Which format feels more limiting?

[Alfieri]

When it comes to competitive battling, the majority mindset is to use what works because we're here to win. As a result, sometimes I feel that it is hard to come up with teams. There are many Pokemon to choose from but compared to the cream of the crop, they're more likely to get rekt. Like if you don't have this certain Pokemon on your team, you have a smaller chance of winning matches.

It's something I've thought about after seeing this image:
https://i.imgur.com/ZqjqbxH.png

Having to say Rotom-Wash is a unique choice is rather ironic.

 

[Nah]

The reality is that we're playing a game that is not 100% balanced for competitive play, so naturally some things are going to be better than others, and people playing to win are going to use the "best" things to improve their odds of winning. Not like anything will ever be truly 100% balanced, it's sorta humanly impossible to achieve perfection, and some traits are always going to be more desirable than others (like how in Smash Bros mobility is a hugely important trait and most characters with average or worse mobility are going to suffer and their strengths usually never quite make up for it).

It's not like you can't win with less good 'mons though.....but like I've said before, the majority of players lack the skill to do so and so it's easier and more profitable to do tried and true cookie cutter ****.

Though your thread title makes it sound like you're talking about singles and doubles and what is inherently limiting about them. Both formats are restricted to some degree by the sheer number of threats we have these days as well as the power creep that's been happening since Gen V. Singles is a very switching based meta, but that gets hindered by the fact that your switch-in may have to eat a lot of damage coming in and that it's hard to cover 4328975492 threats with just 6 Pokemon. And then there's Stealth Rock and Shadow Tag. Doubles is restricted by threat number and power creep in the sense that it's pretty much impossible to use a team more defensive than balance.

or something, I think i'm kinda of rambling here

 

[Zeffy]

Like if you don't have this certain Pokemon on your team, you have a smaller chance of winning matches.

I don't think this is true. I think it's more like: if you don't have a check/counter to this certain Pokemon on your team, you have a smaller chance of winning.

 

[skyburial]

In VGC, it's not just a matter of having a counter to a particular mon, but rather multiple answers to that mon and all of its partners, so that if one of your counters goes down, you can adjust and take the win. Switching is not as frequent as it is in singles, so board presence is of the utmost importance, and getting tunnel vision on countering a single team can really set you back against other team configurations.

The meta adapts. Porygon2 and Azumarill have both become popular counters to CHALK (Shota's loving terminology for his worlds team). I've been laddering pretty well with a Mega Charizard X/Mienshao combo. There are players at the top of the BattleSpot ladder running Assault Vest Metagross and Breloom. Volcarona is getting popular again.

You've just gotta keep at it, keep an open mind, and most importantly don't write something off just because it's common. The odds are very minimal that you will find the next Pachirisu.

Misleading thread titles FTW.