Identifying your "edge" in Pokemon

[McGrrr]

Introduction

To beat any game where you are matched against an opponent with the same goal of victory and a third element of luck, you must posses an "edge" over the competition. Any edge you have will make you a long term winner.

Practical Examples

When you play against the house in a casino, the house always has an edge. Its edge is smallest in roulette; 1.35% in Europe, 2.63% in America because of double zero. This edge arises from offering inadequate odds for each and every bet, giving you a negative long term expectation.

In Monopoly, an edge can be as simple as knowing that the oranges are best value (especially with free parking rule and double salary), the light blues are better in a tight game, the greens are rubbish and Trafalgar Square (Illinois Avenue) is the most landed on property.

It is important to realize that your edge in any competitive situation is unlikely to be very large, and for example with a 5% edge against a single opponent, you are still expecting to lose 45% of the time.

Application to Pokemon

Your edge in Pokemon will arise fundamentally from background knowledge, information asymmetry, intuitiveness, risk assessment, cheating and preparation. The culmination of these factors decide your team edge and battle edge.

Team edge: obviously a well thought out team will have a clear advantage over a random selection of 6 Pokemon. Innovation can set you apart, but in an environment where teams are very similar, small details will make a big difference. In particular, IVs come to the fore. This is why Wifi battling favours individuals willing to exhaustively breed for near perfect stats.

Battle edge: battling skill is difficult to quantify and it may be impossible to improve beyond an individual's limitations. However, this is where the men are sorted from the boys. It is no use making an excellent team and being ignorant of how to use it. My previous thread gives beginning and intermediate battlers some hints towards deeper thinking.

Implications

Wifi is not a level playing field. Competitor on the other hand, will automatically offer maximum IVs for everything, negating any subtle team edge. In short, Wifi battling is a test of how patient a breeder/soft reseter you are, while Competitor will be a more accurate measure of your actual skill. With enough reading, anyone can build a good team, but it takes something less ordinary to excel in battle.

Protecting/maximizing/improving/using your edge

Team edge: why do you think that when I post a team, I refuse to disclose EV spreads? I am confident and competent enough to know what EVs are optimal; so why should I share that information and jettison my edge? This is arguably comparable to breeding for IVs. However, everyone knows what IVs are best. To know what EVs are optimal requires an understanding of the mechanics through learning and experience; much like battling skill. In my Pokemon analyses, I give ballpark recommendations for EVs, but it is up to the individual to improve upon them.

Another way to protect your edge is to simply not post teams at all. The most experienced players do not need the input of others; they can identify weaknesses themselves (or recognize them when they keep losing!). Granted, this is anticompetitive behavior, but it is also rational. Further, new players should be encouraged to find their own way beyond a point, otherwise there is no stimulation for innovation.

Battle edge: there are a few fundamentals that I will talk about here, but really, there is no substitute to experience. As explained in the Game Theory thread, profiling your opponent is very important. Over time, there are characteristics which you will immediately associate with a particular type of battler. Plan how you are most likely to kill every new Pokemon that is revealed; for example Raikou is unlikely to kill a Skarmory as it is switching every time... unless you can maneuver a situation where your opponent's risk/reward ratio is so skewed that he is indifferent to switching Skarmory out.

Another key skill is knowing when you are being outplayed and being able to adjust accordingly; a mistake in prediction is often not a mistake in play, but rather an error in your profiling. Do not be afraid to return to ABC basics, for example disregarding possible opposing switches, or switching out of immediate dangers. Often, the simpler you play, the more likely your opponent will over-predict. Lastly, never leave yourself in a situation where you are reacting to what your opponent does, instead of acting on what you expect him/her to do.

Conflict of interest

When somebody rates your team, you need to understand their motives. Are they really trying to help you? When there is a clear incentive to do the opposite; they would have a greater probability of winning against you. Judging by the dross in the team rating forum, fortunately the vast majority of replies appear to be driven by little more than post count++

Comment

If nothing else, I hope this thread has made you a little bit shrewder.

Edit: Footnote raises a good point about innovation that I overlooked.

Edit2: please don't take offense at Synre's reply, he's a nice guy really... he just gets angry occasionally.

Edit3: overhauled the post, notably adding parts to using your edge.

 

[Dagger]

I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't see anybody looking at a rmt to see how to beat that person. It could happen though, I guess.

But yeah, if someone was to do something like that, they'd have the edge.

 

[Easton]

Great article, McGraw. This has helped me once again

However, there are some things that I consider:

As mentioned that battle environment is not static. In the end, do we have the potential for the metagame to shift around? Most of the teams focused in here are based upon standards that most everyone uses. However, with that statement, I believe you are trying to say something could change with the way that people build teams now.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with sharing your teams if you are rather new and have lurked a while though. Eventually after time comes you will be able to indentify certain weaknesses to a point where you really don't need anyone to help you. However, the first time teams could most likely use a little work

 

[UnicronEX]

Despite our conflicting views, dear sir, top notch advice all around! Now to return to the joyous task of constantly breeding Murkrow, a task made ever funner by the day.

Who am I kidding, hurry up Competitor!

 

[McGrrr]

I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't see anybody looking at a rmt to see how to beat that person. It could happen though, I guess.

<McGraw> i read phuquoph's RMT, but couldn't be bothered to reply
<McGraw> i wish he had irc, then i'd give feedback
<+Synre> I am surprised at his RMT though, i rather don't like his team !!
<McGraw> i disliked his team also
<McGraw> it has a whole bunch of weaknesses
<McGraw> that i felt would make a reply too long and too much hard work
<+Synre> I tried to think of how I would beat my team with his team
<+Synre> my best answer was 'I play pokemon while drunk a lot'

Yeah, get on #smogon Phuquoph, if you actually want genuine team feedback.

Edit: Misty is still asleep, so thanks to Synre for the log.

 

[Dragontamer]

Wifi is not a level playing field. Competitor on the other hand, will automatically offer maximum IVs for everything, negating any subtle team edge. In short, Wifi battling is a test of how patient a breeder/soft reseter you are, while Competitor will be a more accurate measure of your actual skill. With enough reading, anyone can build a good team, but it takes something less ordinary to excel in battle.

I'll have to disagree here. Unless both players are VERY close in skill level, then it doesn't really matter about IVs. I'm not talking just playing skill level, but team building skill level. Sure, IVs certainly make a difference in battle, but they are not the end-all be-all of the game.

Of course, then there is the meta-argument of what a "balanced" game really is. And that comes down to what the game is. Pokemon is a game of great patience. That aspect of reaping what you sow is simply part of the game.

From that perspective, it can be argued that Competitor is unbalanced, because the lazy players don't get a disadvantage. The hard working people's advantage is nullified as soon as you set IVs and EVs to whatever the heck you want. As this forum focuses on the battle aspect of the game, and not the actual playing of this game, I'm sure this would be an unpopular point, but I find it is difficult to argue against it.

Basically, make what you want of it. But Competitor does remove a major aspect of the game: raising, breeding, finding, and training. (As does Action Replay, but thats why "hackers" are frowned upon in other wifi circles)

So the meta-argument is the definition of balance, and which definition of balance is more appropriate. And in my experience, the answer to definition questions is "whatever suits me best" because it is so opinionated, and then it comes down to some kind of vote or consensus on a forum. So here, a "balanced" game would be the one where you don't have to worry about any of the "minigame" aspects of pokemon. Therefore, the meta-argument here would probably favor Competitor.

While in other environments, a "balanced" game would be the one where hard-working and patient individuals gain a competitive edge over the lazy. Therefore, the meta-argument there would favor Wifi.

My RL friends who play this game fall into the latter category. If you ain't willing to work for your pokemon, you ain't worthy of having them. Anyone can put together a team found on the internet on Competitor. But it truly takes hard work and patience to bring that team into the game.

 

[Sir Spanky]

But like McGraw said, effort of breeding/soft resetting is completely different from the skill of battling. Just because your friends are lazy, it does not mean you are better at Pokemon when you beat them with your team that you spent hours obtaining (note: not planning). Perhaps if you had an equal footing when it comes to relative 'power', the results would be different...

 

[Footnote]

I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't see anybody looking at a rmt to see how to beat that person. It could happen though, I guess.

But yeah, if someone was to do something like that, they'd have the edge.

I'd definitely do it. There's a reason I've only posted one team on Smogon, and that was to try to drum up support for/gauge interest in Double Battles. Even when I post movesets, there's always a hesitation. "Do I really want to make this public before I take advantage of it?" Of course, for me Pokémon is really about fun, so I'm not going to design a team specifically to wail on a particular person's RMT team. Besides, the clever player will post one team and use another. ;)

I'd have to disagree with McGraw about RMT advice being driven primarily by post count. I think the primary drive for many is the desire to feel that they are experts and that their advice is useful. There are definitely others who just have a drive to help people. Personally, I only rate teams that I either feel are creative or use the rules that I like to play under, because I want to encourage that behaivior.

One other thing that can give you an edge, especially at the dawn of a new generation like this, is innovation. This fits squarely under McGraw's "Team Edge" heading, but since that was mostly geared toward IVs, I thought I'd mention it. Most players will limit themselves to standard Pokémon, standard moves, and standard movesets. By coming up with a brand new strategy, you not only throw a wrench in your opponent's prediction, you also may have a strategy that they have no ready counter for. There are still new strategies out there to be discovered!

 

[Dragontamer]

But like McGraw said, effort of breeding/soft resetting is completely different from the skill of battling. Just because your friends are lazy, it does not mean you are better at Pokemon when you beat them with your team that you spent hours obtaining (note: not planning). Perhaps if you had an equal footing when it comes to relative 'power', the results would be different...

I know I can't win this debate here, too many people simply disagree with me. Nonetheless, lets see how far this can go :-p

Part of the game is obtaining pokemon. And if you cannot find the actual pokemon that you want, then that means you have no skill (that, or no patience) in finding pokemon and therefore do not deserve them.

Both players are still on equal footings inside the game. Fact of the matter is, if I got those above average IVs, you could have gotten them too if you put forth a similar amount of effort.

Pokemon the game is far more than just battling. While the battle aspect is very important, you cannot ignore the breeding, training, searching, and trading aspects.

 

[Aielyn]

I know I can't win this debate here, too many people simply disagree with me. Nonetheless, lets see how far this can go :-p

Part of the game is obtaining pokemon. And if you cannot find the actual pokemon that you want, then that means you have no skill (that, or no patience) in finding pokemon and therefore do not deserve them.

Both players are still on equal footings inside the game. Fact of the matter is, if I got those above average IVs, you could have gotten them too if you put forth a similar amount of effort.

Pokemon the game is far more than just battling. While the battle aspect is very important, you cannot ignore the breeding, training, searching, and trading aspects.

Perhaps I can provide a different perspective on this.

In the game of tenpin bowling, skill is paramount. The person with greater skill is the person who will, generally, bowl the higher game (although obviously random chance plays into it, much like in Pokemon). That said, if you eliminate part of the game in order to determine who has the most "skill", you automatically nullify the remaining "game", it is no longer a true test of skill.

What is the analogy, here? Well, Pokemon is Bowling, and Competitor is Wii Bowling.

Simply put, Competitor will be a great game, but if you wish to test a person's true skill, you must factor in ALL parts of the game. There is skill to breeding the right moves onto the pokemon with the right IVs, and there is skill to training a pokemon up from level 1 all the way to the desired level. Patience itself is one of the many skills that are a part of pokemon, and by eliminating the parts that involve patience, you have made competitor unrepresentative of the true skill involved in Pokemon.

 

[Phi]

The only skills in breeding well-IV'd and EV'd Pokeymans are having free time, the internet, and luck. Just personally, I'm very interested in competitive battling, especially ubers. But I've spent 5+ hours soft resetting for a Perfect speed and Sp. Attack Timid Palkia, and I really don't have time to do that for every uber I want, especially since I can't find any of my advance versions, so I'd have to trade to get any Mewtwos, Deoxys or Latios I'd want. It's just way too much work to make a decent team, and I think this makes non-standard metagames suffer, as well as considerably slowing the pace of innovation. An environment like Competitor really allows for strategy-minded people to think.
On the topic of edge, I think surprise is what gives the most edge, and keeps the game from being one played by computers. For example, Special Attacking Rhyperior is an incredibly stupid idea, and, if you're expecting it, anything that resists its attacks can come in. But, since you're not expecting it in the Battle Tower, a Choicespecs that thinks it's safe staying in - after all, an intimidated Stone Edge ain't that threatening - takes an Ice Beam up the ass.

 

[Synre]

About the whole RMT thing -

I think if anyone honestly thinks people don't read those to try to gain insight on a player or a team they are seriously fooling themselves. I definitely do it to an extreme(I have a fairly large set of bookmarks with adv and dp RMTs, as well a nice archive from that 'best advance teams' topic), simply because even though it's normally not useful for actual scouting it normally tells me something about the type of battler someone is. This is especially helpful to me against some of the people I don't have a lot of experience battling... an RMT by someone like Surgo or Phuquoph tells me a lot more than one by McGraw or MrE, since I fought them both several times in Advance and have talked Pokemon with them a lot more.

Pretty much every time I see an RMT by anyone decent I try to figure out how I would fight it with my team though. Theory only goes so far, but it definitely helps a lot and is an easy way to get more acquainted with my team without actually using it.



Anyway, I wasn't sure which of the two posts I wanted to reply to so I picked this one since it is more difficult for me to pick apart the post rather than just make a general response.

Part of the game is obtaining pokemon. And if you cannot find the actual pokemon that you want, then that means you have no skill (that, or no patience) in finding pokemon and therefore do not deserve them.

Both players are still on equal footings inside the game. Fact of the matter is, if I got those above average IVs, you could have gotten them too if you put forth a similar amount of effort.

Pokemon the game is far more than just battling. While the battle aspect is very important, you cannot ignore the breeding, training, searching, and trading aspects.

I don't think this logic can really be more wrong.

Spending extremely large amounts of time by throwing myself at a random number generator is not really something I like to do or encourage other people to do. I think almost every Pokemon I actually have in my 'bred correctly with good IVs' box has a 26+ IV mean, so it's not like I've had any trouble getting good IVed Pokemon, but really just the idea that wasting time on a random number generator puts someone ahead or behind doesn't sit well with me.

The thing that made me laugh the most was the 'searching,' though. Can you even take yourself seriously making points like that? Any moron, especially with all the tools on the internet available, can get any Pokemon they want. Easily. It's an aspect of the game that has been mastered by multiple generations of eight year olds, you can't possibly even argue that it takes anything resembling skill.

In many ways, Breeding is the same way. Some people fail to do the research required, or fail to put in the ridiculous amount of time that is often required, but breeding is just as trivial and easy as catching Pokemon, simply more time consuming. All you are doing is matching up 31s and hoping the RNG feeds you inherited 31s in the right stats and good random rolls in the others. There's no skill involved here, simply large amounts of time spent flailing at a RNG.

I feel it needs to be repeated that I don't say this out of frustration or an inability or unwillingness to do this myself - I have multiple self bred 4 31 IV Pokemon. That said, I'm not going to try to tell anyone it took 'skill' to get those, but it didn't.


It's fine to romance about being a 'good trainer' and focusing on the aspects of the game that have been marketed at children for generations, but when it comes down to it Pokemon battles are best executed when they come down to team creation(and by that I mean picking the pokemon and the ev spreads and the moves) and the predictions and the mind games.

I'm not sure what exactly you do with your free time, but I think a vast majority of the good users here have college classes and jobs and significant others and friends and a lot of other stuff that eats up our time. We aren't 10 or 12 or however old we were when we started to play this game anymore. The reason most of us stuck with Pokemon was the battling aspects of the game, something that only gets better as we do. And for those battles, it is ideal for everyone to start on as even of a playing ground as possible, so that the outcome is decided by the decisions we make before and during the battle, rather than by our Pokemon having slightly better IVs thanks to wasting more time that could have been better spent doing other things in life than trying to get a random number on an RNG.





I suppose it doesn't surprise me that whenever this type of topic arises all of the opposition against are a bunch of people that haven't played at a true competitive level before... perhaps wasting hours and hours on a RNG is the only part of this game they have any success at?

 

[Origin]

DAMN this is a beautiful article. It nearly made me cry (Not really but hey, it was definitely good).

I really liked the Protecting/maximizing your edge
part of it. (Since it's true, and people like to copy teams and such - also why I'm not posting anymore teams)

OH OH - another way to improve ones edge;
Use things that the opponent would not expect to see, but would WORK. Kind of like why Tyraniboah was created (Though I'm trying to say... use a set that isn't considered "Standard")
Yeah, I know standard is good, that's why we call it standard; but going past the standard and trying new things could potentially "surprise" the opponent, who will obviously be playing prediction games with you.
Element of Surprise.

 

[Dragontamer]

The only skills in breeding well-IV'd and EV'd Pokeymans are having free time, the internet, and luck.

Luck actually has little to do with EV training, and there are methods to IV breed pokemon. If you are batting over Wifi, then obviously you have the internet. So it all comes down to free time, which everyone has because this is a game. And if you didn't have free time, you wouldn't be playing pokemon. If you are playing pokemon even if you don't got free time... your priorities are screwed up.

Not to mention, it is only fair that those who work harder in a game get rewarded more.

On the topic of edge, I think surprise is what gives the most edge, and keeps the game from being one played by computers. For example, Special Attacking Rhyperior is an incredibly stupid idea, and, if you're expecting it, anything that resists its attacks can come in. But, since you're not expecting it in the Battle Tower, a Choicespecs that thinks it's safe staying in - after all, an intimidated Stone Edge ain't that threatening - takes an Ice Beam up the ass.

Actually, what keeps this game from being played by computers is because evaluating ****ing chance nodes in min/max trees is intractable :-/ See McGraw's other topic where for some reason everyone is now talking about how to implement AI into Pokemon.

Computers are in fact however, more unpredictable than humans. As a simple proof, try generating 100 random numbers without the use of die or coins. A standard computer algorithms will be able to do that and pass statistical tests of randomness. (Chi^2 test, etc. etc. Names of algorithms are LCG generators and that twister thingy... forgot its name) while humans tend to fail at these kinds of tests.

 

[Synre]

Luck actually has little to do with EV training, and there are methods to IV breed pokemon. If you are batting over Wifi, then obviously you have the internet. So it all comes down to free time, which everyone has because this is a game. And if you didn't have free time, you wouldn't be playing pokemon. If you are playing pokemon even if you don't got free time... your priorities are screwed up.

EV Training is easy and anyone can do it correctly in under an hour per Pokemon. It doesn't support your point regardless, since not unlike IV training it is merely a timesink rather than anything involving skill. Regardless of that, I don't think I know of anyone who really complainins about EV Training since while it is tedious it is quick and easy and not reliant on any form of luck.

Some of us like to spend that 'free time' we play Pokemon during on something fun and exciting like battling, rather than spending days of our lives biking up and down hatching eggs.

Not to mention, it is only fair that those who work harder in a game get rewarded more.

I've whored this logic playing other games before, and while to some extent you're right, you're putting in more work at an irrelevant part of the game. If you put in more work at getting good competitively, you'll become better at predicting and more skilled at team building - it's not a visible trait like an IV Value is, but it's the reward of your learning how to play the game better. That's where the hard work and rewards of competitive Pokemon come in, not in breeding.

 

[Sir Spanky]

I've whored this logic playing other games before, and while to some extent you're right, you're putting in more work at an irrelevant part of the game.

This I agree with completely. If you want to go through the aspect of saying effort = good outcome, then I think breeding/catching shouldn't come into account. Practice battling and thinking up specific EV spreads/movesets should be the effort you put into your team to put you at an advantage.

 

[Dragontamer]

I suppose it doesn't surprise me that whenever this type of topic arises all of the opposition against are a bunch of people that haven't played at a true competitive level before... perhaps wasting hours and hours on a RNG is the only part of this game they have any success at?

Ahem. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

We all have our motives, but having a motive alone does not validate or invalidate an argument. Thus why this argument is inherently a fallacy. Please, there is no need for this debate to get personal. Lets keep it professional and as free of fallacies as possible? KK? m i rite?

I feel it needs to be repeated that I don't say this out of frustration or an inability or unwillingness to do this myself - I have multiple self bred 4 31 IV Pokemon. That said, I'm not going to try to tell anyone it took 'skill' to get those, but it didn't.

It took a large amount of effort on your part to get those however. That cannot be denied. Furthermore, ANYONE can do this and thus the playing field is still equal.

It's fine to romance about being a 'good trainer' and focusing on the aspects of the game that have been marketed at children for generations, but when it comes down to it Pokemon battles are best executed when they come down to team creation(and by that I mean picking the pokemon and the ev spreads and the moves) and the predictions and the mind games.

That is a highly opinionated matter. A strong assertion.

Regardless, your argument simplifies into this.

1. I don't like playing some parts of Pokemon.
2. I like the battling part of Pokemon.

3. Therefore, I'll create my own version of Pokemon without the breeding, without the training, and without everything else I don't like, and focus simply on the battling.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I'm seeing here. That said, once you step into Competitor, you are no longer playing Pokemon. You are playing competitor. The fan made game that focuses on building teams and team strategies. Or perhaps a simulator of the real game, one where you don't have to train pokemon to play.

Regardless of how much it emphasizes the battle aspect of Pokemon, you are no longer playing Pokemon. You are playing competitor. And that is as simple as that. People who use AR to create better (but still legal) teams also fall into this category.

It isn't necessarily bad, and it isn't necessarily better. It is just different. At the end of the day, you are no longer playing Pokemon in my eyes.

I'm not sure what exactly you do with your free time, but I think a vast majority of the good users here have college classes and jobs and significant others and friends and a lot of other stuff that eats up our time. We aren't 10 or 12 or however old we were when we started to play this game anymore. The reason most of us stuck with Pokemon was the battling aspects of the game, something that only gets better as we do. And for those battles, it is ideal for everyone to start on as even of a playing ground as possible, so that the outcome is decided by the decisions we make before and during the battle, rather than by our Pokemon having slightly better IVs thanks to wasting more time that could have been better spent doing other things in life than trying to get a random number on an RNG.

What I do on my own time is my own business. Furthermore, this is all beside the point. Perhaps to my own regret because I admit to generally having a poor thesis.

My point is:
Pokemon is balanced. Everyone gets the same game. Everyone gets the same slice of pie. The playing field of Pokemon is inherently balanced because anything you can do to "beat the odds" (IV resetting or breeding, etc. etc.) can be done by anyone else for that matter, while the probability of beating the odds without putting forth that work is massively massively small.

 

[Dragontamer]

I've whored this logic playing other games before, and while to some extent you're right, you're putting in more work at an irrelevant part of the game. If you put in more work at getting good competitively, you'll become better at predicting and more skilled at team building - it's not a visible trait like an IV Value is, but it's the reward of your learning how to play the game better. That's where the hard work and rewards of competitive Pokemon come in, not in breeding.

It is only irrelevant because you see it as irrelevant, or would rather play Competitor. Furthermore, I'd agree that Competitor is useful as a tool to create better battling skills in general. Again, the simulator analogy. Or like "checkmate in x moves" books/software for Chess players. But Competitor is not Pokemon.

Whether you like it or not, Pokemon the game includes random IVs, training up EVs, and the impossibility of ever getting a HP that you actually want. And those who don't want to do that. ("waste their time" or whatever) can go ahead and play Competitor.

 

[Sir Spanky]

1. I don't like playing some parts of Pokemon.
2. I like the battling part of Pokemon.
3. Therefore, I'll create my own version of Pokemon without the breeding, without the training, and without everything else I don't like, and focus simply on the battling.

Can you honestly say you enjoy training/breeding/grinding your Pokemon?

That said, once you step into Competitor, you are no longer playing Pokemon. You are playing competitor. The fan made game that focuses on building teams and team strategies. Or perhaps a simulator of the real game, one where you don't have to train pokemon to play.

This is correct. Netbattle/Competitor were always designed as simulations. If they were designed to be exactly the same, then we might as well all be playing the ROMs against each other.

Competitor is Pokemon online battling, no RPG - agreed. But essentially, you are still playing Pokemon, just a cut-down version.

 

[Dragontamer]

Can you honestly say you enjoy training/breeding/grinding your Pokemon?

Well yeah. Its part of the game. Duh :-/ It helps to have a RL circle of pokemon fanatics too however.

EDIT: I should clarify. I have more satisfaction watching the Pokemon I grinded crush others in battle, knowing that I worked hard on them for that slight edge.

 

[Tricky]

I be lying if I said I didn't read RMT topics to know what the common movesets/team patterns to expect are.

 

[EFF]

I personally don't mind the various random aspects of the DS version. Yes, if you want a pure match of player skill, Competitor is a better way to get there, but even then, random effects from moves come into play. Randomness is a part of almost any game, from Poker (or anything using a deck of cards, for that matter) to Risk (anything with a pair of dice), all games considered classic and highly competitive. Sure, players don't enjoy getting screwed by luck, which occurs from time to time. But no one quits those games. Luck is something you accept when you sign up for the game. Pokèmon is the same. There's nothing wrong with a little theoretical play, (what if: I got a perfect hand, the better rolls, a 31 IV spd stat...) but Competitor will never have the complete experience.
And on the topic of "protecting your edge" by hiding secret builds... what's the point? Is someone going to build a team specifically to counter mine? I can see maybe a minor tweaking in tactics, but even still, what have I really lost? Some guy I've never seen before (because, as has been said, RMT scouting is really only useful against new opponents) gets a slight edge. Whoopie. He put in a little extra, he gets a little extra back. But, and this is the important part I haven't lost anything, really. I know how this new guy plays now, after seeing him battle, so in a rematch, we've got an even match again.
True, if you're prepping for an event / tournament, sharing your team with the people you expect to face is dumb. But, at least to me, getting outside opinions from others is worse more than protecting my WFC win/loss ratio.

 

[pervysenin]

-

And for those battles, it is ideal for everyone to start on as even of a playing ground as possible, so that the outcome is decided by the decisions we make before and during the battle, rather than by our Pokemon having slightly better IVs thanks to wasting more time that could have been better spent doing other things in life than trying to get a random number on an RNG.

Like typing out exceptionally long posts?

Edit: Adding topic relevance to avoid pointless spamming.

Competitors great for testing teams, working out statergys, having quick random battles with skilled players, and saving time in general.

Wifis good for using a team you bred yourself and for doing "real" battles with animations and sound effects. (yea its not much but come up with something better) Atm though its time consuming to find people to battle, but PBR should change that with the random battle feature, though I expect that to be run by 12 year olds running teams of poorly trained ubers.

Personally I will use both. Since Im addicted to in-game aspects, especially the cursed wifi battle tower, I do breed pokes. But I'm not about to waste time breeding statergy specific pokes when I have no idea how the stratergy actually works in a real battle. The only real gripe I have about competitor is that after awhile most teams will become a collection of pokes/movesets thought out by distinguished players. Ironically, my main problem with wifi is that a lot of the people I have battled arnt that skilled in general.

In the end, however, the whole debate is up to personal preference; there is no "right" or "better" way to go per se. Why not just throw up a poll and see what the masses think of the matter?

 

[Gmax]

lol, Dragontamer, from the amount of time you seemingly put into catching and breeding a pokemon, if you utilised half of it battling or coming up with strategies, you could've been a much better player. And hats off to McGraw. This and the Game Theory are wonderful reads.

 

[McGrrr]

The playing field of Pokemon is inherently balanced because anything you can do to "beat the odds" (IV resetting or breeding, etc. etc.) can be done by anyone else for that matter, while the probability of beating the odds without putting forth that work is massively massively small.

You cannot argue that Pokemon is inherently a level playing field. Individuals have different amounts of leisure time, and value those hours differently too. Clearly those with more leisure time, and those who value their time less, have an advantage. Competitor removes this disparity.

Luck is something you accept when you sign up for the game. Pokèmon is the same... And on the topic of "protecting your edge" by hiding secret builds... what's the point?... Some guy I've never seen before (because, as has been said, RMT scouting is really only useful against new opponents) gets a slight edge. Whoopie... I know how this new guy plays now, after seeing him battle, so in a rematch, we've got an even match again.

I agree it makes little difference in a one off battle, but this is shortsighted. Edge is long term, where luck is irrelevant. For the rematch, he knows you that you know? etc. Experience works both ways. You also digress.

Like typing out exceptionally long posts?

Trolling a moderator without anything relevant to say is probably not a good idea.