I was a clever player and had developed reasoning on why the play was correct. "He know's I have Milotic, which means he is thinking that I'm going to switch to Milotic so he would first think to Belly Drum but instead, he's going to Fire Punch Exeggutor and I'm going to ta- "
Stop. It's a 50/50. What I didn't take into account was board position. There are 4 scenarios that could play out:
1.) I stay in with Exeggutor, Psychic as he Belly Drums to finish off Charizard (it was in range of death)
2.) I stay in with Exeggutor, lose my Exeggutor to a Fire Punch
3.) I switch to Milotic, he Belly Drums
4.) I switch to Milotic, he Fire Punches
The issue here was my inability to think ahead. In this actual scenario, he Fire Punched as I switched to Milotic and I thought I had made a great play. He told me it was a horrendous play and at the time I assumed it was saltiness but let's look at it from a new perspective.
It is a true 50/50. Whether I switch or stay in, there is a 50/50 shot he picks the one that harms me. So I should have begun evaluating future gamestates rather than try to get inside the head of my opponent. Instinct's a powerful tool. But you're playing against human beings, and the thing about other people is they are wildly unpredictable. In only one scenario did I flat out lose (scenario 3). In every other scenario I was either coming out on top or with a minimal loss. In reality, there was only a 25% chance I flat out lose, but I decided to turn it into a 50% chance. If you think you're opponent will always do the "correct" move in response to yours (They Fire Punch as you should be staying in with Exeggutor in this scenario), you'll find the unpredictable opponents who realize it is still a 50/50 and that you could see it coming and switch to Milotic anyway.
This is just a simple planning concept but the truth is, I watch many players who want to be elite and they make these mistakes on a daily basis. Planning is single handily the most underrated part of battling, whether it be in the long-term, the short-term, or the different phases of the game that you believe in. Personally, I don't buy into the idea that Pokemon is similar to chess with a beginning, mid-game, and end-game. While some scouting is important, you should be looking to abuse weaknesses to exploit in a team right away, and this gets easier with every newer generation. In response, you also need to realize ahead of time what weaknesses your team has and what you have to avoid. In DPP, some teams were horrifyingly weak to SD Lucario. These teams would run Gengar or Scarf Rotom as their only answer and lo and behold, would find themselves trapped to Tyranitar in short time (note that these types of teams are really awful, but they do exist in the hands of newer players). You could blame it on trapping moves being unfair, but a good player acknowledges the fact that they exist and uses double-switches to avoid these scenarios. Double-switching is a term that players use to put themselves in weird positions now because they don't understand the purpose. As I continue to discuss the importance of planning, I think describing how to effectively double-switch is important.
Double-switching is a key skill that you use to put yourself in a more advantageous situation. It seems very easy but it does require just basic thinking. A common example would be setting up Stealth Rock or Spikes early with a Skarmory. You're forced out by a random Special Attacker switching in, so you switch to a Blissey. Blissey lends itself to weaknesses of physical attackers, so you double-switch Skarmory back in to set up more hazards on that attacker. But what some players do is don't take into account what the most common switch-in will be and just bring their hazard setter back into the fray because the match-up will at least get somewhat better. "Somewhat better" is not an appropriate way of utilizing a double-switch because in all likelyhood, it forces you out again. At best, it may scout a Pokemon, but it is still a wasted turn giving them one instead. A common example would be Skarmory versus Heatran. I switch to Starmie on your Heatran as Heatran Stealth Rocks or Fire Blasts. I have seen players bring Skarmory back in with a double-switch, despite any thoughtful planning showing the most common switch-in would likely be a Rotom-forme (blocking Rapid Spin in DPP, or resistant to all attacks of Starmie in BW). This is a pure waste of a double-switch.
The above was a very bare runthrough on double-switching for entry hazard purposes. It is something you need to consider as I believe much of Pokemon is fought on the basis of how fast entry hazards are set up. But it leads into the real meat of double-switching, and that is double-switching for standard advantage. What this usually means is bringing in a Pokemon that your opponent has a definite answer to, and then switching to a dangerous threat that can abuse a free turn of forcing that Pokemon out. Going back to Blissey, say we bring out our Calm Mind Latias. The opponent switches to their Blissey to Toxic, but we are prepared for this and double-switch immediately to Terrakion. Use those free turns. They can be key in racking up damage or setting up sweeps for later in the game. Even slowly wearing down the opponent can be enough for it to mean you win. On the flip-side, good players will double-switch vs you. They'll also use the sack and switch which is basically the sacking of a Pokemon to bring in a win condition for free. The most obvious use of this would be for the previously mentioned Pursuiter vs Ghost that checks however many threats. You let the ghost kill something of yours to avoid taking any damage, Pursuit the Ghost-type, and sweep with some other threat.
You need to defend against this, and you need to defend in a way that doesn't leave you completely vulnerable to hazards and other threats wearing you down. It isn't easy but it simply goes back to planning and some team-building. I recently interviewed reyscarface for the Smog and he told me his views on trapping were they "enhanced the game". You don't have to agree, but a top player understands the metagame and what common trapping is. In ADV letting Skarmory float around early is unwise because of the threat of Magneton being so prevalent, and I personally find the same to be true about Magnezone in DPP and BW. Skarmory is a good Pokemon, but letting a key Pokemon get trapped and then losing to another Pokemon because of it is not the fault of the game. Playing around these aspects lies on the teambuilder's shoulders and the understanding of the opponent's strategy. But still, how does one defend against double-switches? You take time to measure how vulnerable you are to them. If you can't afford to allow a Lucario in for free, then you might need to sacrifice Pokemon if the risk of Lucario coming in is that high. You might need to switch to a less-effective counter in order to weaken the threat of their double-switch. And you need to remember, it might not work. Sometimes, your team just won't be capable of dealing with a threat.
As you plan ahead, you realize right away how dangerous some threats can be but a time limit is enforced in Pokemon for a reason. Consider in your head passive damage their Pokemon can take from entry hazards, if they have a way to spin hazards, how quickly you'd be able to set them up, and what other type of damage will be taken during the match. Will it be recoverable damage, or will it be permanent? What items are they likely holding? Will it decrease their effectiveness as a counter? There's something to be said for executing a strategy, but it's also easy to adapt to their mistakes.
Going back to you as a player, playing a game of checks and counters is fine for pure theory, but can be thrown out the window once the game begins. If you have team preview, feel blessed, as you can accurately surmise what Pokemon they'll be switching in, how much damage you'll take from it, and if it will damage a Pokemon that you need for a different threat. In an environment where team preview is not accessible, you need to simply play cautiously enough and realize what their team is trying to do. If you're using Reuniclus to beat Terrakion, you need to take into account the Scizor you see in team preview: How likely is it to switch-in on Reuniclus? A Choice Banded Pursuit could quickly take the wind out of Reuniclus's sails and leave you vulnerable to Terrakion. The best way to defend this is to just avoid situations where Terrakion is getting in for free. If they constantly double-switch, try to play aggressively enough to where you can afford to lose key pieces in the event of a misprediction, as you put a more offensive tempo to the game. There is a third purpose of double-switching and that is to gain information. See what they bring in first to counter your Pokemon with a double-switch, ideally going to a Pokemon that puts that advantage on. In some scenarios, like the above Scizor one, see if you can lure Scizor into using an attack like U-Turn to check if its Choice Banded. It could be Life Orb (rare to have Pursuit) and you could find this out without losing your Reuniclus. Double-switching like this or in other ways is risky, but it capitalizes on their expected plays without putting yourself in a total loss of advantage.
Team Building
Have you ever built a team and then played a few matches and noticed startling weaknesses that you thought you had covered? If you're thinking "I don't understand how I lost, I had a core that had a defensive wall, a special attacker, a physical attacker, a revenger killer, etc" then it's time to re-evaluate the entire way you thought about building teams. It's harsh to call it wrong, but really, building a team is as simple as just covering holes and thinking of the general metagame. This section is not going to provide a hand-holding exercise where we build a sample team together, instead, it's just a short discussion on why we build teams a certain way and why it's incorrect in the long-term to build differently.
The Correct Way
Pick a Pokemon. Seriously, it's as simple as that to get started and it's going to get simpler. We're going to just build off that Pokemon one step at a time, covering it's weaknesses with our next Pokemon. If you've been using this method, you could be tripping up here because this isn't an excercise in knowing the Type Chart. Instead, you need to actually understand your Pokemon's weaknesses: Does it have a low Speed stat? Is it weak to certain set-up Pokemon? If so, which ones? Are there some Pokemons it can't touch offensively (or is useless against defensively?). This is what you're building off of, covering the specific weakness of your Pokemon and yes, the type chart will play a role here as you're hoping to abuse immunities and resistances to make switching in easier, but don't look at that as the only objective of covering weaknesses. Keep up with this exercise and be sure to look at the team as a whole while doing so, you might notice a weakness you just couldn't cover and need to factor that in to covering the next Pokemon as well. Be sure to consider factors such as needing Stealth Rock when choosing a Pokemon next.
There's almost an important role of looking at your strengths, not just your weaknesses. Consider where you can take advantage of your opponent and which mons are the best at it and what you would do to take advantage of it while not having a glaring weakness defensively. This all sounds a lot harder than it really is, it's just a matter of knowing the metagame, which you can learn by just playing a lot of games or just reading through the forums.
The Incorrect Way
Some people stand by the "build by a core" and "build with roles" methods. I stand by the fact that these are both just terrible. First, building by a core is a huge issue because the idea is that a core of 3 will support a core of 2, despite you not having anything connecting them. The reason these teams fall flat is because they aim to cover a lot of threats without ever thinking of what they can even do to win and how they can deal with multiple threats when x, y, and z happen. You can beat a team that just can't break through these cores, but those teams were going to be beat anyway - it's versus the good teams that you'll fall flat because you just can't cover everything anyway, so you're only opening yourself up to huge holes. A variation of this is building by two at a time, and then focusing on a core that covers those but you then begin ignoring threats altogether. Role-building, the idea of trying to assign roles such as sweeper, wall, etc that you need to fill is even worse. You're only restricting your team building with these and you're not going to have true synergy because you're too focused on assigning a role rather than fixing actual holes to the team.
Just Random Tips
These are a collection of tips and tricks that should be common sense to most, but nonetheless, you'll have players question these every time, so I'd rather just clear up any sort of confusion now.
- Try to avoid letting things die if there's a viable switch-in at that point: Having a 1% paralyzed Pokemon is better than having no Pokemon and it can be used to scout or get a different Pokemon in safely later without directly switching it in. It can also be a pretty valuable trade against any Pokemon with Life Orb considering they'll be wasting 10% just to finish off something that could've been dead earlier. Be sure to keep in mind the below tip though and understand there are some scenarios where you need to just let it die if there's too much risk.
- Use random moves to finish weak Pokemon: Going off the former strategy, make sure that if they have a weak Pokemon that you can kill with pretty much anything, you go ahead and use pretty much anything. Randomizing your attacks gives you a small chance of getting lucky if they switch into something weak into that random attack and it also prevents your opponents from getting a read on you. This works surprisingly often, as there is a misconception that you should be hiding information such as your moveset as long as possible, meaning some people will think it's impossible for you to willingly give up that information. This is otherwise known as: If you have the chance to randomly inflict huge damage, take that opportunity and stop buying into the "hiding things is valuable" nonsense that overwhelms our playerbase.
- The majority of overprediction occurs with set-up Pokemon. I think what happens here is players have Pokemon A (let's say a Swords Dancer), and their opponent switches in Pokemon B (a hard counter) that COULD be defeated if Pokemon A got 2 Swords Dance. Regardless of whether Pokemon A had a Swords Dance already or not, I think that first player thinks "my opponent is definitely expecting a switch, so he's going to probably use this, I can just Swords Dance again or attack into him rather than switching" - this goes right back to the beginning of this post where I gave that Charizard example. It's just random and you're just making your worst case scenario odds worse if you don't deal with that Pokemon, so the opponent NEEDS to make the safe play and by default, so should you. It boils down to that.
So there it is. I stand by almost everything said there and I wanted to post this because I honestly feel like you'll improve if you weren't doing it already. If you're a top player and you definitely disagree with something I've posted here, post so and we can have actual discussion from this. If you're a top player and think this is common sense, then you're not the target audience at all. But this is just the way I see the game and the way I think it is meant to be looked at and that a lot of new-age players are just too fancy and don't measure risk/reward, planning, etc correctly and that BW never punishes that type of play as often as it should, so it doesn't get fixed overtime.
1.) With XY almost here, I don't feel like this should ever be counted as a 5th gen article because it's going to apply to Gen 6
2.) I personally don't feel this belongs as an article
3.) This is pertinent to the interests of OU players on this site
kd24's Guide to Competitive Pokemon
Teaching someone how to play is such a tricky subject. Honestly, it's really a matter of whether you "get" it or you "don't". Some players are just naturally talented and immediately come onto the scene with comprehension and game skills. Other players have the potential to mature and can develop those types of skills and can learn to "get it". And some players will never fully understand the competitive singles world outside of type charts, resistances, and other basic concepts.
I certainly don't fit under the naturally talented portion. My first competitive ADV teams featured no EVs and threats like a Choice Bandless Crobat with Sludge Bomb and Sandstorm Shuckle. I learned pretty quickly what was right and what was wrong but I never had a solid grasp on competitive battling for the longest time.
So I consider myself to be a player who has matured overtime and who has a solid, tight knowledge of the game. Since I am that kind of player, I think that makes me a good candidate for teaching, just because I can use my own trials and experiences as a base. This article is intended for everyone to read. It is not, however, intended for everyone to prosper from. Some people will already get this. Some people will never understand it. That's okay, because I don't expect either of those groups to make an effort to read this. This is a article for players who know they can get better and need the step in the right direction.
Planning
When I was starting out, I think the biggest problem for me was trying to think too far ahead which is entirely the wrong way of doing things. There is a certain instinct you need to follow, but the most important concept is judging position. I think my favorite "retarded moment" which explains this concept on my behalf was in a UU test match vs 6A9 Ace Matador who had his Charizard in versus my Exeggutor. I had a fairly health Milotic and I knew that it was a Belly Drum Charizard that swept the rest of my team. In this situation, I switched to Milotic. I thought I was a clever player and had developed reasoning on why the play was correct. "He know's I have Milotic, which means he is thinking that I'm going to switch to Milotic so he would first think to Belly Drum but instead, he's going to Fire Punch Exeggutor and I'm going to ta- "
Stop. It's a 50/50. What I didn't take into account was board position. There are 4 scenarios that could play out:
1.) I stay in with Exeggutor, Psychic as he Belly Drums to finish off Charizard (it was in range of death)
2.) I stay in with Exeggutor, lose my Exeggutor to a Fire Punch
3.) I switch to Milotic, he Belly Drums
4.) I switch to Milotic, he Fire Punches
The issue here was my inability to think ahead. In this actual scenario, he Fire Punched as I switched to Milotic and I thought I had made a great play. He told me it was a horrendous play and at the time I assumed it was saltiness but let's look at it from a new perspective.
It is a true 50/50. Whether I switch or stay in, there is a 50/50 shot he picks the one that harms me. So I should have begun evaluating future gamestates rather than try to get inside the head of my opponent. Instinct's a powerful tool. But you're playing against human beings, and the thing about other people is they are wildly unpredictable. In only one scenario did I flat out lose (scenario 3). In every other scenario I was either coming out on top or with a minimal loss. In reality, there was only a 25% chance I flat out lose, but I decided to turn it into a 50% chance. If you think you're opponent will always do the "correct" move in response to yours (They Fire Punch as you should be staying in with Exeggutor in this scenario), you'll find the unpredictable opponents who realize it is still a 50/50 and that you could see it coming and switch to Milotic anyway.
This is just a simple planning concept but the truth is, I watch many players who want to be elite and they make these mistakes on a daily basis. Planning is single handily the most underrated part of battling, whether it be in the long-term, the short-term, or the different phases of the game that you believe in. Personally, I don't buy into the idea that Pokemon is similar to chess with a beginning, mid-game, and end-game. While some scouting is important, you should be looking to abuse weaknesses to exploit in a team right away, and this gets easier with every newer generation. In response, you also need to realize ahead of time what weaknesses your team has and what you have to avoid. In DPP, some teams were horrifyingly weak to SD Lucario. These teams would run Gengar or Scarf Rotom as their only answer and lo and behold, would find themselves trapped to Tyranitar in short time (note that these types of teams are really awful, but they do exist in the hands of newer players). You could blame it on trapping moves being unfair, but a good player acknowledges the fact that they exist and uses double-switches to avoid these scenarios. Double-switching is a term that players use to put themselves in weird positions now because they don't understand the purpose. As I continue to discuss the importance of planning, I think describing how to effectively double-switch is important.
Double-switching is a key skill that you use to put yourself in a more advantageous situation. It seems very easy but it does require just basic thinking. A common example would be setting up Stealth Rock or Spikes early with a Skarmory. You're forced out by a random Special Attacker switching in, so you switch to a Blissey. Blissey lends itself to weaknesses of physical attackers, so you double-switch Skarmory back in to set up more hazards on that attacker. But what some players do is don't take into account what the most common switch-in will be and just bring their hazard setter back into the fray because the match-up will at least get somewhat better. "Somewhat better" is not an appropriate way of utilizing a double-switch because in all likelyhood, it forces you out again. At best, it may scout a Pokemon, but it is still a wasted turn giving them one instead. A common example would be Skarmory versus Heatran. I switch to Starmie on your Heatran as Heatran Stealth Rocks or Fire Blasts. I have seen players bring Skarmory back in with a double-switch, despite any thoughtful planning showing the most common switch-in would likely be a Rotom-forme (blocking Rapid Spin in DPP, or resistant to all attacks of Starmie in BW). This is a pure waste of a double-switch.
The above was a very bare runthrough on double-switching for entry hazard purposes. It is something you need to consider as I believe much of Pokemon is fought on the basis of how fast entry hazards are set up. But it leads into the real meat of double-switching, and that is double-switching for standard advantage. What this usually means is bringing in a Pokemon that your opponent has a definite answer to, and then switching to a dangerous threat that can abuse a free turn of forcing that Pokemon out. Going back to Blissey, say we bring out our Calm Mind Latias. The opponent switches to their Blissey to Toxic, but we are prepared for this and double-switch immediately to Terrakion. Use those free turns. They can be key in racking up damage or setting up sweeps for later in the game. Even slowly wearing down the opponent can be enough for it to mean you win. On the flip-side, good players will double-switch vs you. They'll also use the sack and switch which is basically the sacking of a Pokemon to bring in a win condition for free. The most obvious use of this would be for the previously mentioned Pursuiter vs Ghost that checks however many threats. You let the ghost kill something of yours to avoid taking any damage, Pursuit the Ghost-type, and sweep with some other threat.
You need to defend against this, and you need to defend in a way that doesn't leave you completely vulnerable to hazards and other threats wearing you down. It isn't easy but it simply goes back to planning and some team-building. I recently interviewed reyscarface for the Smog and he told me his views on trapping were they "enhanced the game". You don't have to agree, but a top player understands the metagame and what common trapping is. In ADV letting Skarmory float around early is unwise because of the threat of Magneton being so prevalent, and I personally find the same to be true about Magnezone in DPP and BW. Skarmory is a good Pokemon, but letting a key Pokemon get trapped and then losing to another Pokemon because of it is not the fault of the game. Playing around these aspects lies on the teambuilder's shoulders and the understanding of the opponent's strategy. But still, how does one defend against double-switches? You take time to measure how vulnerable you are to them. If you can't afford to allow a Lucario in for free, then you might need to sacrifice Pokemon if the risk of Lucario coming in is that high. You might need to switch to a less-effective counter in order to weaken the threat of their double-switch. And you need to remember, it might not work. Sometimes, your team just won't be capable of dealing with a threat.
As you plan ahead, you realize right away how dangerous some threats can be but a time limit is enforced in Pokemon for a reason. Consider in your head passive damage their Pokemon can take from entry hazards, if they have a way to spin hazards, how quickly you'd be able to set them up, and what other type of damage will be taken during the match. Will it be recoverable damage, or will it be permanent? What items are they likely holding? Will it decrease their effectiveness as a counter? There's something to be said for executing a strategy, but it's also easy to adapt to their mistakes.
Going back to you as a player, playing a game of checks and counters is fine for pure theory, but can be thrown out the window once the game begins. If you have team preview, feel blessed, as you can accurately surmise what Pokemon they'll be switching in, how much damage you'll take from it, and if it will damage a Pokemon that you need for a different threat. In an environment where team preview is not accessible, you need to simply play cautiously enough and realize what their team is trying to do. If you're using Reuniclus to beat Terrakion, you need to take into account the Scizor you see in team preview: How likely is it to switch-in on Reuniclus? A Choice Banded Pursuit could quickly take the wind out of Reuniclus's sails and leave you vulnerable to Terrakion. The best way to defend this is to just avoid situations where Terrakion is getting in for free. If they constantly double-switch, try to play aggressively enough to where you can afford to lose key pieces in the event of a misprediction, as you put a more offensive tempo to the game. There is a third purpose of double-switching and that is to gain information. See what they bring in first to counter your Pokemon with a double-switch, ideally going to a Pokemon that puts that advantage on. In some scenarios, like the above Scizor one, see if you can lure Scizor into using an attack like U-Turn to check if its Choice Banded. It could be Life Orb (rare to have Pursuit) and you could find this out without losing your Reuniclus. Double-switching like this or in other ways is risky, but it capitalizes on their expected plays without putting yourself in a total loss of advantage.
Team Building
Have you ever built a team and then played a few matches and noticed startling weaknesses that you thought you had covered? If you're thinking "I don't understand how I lost, I had a core that had a defensive wall, a special attacker, a physical attacker, a revenger killer, etc" then it's time to re-evaluate the entire way you thought about building teams. It's harsh to call it wrong, but really, building a team is as simple as just covering holes and thinking of the general metagame. This section is not going to provide a hand-holding exercise where we build a sample team together, instead, it's just a short discussion on why we build teams a certain way and why it's incorrect in the long-term to build differently.
The Correct Way
Pick a Pokemon. Seriously, it's as simple as that to get started and it's going to get simpler. We're going to just build off that Pokemon one step at a time, covering it's weaknesses with our next Pokemon. If you've been using this method, you could be tripping up here because this isn't an excercise in knowing the Type Chart. Instead, you need to actually understand your Pokemon's weaknesses: Does it have a low Speed stat? Is it weak to certain set-up Pokemon? If so, which ones? Are there some Pokemons it can't touch offensively (or is useless against defensively?). This is what you're building off of, covering the specific weakness of your Pokemon and yes, the type chart will play a role here as you're hoping to abuse immunities and resistances to make switching in easier, but don't look at that as the only objective of covering weaknesses. Keep up with this exercise and be sure to look at the team as a whole while doing so, you might notice a weakness you just couldn't cover and need to factor that in to covering the next Pokemon as well. Be sure to consider factors such as needing Stealth Rock when choosing a Pokemon next.
There's almost an important role of looking at your strengths, not just your weaknesses. Consider where you can take advantage of your opponent and which mons are the best at it and what you would do to take advantage of it while not having a glaring weakness defensively. This all sounds a lot harder than it really is, it's just a matter of knowing the metagame, which you can learn by just playing a lot of games or just reading through the forums.
The Incorrect Way
Some people stand by the "build by a core" and "build with roles" methods. I stand by the fact that these are both just terrible. First, building by a core is a huge issue because the idea is that a core of 3 will support a core of 2, despite you not having anything connecting them. The reason these teams fall flat is because they aim to cover a lot of threats without ever thinking of what they can even do to win and how they can deal with multiple threats when x, y, and z happen. You can beat a team that just can't break through these cores, but those teams were going to be beat anyway - it's versus the good teams that you'll fall flat because you just can't cover everything anyway, so you're only opening yourself up to huge holes. A variation of this is building by two at a time, and then focusing on a core that covers those but you then begin ignoring threats altogether. Role-building, the idea of trying to assign roles such as sweeper, wall, etc that you need to fill is even worse. You're only restricting your team building with these and you're not going to have true synergy because you're too focused on assigning a role rather than fixing actual holes to the team.
Just Random Tips
These are a collection of tips and tricks that should be common sense to most, but nonetheless, you'll have players question these every time, so I'd rather just clear up any sort of confusion now.
- Try to avoid letting things die if there's a viable switch-in at that point: Having a 1% paralyzed Pokemon is better than having no Pokemon and it can be used to scout or get a different Pokemon in safely later without directly switching it in. It can also be a pretty valuable trade against any Pokemon with Life Orb considering they'll be wasting 10% just to finish off something that could've been dead earlier. Be sure to keep in mind the below tip though and understand there are some scenarios where you need to just let it die if there's too much risk.
- Use random moves to finish weak Pokemon: Going off the former strategy, make sure that if they have a weak Pokemon that you can kill with pretty much anything, you go ahead and use pretty much anything. Randomizing your attacks gives you a small chance of getting lucky if they switch into something weak into that random attack and it also prevents your opponents from getting a read on you. This works surprisingly often, as there is a misconception that you should be hiding information such as your moveset as long as possible, meaning some people will think it's impossible for you to willingly give up that information. This is otherwise known as: If you have the chance to randomly inflict huge damage, take that opportunity and stop buying into the "hiding things is valuable" nonsense that overwhelms our playerbase.
- The majority of overprediction occurs with set-up Pokemon. I think what happens here is players have Pokemon A (let's say a Swords Dancer), and their opponent switches in Pokemon B (a hard counter) that COULD be defeated if Pokemon A got 2 Swords Dance. Regardless of whether Pokemon A had a Swords Dance already or not, I think that first player thinks "my opponent is definitely expecting a switch, so he's going to probably use this, I can just Swords Dance again or attack into him rather than switching" - this goes right back to the beginning of this post where I gave that Charizard example. It's just random and you're just making your worst case scenario odds worse if you don't deal with that Pokemon, so the opponent NEEDS to make the safe play and by default, so should you. It boils down to that.
So there it is. I stand by almost everything said there and I wanted to post this because I honestly feel like you'll improve if you weren't doing it already. If you're a top player and you definitely disagree with something I've posted here, post so and we can have actual discussion from this. If you're a top player and think this is common sense, then you're not the target audience at all. But this is just the way I see the game and the way I think it is meant to be looked at and that a lot of new-age players are just too fancy and don't measure risk/reward, planning, etc correctly and that BW never punishes that type of play as often as it should, so it doesn't get fixed overtime.
Last edited:
