What is a "Team Goal"?

[kamikaen]

I started learning about competitive battling in the DP development phase. At the forum I went to, one of the things drilled into me was a team "goal". To this day, that idea still eludes me. There have been a good number of threads on this subject before, but they all just sort of touch on it, and none have really satisfied me or given me my answer, so I decided to make my own.

Information on the necessity of team goals was posted, and is still floated, here, and I'll be addressing this thread a couple of times. The thread itself is a bit outdated, but the idea inside looks good. Was some of the team goal idea simply a comparison to advance? I didn't play competitively in Advance, so that might be the reason I don't understand.

Is Surgo's sticky saying "you can't counter everything, so don't bother"? I don't think that's the case, it's most likely suggesting that mounting the offensive in DP is the proper way to go. I can't wrap my head around offensive teams. Actually, teambuilding as a whole baffles me. I feel that I need to work towards a goal, but I don't know what that goal is! Offensive teams, especially, confuse me, since they ruin the idea of building teams in small, achievable steps. I usually think about what my team so far is particularly weak to, weigh weaknesses and resistances, see what I need to counter, and then choose the Pokemon I think helps me satisfy those needs. With an offensive team, I'd be overwhelmed because that idea of "countering" seems to be thrown out the window, and that basically opens up too many options to deal with. I'm not asking how to build an offensive team (perhaps a reason for a future thread/reading some old threads), just if this is what a team goal is meant to be.

Does the thread mean that gimmick teams, like Rain Dance and Trick Room teams, have the advantage against "standard" teams? Recently, I've realized that this probably isn't it what Surgo was getting at, though it's been the definition I'm using for a while. Teams based around weather (like Sandstorm teams) or a certain move (U-turn teams) would fit this idea, but I'm not sure if that gimmick, though in some ways, "unifying", puts the team one step ahead of the status quo.

Does "a central, unifying strategy" imply that a team should clear the way for one Pokemon to sweep? People have varying ideas here; this version of a "goal" has been the most discussed one in some threads similar to this one. This idea is probably the most popular one, though it has it's critics. The team Surgo posted a couple posts down in his sticky used Magnezone to clear the way for a DDNite sweep. This seems like an effective way to build a team, but how do you build a team that consistently and effectively gets rid of certain threats (barring trappers, and even then, Shed Shell exists)? On paper, if you switch in a Pokemon that can threaten whatever your opponent has, they will just switch out instead of falling to your moves, and the cycle will continue forever, with both sides endlessly switching in counters. This generally doesn't happen in battles, but the problem is with building teams to beat certain threats, rather than knowing how to predict properly, or "think long-term". What I mean is that getting rid of Pokemon is something you do when actually playing the game, not really when you're building your team. "Lures" are one way to do this. Some people also attack this idea of a team goal by saying a team is useless after the Pokemon it was designed around faints. I disagree with this. DDNite generally doesn't want to come in unless it's sure it has a sweep. Besides, the Pokemon setting up shouldn't be the only one capable of doing damage. I don't think that this is what a team goal is, because using the words "central, unifying strategy" instead of "remove a certain Pokemon's counters" implies that there must be more than this.

Was the treatise on newly posted teams posted simply so we could all have leave to start running Ash theme teams? :P This might make for some interesting warstories (hats off to ChouToshio), but probably isn't the answer I'm looking for.

I'm not posting this in order to understand every user's personal way of building teams. I'm posting this in order to ask specific people the question in the title, so that I can gain the tools I need to overcome this concept hindering me when I build teams. I really want to know Surgo's opinion, or the thoughts of anyone who was pushing this concept in pre-DP (I wasn't active here at the time, so I don't know who that would've been), so I "get it" "straight from the horse's mouth". So is there a concept floating around that I haven't grasped? Or is the treatise on newly posted teams simply outdated pre-DP theorymon? I'd like to know.

 

[Jenigmat]

I personally think that a team goal can be something as simple as "I'm gonna try my best to allow my Metagross to come in and Agility so that I can get as much damage against many other things, and Explode if there is something that my team cannot otherwise handle, because if I get everything damaged enough then when I bring out my late game sweeper (which for my is a Technitop) it has a good chance of running through the enemy team. If there is something that Metagross cannot handle that I know Hitmontop will be unable to hit I can switch to one of the other members of my team." A team goal can be that simple, but the point is that you have to have an end result or a plan in mind consistently. Many people will basically say, "Oh, a Metagross, I'll switch in with Gyarados and DD up while it can't hit me with the attacks it has" (yes I realise ThunderPunch, I'm making a point tho), but the problem with that is that I know that Metagross isn't my main sweeper and that I'd be willing to use Explosion here.

Celetran, for example, is a purely defensive combination, you just put in on your team to try to handle everything your enemy has. But if you look at some of the other threads around there are some examples of that kind of thing. You might say, hey, I want to have a SDLucario sweep at the end so let me fill it up with things that can handle Lucario counters, because then you're working to the goal of a Lucario sweep.

EDIT:

I think this quote from a Tangerine thread sums it up best.

6: Team Building, Synergy: Synergy, to me, with regards to Pokemon, has to be an entire team goal, rather than clumps of Pokemon that work "synergetically," for example like "CeleTran + TarChomp." Celebi and Heatran are known to cover each other's weaknesses, Tyranitar can set up Sandstorm for Garchomp and both have astronomical physical offense scores, sure they can work well in pairs. Maybe using such a team has a gaping Mamoswine weakness so then you think to add Bronzong to your team. You aren't making your choices, your choices are being made for you. Synergy is when every Pokemon can set up the next for your own strategy. U-Turn Zapdos to lure out special walls, and to provide an "anchor" to center around, combined with potent physical threats that each can threaten to win at any time while supporting each other is one such team. For instance, combine Zapdos with Heracross, Tyranitar, Garchomp, Gyarados, and Metagross (Ok I know it sounds egotistical but bear with me for using my own team as an example of what I think is synergetic please.) Each Pokemon (other than Zapdos) is a "threat" with a high attack score that can sweep a team at any given time under the "right conditions." Therefore, I will endeavor to create the most beneficial conditions possible, such as Pursuiting anything dark-weak (Starmie, Celebi, Cresselia do NOT enjoy Tyranitar Pursuits therefore Gyarados can set up blahblah), sending out Heracross on Blissey for a chance to Swords Dance, Metagross can Explode at any given time to remove one of my opponent's physical walls, and just generally keep high pressure at all times with a plethora of Pokemon that have high attack stats. To reiterate, all of the 6 Pokemon on your team are truly a "team," rather than just "small groups working together."

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

For the most part, I agree with the notion that a "central, unifying strategy" is in many ways outdated pre-DP threorymon.

In DP, there are more moves, abilities, items, and therefore more strategies than ever before. Under certain circumstances, the statement 'you cannot counter everything' would be true. We do not currently play under such circumstances. Due to the current ban list and ruleset we use, with powerful Pokémon like Metagross, Dragonite, Garchomp, Cresselia, Celebi, and Jirachi running around, many possible strategies are not practical or viable. Since the number of viable Pokémon and strategies is so restricted, it becomes easier to have a 'counter' for every one you're likely to see and to be able to steamroll over the less common ones. In fact, thanks to such Pokémon, you need to have counters if you hope to avoid a quick sweep. Case in point: almost all fully-evolved Steel-type Pokémon are on the OU list because they are the only type that resist Dragon attacks (and as a bonus, they don't take Sandstorm damage).

Your team's strategy is always, ultimately, to take out the opponent's team before they take out yours. Due to the restrictive nature of the metagame, there are only a few ways to do this effectively. One is to set up a sweep (often by a Pokémon like Garchomp), and another is stall (relying primarily on passive damage). You can try other strategies like Weather, Trick Room, Gravity, Baton Pass, but doing so puts you at a disadvantage because you will lack either the defenses to stop the big offensive threats and/or the means to overcome the big walls.

Is it possible to create a team that has a different strategy? Yes, it is possible. I'm sure most top players will tell you this. However, the current ruleset certainly does not encourage it. I will bet that the players using such teams successfully can credit their success more to playing skill than a unique team strategy, and that they could win at least as easily with a more 'standard' team.

 

[animenagai]

i've tried basing teams around one pokemon and i've tried teams that are really streamlined. i can tell you that those teams are probably the worse teams i have ever made, perhaps just because they are so difficult to build. since you can hardly ever cover absolutely all the threats in the metagame (though you should still try imo), all 6 pokemon will probably be serving as a counter of some sort on your team. hence your 'trump card' will always be needed somewhere along the line as a counter and you will jeopardize your team strategy for it.

your team strategy usually has to be pretty simple with things such as beneficial team combos (eg. rest and heal bell, u-turn and swords dance). i would love to see a successful offensive player's take on this.

 

[kamikaen]

@jenigmat429: So then your goal would be to set up with Hitmontop, Metagross would just be one of the Pokemon supporting that...

I liked to use a team goal as a starting point to work from when building a team, but if getting rid of a "goal" would help me win more, then that's what I'll do.

 

[dirtybirdy]

I've tried teams with a team goal, teams with no goals, and teams that just don't make any sense at all with varying degrees of success in each category. I seemed to struggle with each in a different way and for different reasons. For example, one of my most successful teams on shoddy was a highly offensive team that had a few bulky pokes whose job was to sponge damage for a bit (none of them had any recovery moves) so that I could get my SD extremespeed lucario out (this was before it got ultra popular, I stole the idea faster :p). Where did I fail? It was when i was too busy setting up my own strategy to bother with the opponent.

As for teams that have "synergy" such as zapdos + gliscor + heatran + celebi and a couple others to name a common example. I would get outpredicted, run into something I wasn't familiar with or had a odd moveset, or I would just get chipped down slowly until they had punched a whole in the synergy somewhere. Then things fell apart.

I guess my point is that I really have found team "goals" to be something thats not really as necessary as simply knowing what you're doing out there! I hardly play shoddy anymore, but when I do, I always delete my previous team, throw something together in 10-15 minutes (sometimes less) and then just play. Its funny because I still manage to win far more often than I lose, regardless of how crappy the team is (provided I load it up with "enough" OU so that I don't get wrecked by the teams with gyarados, ttar, and garchomp :D). Sometimes I even have glaring weaknesses to pokemon like gengar or garchomp, but I just have to play around it accordingly.

 

[zxn666]

The goal of a team is to mash opponent's teams into the ground, then gloat over the horribly misshapen bodies.
But seriously though, the goals of the teams I play is to be able to effectivly counter the most common threats (Basically the top 50 or so most used pokemon). As long as I can defeat these threats, my team would be able to win against any other. The most trouble I've had is when something unexpected comes up (Like this one time someone had a subseed Sceptile), and then my team cannot handle it. But, generally this strategy works.

 

[Natch]

zxn666, whenever I happen to get back into the metagame, you would have a hard time against me.

>_>

I was using shit like Parasect(very very well, it's laughable how funny it is to the extent it kicked ass), Piloswine, CBjask, Poliwrath, CBXatu, Relicanth, TauntNidoking(which countered Skarm, Duclops, and Weezing-3 of it's common counters) and much much more in the metagame. I'd do well too, since I had surprise on my side.

Anyways, to help the OP out, I would go through a team, and make a sort of threat list-can I deal with Bulky waters, DDers, cursers, super prominent guys that deserve their own category like Swampet, stalling teams, etc. I make sure it's well rounded and can deal with anything that may come. Not certain pokemon, but just certain roles.

It works well for my teams in general.

 

[Captain Falcon]

I suppose the best example of a "team goal" would be a baton pass team. There, the objective is to pass as many boosts as possible to a Pokémon who can use them to sweep.

Personally, when I build a team, I choose 1 Pokémon that I am going to sweep with, and then build the rest of the team around it to make sure that it can't be stopped (by weakening the opponent's walls etc.). I find this works fairly well, but if your main Pokémon dies unexpectedly, tyhen it is almost impossible to win.

 

[Jenigmat]

@jenigmat429: So then your goal would be to set up with Hitmontop, Metagross would just be one of the Pokemon supporting that...

I liked to use a team goal as a starting point to work from when building a team, but if getting rid of a "goal" would help me win more, then that's what I'll do.

Well, yes my 'goal' would be to basically get everything in the range for a Hitmontop sweep. But on the flipside, I'd say that out of all of my wins only about ten percent are from actually sweeping with 'Top. Most of my wins are from other things like my LOMixMence or outstalling my opponent's walls with Spiritomb.

What I want to say is that having a team goal can help significantly in team building, and it can provide a general direction for your play initially. But as you intimate yourself with your opponent's team, I believe that adaptability and versatility is far more important, which is why I personally think that what TheMaskedNitpicker said is a great commentary. Flexibility is huge.

 

[Unreal Ice]

An example of a "central strategy" is setting up for a late game sweep with a certain pokemon. You take a look at the pokemon you want to set up for a sweep, and look at all the potential counters for that pokemon. You include pokes in your team that are designed to take out/weaken those counters for your sweeper to come in and handle later on.