>>47665721people keep saying he got debunked or argued against but his argument still hasnt been addressed yet. replies that just restate a point he wasnt trying to make such as
>>47665757or replies trying to be snarky without arguing like
>>47665752just further validate it.
his argument from the start was that /vp/ anons consider things counters because they play in a vacuum where all it takes is one damage calc or one gimmick move that you have to base your whole team around to stop a pokemon. realistically pokemon singles cant be boiled down to posting a single counter strategy because the opponent has a gameplan to get his pokemon past your 1v1 scenario where you win. to this point, i would say that its unfair to speculate that the opponent will always play optimally and invalidate your counter every game. if the opponent is going to outplay me every time and kill my counters then why play the game? why not just quit at team preview if they know every move im gonna make, get a full field of hazards, know im going to never send in my melmetal "as your opponent takes advantage of your refusal to use a bulky steel type that hits hard", etc. adding these factors to the game of an omnipotent opponent is just as cheap as arguing from a 1v1 vacuum. should i make a team of only cloyster counters so my omnipotent opponent cant just kill melmetal and win?
i will agree that low elo turn by turn thinking that doesnt consider wincons or team comps is common on /vp/ but thats just a flaw of the game being so variable and /vp/ assuming you can play well enough to keep your counter alive.
>hypothetical instead of practicalevery counter has to be hypothetical by nature because if there were practical solutions to the pokemon then it wouldnt be a centralizing or uncompetitive or broken pokemon. it is one of these three because the metagame allows it space to thrive or cant strangle it in the crib so to speak. i dont really understand this criticism of hypotheticals.
