Smogon or VGC?

[PeytonFryer]

So I've seen quite a bit of conflict on the internet about which competitive format is considered superior, Smogon or VGC. I'd like your opinion on this. Which format do you think is better and why do you think so?

Personally, I really like both of them. They certainly have there own strengths and weaknesses (Like using the same 12 pokemon every VGC tournament. I mean seriously?), but I legitimately enjoy both of them and I don't usually have a problem switching between the two.

 

[3905]

I'm a fan of both as well, however I play with Smogon tiers more because it's a much simpler format for online comunities to follow while VGC has changes yearly.

VGC is technically the "official" way to battle competitively however Smogon provides a more balanced scope of it.
@Moody Smeargle >_<

 

[Zukrad]

So I've seen quite a bit of conflict on the internet about which competitive format is considered superior, Smogon or VGC. I'd like your opinion on this. Which format do you think is better and why do you think so?

Personally, I really like both of them. They certainly have there own strengths and weaknesses (Like using the same 12 pokemon every VGC tournament. I mean seriously?), but I legitimately enjoy both of them and I don't usually have a problem switching between the two.

In the high competitive scene, this conflict doesn't exist, there is no superior metagame
VGC is an official metagame created by Gamefreak
Smogon is an official metagame created by the players

imo, I like smogon singles a little better, since I'm better at singles than doubles, but I also play VGC a little bit

 

[Mr. Kream]

Most of the complaints you find toward Smogon online are people who dislike restrictions, or ppl who have issues with organized sets and tiers, and most of the time, those ppl aren't very good themselves. Rarely you'll find someone like myself, who's only real issue with them is their use of the word "viable," but he's right, the more you play, the more you realize that the ppl that spend the most time winning on both sides of the spectrum are the same ppl. Neither is better than the other, and having a preference over one or the other won't make you better or worst, but playing within any ruleset can can stand to make you significantly better quite fast. So whomever the player, I'd tell you to pick one and move on.

It's funny to note that the only real complaints that you see towards VGC online is when the former of whom I've mentioned get to talking too much, and Smogon players and VGC players alike come together to shut them down... There may be more examples of this across the web than there is hatred toward either meta, but either way, a question like this has no meaning; if you're going to play the game, play the game, worry about other ppl's nonsense later.

 

[Zukrad]

Most of the complaints you find toward Smogon online are people who dislike restrictions, or ppl who have issues with organized sets and tiers, and most of the time, those ppl aren't very good themselves. Rarely you'll find someone like myself, who's only real issue with them is their use of the word "viable," but he's right, the more you play, the more you realize that the ppl that spend the most time winning on both sides of the spectrum are the same ppl. Neither is better than the other, and having a preference over one or the other won't make you better or worst, but playing within any ruleset can can stand to make you significantly better quite fast. So whomever the player, I'd tell you to pick one and move on.

It's funny to note that the only real complaints that you see towards VGC online is when the former of whom I've mentioned get to talking too much, and Smogon players and VGC players alike come together to shut them down... There may be more examples of this across the web than there is hatred toward either meta, but either way, a question like this has no meaning; if you're going to play the game, play the game, worry about other ppl's nonsense later.

Exactly

There is aslo the thing that people think that when a Pokémon is in a low tier, is because Smogon says is bad, but is not like that. A lot of viable Pokémon are actually in lower tiers, not because they are bad, but because they are not used, and this is a lot of times because that certain Pokémon is so niche that needs a team made for him (Like Kabutops, that is really good, but needs to be on Rain, or else is trash) or does well, but there is someone that does the same, but better (Like Umbreon that is a nice Pokémon, but Clefable does what Umbreon tries, but better)

 

[Mr. Kream]

Yes, and like Jolteon and Raikou, who even get the same move pools, there are a million examples of that throughout all the tiers. My issue with the word stems from its definition, and the implications of how things not listed with the word should be ignored--imo it leaves us open to possible holes in our gaming, like things we could be doing and don't do, or having vulnerabilities to things we're ignoring.

It may be a matter of linguistics, but, at the very least, playing what's viable isn't the way I learned, which was through trial and error with the tools I needed. And for many others, such is the same, like with former champs wielding Wiggly and Pachi, or in Eastern styles of play, which I don't interact with as often as I'd like, where defensive play and stalling are common ground. Suggestions of viability, can dull the use of these things and the appropriate need for counters. We should play in ways where we are ready for whatever may come our way.