Offensive teams at the moment.

[Darkmalice]

In general, everyone is ruined by hax. Like if Lucario comes in to Scarf Gengar's Shadow ball and expects it to live/force a switch. If a crit happens or Sp.Def drop happens, there goes down a nice sweeper or forces another switch for Shadow Ball to hit.

Probably bad example.

I also like to comment that it is so hard to get an Ingrain with Smeargle these days.

You're missing the point. Stall teams are more likely to be hindered by hax than offensive teams. Offensive teams use more damaging attacks that can score crits or side-effects (e.g. 10% freeze rate). Stall teams use moves like Rest more often, which cannot benefit from hax.

Very bad example. Both Gengar and Lucario will be on offensive teams. I don't see what this example has to do with stall teams. Plus I wouldn't switch Lucario into Gengar anyways.

I won't necessarily disagree with your comment about Smeargle's Ingrain. But I feel stall teams have a harder time dealing with it. There'll be many chances for a Smeargle to switch into a Pokemon on a stall team e.g. as an entry hazard is being set up. Some Pokemon won't be able to deal with Smeargle e.g. Blissey without Thunderwave (Toxic won't work) and are almost always free switch ins for Smeargle. Smeargle then Spores or uses Ingrain.

On an offensive team, priority moves do a great job at checking Smeargle. Though I doubt you will see such moves on a stall team.

 

[Ecksodia]

playing offense is just like chess? doesn't planning who to sac, who to weaken, etc, also fall under trying to get "2 steps ahead of the opponent"? From a game theory standpoint, of course, getting ahead of the opponent is always the aim.

To continue the analogy; if you choose a very aggressive strategy then of course you have to make sure your attack "gets there first"; which is why arguably, offensive teams carry with them more risk, because, as in chess, if the attack fails, your defenses are undermined, and you are easy prey.

On the other hand, blindly stalling is just asking for your opponent to create small weaknesses here and there, creating bigger ones, and open up your defenses.

 

[Limitless]

Just adding to what other people have been saying, in which stall teams, for the most part, are often times overwhelmed. The reason I say this is because whether you play your best game or not, there is always that chance for a critical hit. So in certain cases, your Blissey or spinner may have just gone out the window. I think most would agree that those are key parts to a stall team, especially in regards to stall versus stall. Thus, it would be virtually impossible to seriously play competitively against a "good" player, and still win the match. Obviously it isn't impossible, but your chances have really gone out the window. In stall teams also, there is normally a few Pokemon that tend to always be a threat, Salamence etc., and that really is tough to deal with when it is extremely hard to work around. Covering up these holes would only create more holes, and would ruin the structure in which you have built.

With offensive teams, you are not going to be inflicted with hax as much, since the battles are shorter, and if played right, you should be the one dealing the damage. Another interesting fact is that in most situations, offensive teams can always win a battle. Now the outcome may come out the same in numerous battles against the same person, but one key decision may have gone sour. Of course there is a negative side to that, but you always have a chance due to priority and the ability to setup sweepers. Additionally, where some may get confused on "one mistake will cost you the game," those are in cases in which the people are going overboard with Choice users. This obviously inhibits a lot of prediction, and can easily be toned down.

In conclusion, I think the ability of the user is the key point of interest when deciding what team you would like to use or be most successful with. I personally find offensive and bulky offensive teams more effective in my way of play. Now are some people going to be more effective than me in stall? Hell yes, but for me personally, it wouldn't matter how many people convinced me that stall was better because I wouldn't be that kind of player, and to try to force my mindset into that would just not be feasible.

 

[Tarquin]

I love fragile offense, but sadly it cannot be wholly consistant. If you play offensive, you will have fun but you are worse effected by Critical Hits, Sandstorm, Hail and Life Orb Damage. Do not get me wrong, offensive teams are great if they work well and can destroy stall if built right, but to do so requires skill and prediction, whereas the stall just has to sit there and heal itself sometimes.

Offensive is more fun, more dangerous and more devastating.
Sadly Stall if just so consistant, as no risks are involved.

In conclusion

Stall players and stick around the ladder for ages, owning many without much skill.

However, if you want fun, interesting battles and risk go offensive.

If you can best the ladder using a Fragile Offensive team (such as panamaxis did) then I believe you are a better team builder and player than any, and you'll have a blast as well =D

 

[reyscarface]

Thanks Tarquin :')

 

[LoveDensity]

You're missing the point. Stall teams are more likely to be hindered by hax than offensive teams. Offensive teams use more damaging attacks that can score crits or side-effects (e.g. 10% freeze rate). Stall teams use moves like Rest more often, which cannot benefit from hax.

Oh, I see. I just didnt understand the wording cause it contains two points that phazes in and out . But I just want to say hax ruins things in general. Whetever its a burn/freeze/crit/w/e. Otherwise, I agree with that.

Both Gengar and Lucario will be on offensive teams. I don't see what this example has to do with stall teams. Plus I wouldn't switch Lucario into Gengar anyways.

I run Gengar on my Balanced Defensive team o.o. Nice typing makes it ideal for different situations. I just use my own experiences. Shadow Ball does around 40% to Lucario, so it can still scare it out with Crunch or predict a switch with Swords Dance. Bad example anyways since that situation is too situational.

But I feel stall teams have a harder time dealing with it. There'll be many chances for a Smeargle to switch into a Pokemon on a stall team e.g. as an entry hazard is being set up. Some Pokemon won't be able to deal with Smeargle e.g. Blissey without Thunderwave (Toxic won't work) and are almost always free switch ins for Smeargle. Smeargle then Spores or uses Ingrain.

Ok, I agree in a way. But that is why Perish Song is needed in stall teams. If you don't run it, you aren't really pure stall because you should run something a little more offensive or tricky to deal with BP teams.

 

[Mosh]

I have not seen a turn where only one player has to predict, ever (if you know he's going to throw Bliss against you Jolteon why don't you send Lucario out?). If my opponent is using a stall team and starts to play in a ultra conservative way only reacting to my threats he will lose because I will use that against him and put myself in good position with doubles switches using my wall braekers as fast as possible. Winning against stall teams is about controlling (acelerating) the tempo of the matche, if you give 3 to 5 turns of set up for your opponent, then you should lose, doesn't matter if the set upper were a Gyarados or a Skarm.

Defensive teams tend to do better in the ladder because they just don't lose against weaker players who doesn't know how to face them. An offensive team can lose (or win) a battle because one wrong prediction but a stall one not and in the long run if you are better you can compensate this mispredictions and win but in a tournament with many good players I can't see a advantage or disadvantage playing with one kind of team or another...the st5 final is a proof of it.

 

[RaikouLover]

You hit the nail on the head Mosh... couldn't have said it better.

The reason why stall is more consistently successful is based on my favorite analogy. If you watch college basketball, Roy Williams is the head basketball coach of the University of North Carolina, and he models his entire coaching strategy on what he dubs, "The Tiger Woods" approach. The strategy is to create as many possessions as possible because over time, the skill difference becomes more apparent with more opportunities. Since he always has the best talent, he believes that creating more possessions will give him more opportunities to win. When asked about his philosophy he says, "If you play Tiger Woods in one whole of golf, you can get a whole-in-one, or shoot the best hole of your life and beat him. But if you play him in 18 holes, you won't get lucky. He is going to bet you EVERY time." As a result, Roy Williams is the third most winningst active basketball coach today by percentage (so yeah, it works!).

Pokemon works the same way, unfortunately. When battling with an offensive team yesterday, we all know that you cannot let the opponent set up or you lose. Well, my +1 / + 1 Gyarados encounters his Gyarados, which comes in at 75% thanks to Stealth Rock. He Intimidates me obviously, but I can still kill him with Stone Edge. I Stone Edge and miss, and he Dragon Dances. It turns out we were both Adamant, max speed. From there, he wins the speed tie and OHKOs me with Stone Edge. Now, I'm facing a +1 / +1 Gyarados that my team is not equipped to handle at that point in the match. Through no fault of my own, or no skill on his part, he ended up sweeping my team and winning the match. Instances like this happen quite commonly with offensive teams, hence why many would disagree with the notion that stall teams are hurt more by hax. Bullshit. Offensive teams despise hax, because less "possessions" equals more opportunity for a game-breaking hax to ruin the game.

So in conclusion, my theory going back to this principle is that stall creates consistency because a more skilled player using stall will always beat a player with a considerably less amount of skill, therefore common stall users like IPL can overcome hax at the top of the ladder so regularly. In offensive teams, you really can lose to a player you have no business losing to by shear luck.

 

[paramylodon]

RaikouLover, I experienced nearly the exact same thing yesterday.
They came in as I dragon danced. We both used stone edge, I missed, they hit, taking off 56% (I had duel screens up). We both used stone edge again, and the same thing happened. I believe my opponent won that game.

Another problem with hyper offensive teams does actually seem to be random exceptionally fast scarfers. Earlier I equated them to set up fodder, but as I play with the team more, this seems to be incorrect.
Such things as timid scarf rotom-a, or scarf starmie dismantle a hyper offensive team based off of set up users. The reason for this actually appears to be the exact same reason why such a team can be so effective.
Such a fast scarf user can come in and revenge kill. You then bring something in that can set up. They switch out, giving you a turn, and then force you in a situation where you must attack and kill rather then continuing to set up. So you do so, giving the scarfer a free switch in, and allowing another kill.
The problem here is that there are only so many pokemon that you can actually use to set up on this scarfer; eventually, you wont have something left, and it will be free to try and sweep your team.
The team I was using is:
DSazelf
Jolly LO DDGyara
LO DDmence
SD luke
Agilligross
Physically oriented mixape

The duel screen azelf essentially puts me at 6-5 at the start of the game, but with duel screens.
Scarf stamie can revenge kill all of the following even after set up (once screens have expired): Mixape (however, this can't set up), agilligross, mence, gyara
Timid scarf rotom-a: mixape, agilligross, luke, gyarados

In both cases agilligross is assuming a good bit of prior damage. It is flat out walled by rotom-a, and is still slower then starmie even after agility.

In both cases that is 4 out of the remaining 5 pokemon. Eventually, I will get to the point where I don't have something that can set up on the scarfer after it revenge kills, and it can make good of it's advantage.

Like Obi once said, he'd prefer to be guranteed to win 80% of his games and have a chance to win the remaining 20% over automatically winning 90% and autolosing the remaining 10%.

Against a more ballanced team, the scarfer will not be such a problem at all, as scarfers normally tend to not be that good (being set up fodder typically is very bad).

This, and the greater threat of hax as explained very well by RaikouLover, is why I don't think hyper offensive teams are necessarilly that good.
They may be one of the best teams on average, but "the standard deviation of their quality" is to high to allow them to have a grip at the top of the ladder.

 

[reyscarface]

Hmmm, well Paramylodon, i can disagree with you a bit about the random scarfers problem.

Actually, i love to fight random scarfers.

Lets say Azelf got the Dual Screen, i bring Scizor in their... Swampert?

I get an SD, and he brings in the Rotom. I Bullet Punch and take a nice 50% chucnk of its HP. it Kills me with OverHeat.

I bring in my Kingdra, knowing it cant touch me and will switch.
I get a DD, he brings in the Swampert.
If i know it has Roar, i use Outrage. If it doesnt, i use another DD to then spam Waterfall while getting damaged 23%~ by his EQ.

So i finish the Swampert, now his scarfer ISNT a threat since im faster.

Suddenly i got a +3~ Kingdra thanks to that Scarfer.

It isnt as hard as it seems to deal with scarfers.
I can see a WHOLE team of scarfers as a problem, but i could careless about that kind of teams since im sure to only see those on ladder, when ladder isnt that important as tourneys, where nobody will bring a 6 scarfers team lol.

My point is that if you do the right moves, you will get the advantage against anything, even a counter team of HP Fire Celebi, and other 3 physical walls.

Long-Term thinking and intelligently set-upping/sacking is the key.

Now Hax... hax screws everything, not just Offense lol

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Offense is much easier to play than stall. You send out a sweeper with a good match up against whatever your opponent has out, stat up once and mindlessly click attack until you die, send out next sweeper, repeat. Preventing your opponent from doing that is significantly more difficult. Even though stallish pokemon often have the defensive stats to handle luck and reduce risk, it still takes quite a bit of effort to keep that Hippowdon above 50% to stop your DDTar sweep.

goofball's Scizor example is a perfect illustration of this. Send Scizor out against a Celebi, then U-turn, switching midturn risk free while you know what your opponent has done already. That is the least amount of thinking possible in a pokemon battle.

Both strategies are completely viable and largely depend on player skill and team matchup. But can we please stop pretending that abusing Steel typing + stab u-turn requires a ton of thought? The reason why the top of the ladder is dominated by stall is because (skilled player + no risk) will win more than (skilled player + high risk). Stall teams don't have to cover every threat, but offensive teams are screwed if they get a bad team matchup.

 

[Darkartisan]

I can honestly tell you that I have played offensive since the dawning of D/P, and I still play offensive teams. Are they good? Of course, but stall is genereally a more succesful standard. Why? Stall is much better prepared for the top offensive pokemon in the game (in no particular order)

Metagross,Scizor,Jolteon,Gengar,Salamence, etc

When one pokemon can counter 4 offensive pokemon, and one offensive pokemon can't muscle their way through a stall pokemon, they're forced to switch. When they switch, they are punished with Spikes, Stealth Rocks, TSpikes, and anything else that can deal passive damage.

Offensive teams are built paper thin and usually rely on 6 sweepers that can break through most of todays metagame, although more than less offensive teams can take 2 neutral shots and be Knocked out, where as stall teams bulkymons can take 5-6 neutral hits (pending on situation) and recover, and then dish out more.

This is why stall is > Offense

 

[paramylodon]

Hmmm, well Paramylodon, i can disagree with you a bit about the random scarfers problem.

Actually, i love to fight random scarfers.

Lets say Azelf got the Dual Screen, i bring Scizor in their... Swampert?

I get an SD, and he brings in the Rotom. I Bullet Punch and take a nice 50% chucnk of its HP. it Kills me with OverHeat.

I bring in my Kingdra, knowing it cant touch me and will switch.
I get a DD, he brings in the Swampert.
If i know it has Roar, i use Outrage. If it doesnt, i use another DD to then spam Waterfall while getting damaged 23%~ by his EQ.

So i finish the Swampert, now his scarfer ISNT a threat since im faster.

Suddenly i got a +3~ Kingdra thanks to that Scarfer.

It isnt as hard as it seems to deal with scarfers.
I can see a WHOLE team of scarfers as a problem, but i could careless about that kind of teams since im sure to only see those on ladder, when ladder isnt that important as tourneys, where nobody will bring a 6 scarfers team lol.

My point is that if you do the right moves, you will get the advantage against anything, even a counter team of HP Fire Celebi, and other 3 physical walls.

Long-Term thinking and intelligently set-upping/sacking is the key.

Now Hax... hax screws everything, not just Offense lol

Rey,
I talked to Stathakis and started using a team closer to his in build (which had gyarados and infernape over kingdra and scizor). Perhaps I will start using your build again.
Long term thinking again probably isn't what I have enough of...but, lets say rotom just came in to kill gyarados (who despite being jolly was slower....), then who do I bring in to try and set up on thunderbolt?
Metagross takes t-bolts the best, but is walled by rotom-a. Scizor takes 3 turns to kill (and would be dead in that time). Lucario and infernape's defenses are terrible, and missing the set up if they switch isn't good (and infernape would not provoke a fire attack to set up kingdra).
Salamence is probably who I'd bring in ultimately, as I can actually outspeed it after set up and promptly KO if it doesn't switch (which it probably will). Teams also tend to have some strategy to handle DDmence, so I'd best be able to make the most of this time here.
However, the problem then is, the rest of the team I had can be revenge killed later.
I somehow have to pull off 2 DDs so I outspeed it, and, unfortunately, against a more offensive team that just isn't possible.
I bring in gyarados on a scarf overheat from rotom-a (if I have gyarados instead of kingdra), and then my opponent brings in a gengar. This forces me to waterfall, and doesn't give me the time to stat up.
Even bringing in a scizor can force me to have to start imediately attacking with gyarados rather then setting up further.

I wish I could wake up more while playing, but I realized my win percentage is far lower with HO then it is with a more ballanced team; my mean rating dropped 74 points on my main account before I decided to switch to my alt (as I believe I told you before).
I can't deny, however, that both you and Stathakis appear to have much higher win rates with the same sort of team as I do.

It is often hard to plan the game early on, as you do not know what the opponent has. You have to guess what may be best to bring in. And the issue is (just like HO is supposed to work, in that you wear down your opponents walls with similarly minded pokemon until you can break through and sweep), an opposing scarfer can wear down and eliminate the pokemon that can actually set up on it resulting in your team getting swept in the end.

The reason I used the examples of timid scarf rotom-a and scarf starmie (which in my opinion is a terrible idea) is that I lost to teams containing them yesterday, primarily thanks to the presence of those pokemon on them. I could never take the time to set up enough to actually win.
Kingdra sounds like something I'd have to try again, because it may actually be able to take the hit to set up further.

In your example, however, what would you have done had your opponent brought in a dragon? Or anything else that required your imediately attack?

 

[reyscarface]

If i sac something, then i get a free switchin and i know his locked move.

Lets say it uses Shadow Ball to kill my Azelf. Well, then i get a free switchin to Scizor, who will get a free SD, which will kill any Dragon before they can do ANYTHING to me (with SR, which i get up 95% of the time).

This is why predicting is bad. The free switchin the locked choice pokemon gives you is basically the key of the set-up so you can start rampaging.

 

[paramylodon]

Rey,
I meant bring a dragon in on kingdra in the example you used.
You can't get a second DD (as they'd kill you), forcing you to KO, letting them bring the faster scarf pokemon back in.
Thunderbolt is something everything has a hard time setting up on, and I only have so many pokemon that can actually try.
Though yes, if they use shadow ball scizor is the obvious choice.

 

[reyscarface]

By the time they brought their Dragon in Kingdra, i already got a DD while they Thunderbolt/Shadow Ball/Bring their Dragon.

If i got my Light Screen (which i usually do always), Kingdra can get 3 DDs considering the rotom doesnt switch (dumb move lol).

If they decide to bring their dragon as i use DD, the only "win" chance they have is being a random scarfer (Flygon isnt that of a random scarfer, but Outrage fails to KO behind Reflect).
I usually use Substitute if they bring a Dragon, so if they try to switch out, i can easily get another DD while not being locked into Outrage.

If they persist on attacking, i can easily Outrage them, OHKOing.

Then they bring in Rotom, they Thunderbolt me, 30%~ if LS is still up, so i get a chance to use Outrage 2 times, killing the Rotom.
If LS wore off, i can easily get 1 Outrage, leaving the Rotom at... 35%~?

So Kingdra got sacked, but it killed 1 Dragon and seriously weakened a random "problem" scarfer.

Then i can bring Scizor easily, get an SD as they switch/T-Bolt me again, and then sweep with my +2 LO Scizor, seeing how BP would KO that Rotom.

Now, if they decide to trick my Kingdra, then... they are in bigger problems lol.

Long-Term thinking (again) is your best friend.

 

[animenagai]

I agree in that stall gives your more consistency, but I disagree that offense is necessarily easier to play, at lesat in the high levels.

I think we can all agree that a really good team requires a good team strategy. For stall, it's to set up entry hazards, get rid of your opponents entry hazards and to keep your pokemon healthy. For offense, it's usually to kill/weaken the counter your opponent has to a designated pokemon and sweep with said pokemon.

Let me draw out the types of ways an offensive team can pull this strategy off, at least to my knowlege:

1. Soften and sweep. Have two offensive threats that are countered by the same thing. Use one of them to weaken the counter into KO range, often at the price of your own guy then sweep with the other once the flood gates are open. eg. double dragon strategy or what you see on stathakis' greek RMT.

2. Trap and sweep. By trap I mean stuff like magnezone, duggy or pursuit. Once you trap the counter and kill it, you're free to reak havac. eg. maggy-dragon strategy (refresh latias works well), dugtrop-empoleon.

3. Lure and sweep. A lure is something that attracts a certain counter only to take it out. TAY used his expert belt metagross to take out stuff like gyara, swampert and latias by faking a scarfed, physical set. Ape then sweeps (his one doesn't have grass knot). A simpler version may be gengar with explosion and empoleon (takes out bliss, the rest is gravy).

4. A combination of (some of) these strats.

If you look at what I just said, I think it's pretty clear that a good offensive team is more than mindless clicking. You need to have a good gameplan in your head and know how to pull it off.

You'll at least want 2 members of your team to be devoted to this strategy. These threats must of course be pretty offensive in nature as it has to be able to deal some damage. In turn, it becomes much harder to find good counters on your team for everything, which leaves you more vulnerable to certain threats.

If you're facing a stall team, you better hope that your strategy pulls through. If say you want to kill skarm with specs mence, then sweep with latias, if the guy switches in a bliss instead and sees through your plan, it becomes much harder to win. In that sense, stall has more breathing room, because their strategy is easier to pull off.

 

[Stathakis]

option 1 is superior

trappers are largely useless vs. teams that dont have what you are trying to kill, lures dont work over and over again (and not at all vs. smart opponents), and any combination is a waste of time. with option 1 you break through teams that have 1 or 2 pokemon to deal with you, while at the same time breaking through teams that have no pokemon to deal with you (i.e. the trapper team is inferior in this case). with option 1, as long as you think ahead you can win against even the toughest of counter teams (except 6 scarfer teams lol).

oh and btw you want to have 6 pokemon dedicated to a strategy not 2

 

[animenagai]

option 1 is superior

trappers are largely useless vs. teams that dont have what you are trying to kill, lures dont work over and over again (and not at all vs. smart opponents), and any combination is a waste of time. with option 1 you break through teams that have 1 or 2 pokemon to deal with you, while at the same time breaking through teams that have no pokemon to deal with you (i.e. the trapper team is inferior in this case). with option 1, as long as you think ahead you can win against even the toughest of counter teams (except 6 scarfer teams lol).

oh and btw you want to have 6 pokemon dedicated to a strategy not 2

I agree with you in that option 1 is superior. Trappers can be beat with stuff like shed shell, though every good team should have a steel type in it, so that bodes well for maggy. I am inclined to go with option 4 or at least, multiple cases of option 1 because as you said in your RMT, you want to maximize your winning conditions, so putting all your eggs in one basket probably isn't very smart.

As to using 6 > 2 in executing the strategy, I said AT LEAST 2. I think if you go more than 2 pokes for option 1, you might as well go for the all out offense approach you love. Of course, I know that you like teams to be either all out suicidal offense or all out stall, and though your argument is a strong one, that's probably for another argument and another thread. I think there are players who want to keep their in-between teams but can still see my argument (or learn something). At the end of the day, this is a stall vs offense argument so I don't want to bring in your argument against prediction as it doesn't really take a side in this context.