Havens
WGI World Champion
Before I answer, I'd like to note that the point of our constructive criticism is not to insinuate that what you're saying is "utterly wrong", but rather we're trying to respectfully explain the faults in your reasoning. Certainly we can all be civilized in participating in healthy discussion without feeling attacked and bitter, no? While I don't necessarily agree with how some of these people express their discontent, that doesn't mean that I disagree with the base of their argument.
That being said, personal experience is can be, but isn't a true, defining factor when determining when a set is bad or not. You can use your own personal experience with a set to persuade someone to try them out WHEN you provide reasonable evidence with replays on ladder, seasonal replays, or various other tournament replays that showcase what these sets do firsthand, which is something that I'd like to see. Telling us to "try it out to prove your point" as a shot in the dark off of baseless claims does nothing but generate discontent and just rubs people the wrong way. Arguing about why "you're" right doesn't assist the situation better, as I'm watching this conversation escalate from persuasion of sets to attacking people, which is something that I know doesn't have to happen. Again, we can all be civilized here, no?
Lastly, if these sets are powerful and useful to a point where you believe they should be utilized by many, what makes them superior to any of our Ghost-type analyses on site? Take these Ghost analyses for instance with some of the pokemon that you listed:
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/gengar/monotype/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/doublade/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/mimikyu/monotype/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/gengar/monotype/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/cofagrigus/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/mismagius/
Keep in mind that these kinds of analyses are reserved for the best pokemon in each type and are reflective of the state of the current metagame based on their viability. Also note that some of the pokemon you listed; Doublade, Cofagrigus, and Mismagius don't have any Monotype analyses currently on site, and are either ranked very low on the Viability Rankings, or not ranked at all. We'll be happy to try out the sets you listed, however the Viability Rankings is a very good indicator of what is useful in the current metagame or not, and is a standard for many willing community members to gauge what is good and not in the current metagame. If two out of the three mons you listed for example are unranked and one has a very low VR ranking, saying that they're undiscovered and claiming that they're better than what they seem sounds and looks misleading when an uninformed community member is building such a team for the first time. If you feel as if these sets can be used, come talk to any of the C&C team and we'd be happy to explain why we could use those sets of yours to write up (or respecfully communicate why we won't).
If I'm being honest, I tried a few of those mons myself in the way that you described, and I'm going to be honest with you and say that I really have no idea what the actual point of these sets are. Hardly any of these have any applicable use in the current metagame, most of them are just max / max spreads with no real purpose (and not even using the remaining 4 EVs either umu), and I'd firmly say that these sets are rather inferior on a type that is already really inferior in the current metagame. While I can respect the fact that you want us to explore utilizing Ghost teams further, and I applaud your bravery in doing so, I'm going to have to say that none of these sets are really outstanding to me that I'd be willing to use them, even casually. I'd be more than willing to try them again once there's more factual evidence and replays to support your claims, and don't let us dissuade you from posting.
That being said, personal experience is can be, but isn't a true, defining factor when determining when a set is bad or not. You can use your own personal experience with a set to persuade someone to try them out WHEN you provide reasonable evidence with replays on ladder, seasonal replays, or various other tournament replays that showcase what these sets do firsthand, which is something that I'd like to see. Telling us to "try it out to prove your point" as a shot in the dark off of baseless claims does nothing but generate discontent and just rubs people the wrong way. Arguing about why "you're" right doesn't assist the situation better, as I'm watching this conversation escalate from persuasion of sets to attacking people, which is something that I know doesn't have to happen. Again, we can all be civilized here, no?
Lastly, if these sets are powerful and useful to a point where you believe they should be utilized by many, what makes them superior to any of our Ghost-type analyses on site? Take these Ghost analyses for instance with some of the pokemon that you listed:
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/gengar/monotype/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/doublade/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/mimikyu/monotype/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/gengar/monotype/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/cofagrigus/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/pokemon/mismagius/
Keep in mind that these kinds of analyses are reserved for the best pokemon in each type and are reflective of the state of the current metagame based on their viability. Also note that some of the pokemon you listed; Doublade, Cofagrigus, and Mismagius don't have any Monotype analyses currently on site, and are either ranked very low on the Viability Rankings, or not ranked at all. We'll be happy to try out the sets you listed, however the Viability Rankings is a very good indicator of what is useful in the current metagame or not, and is a standard for many willing community members to gauge what is good and not in the current metagame. If two out of the three mons you listed for example are unranked and one has a very low VR ranking, saying that they're undiscovered and claiming that they're better than what they seem sounds and looks misleading when an uninformed community member is building such a team for the first time. If you feel as if these sets can be used, come talk to any of the C&C team and we'd be happy to explain why we could use those sets of yours to write up (or respecfully communicate why we won't).
If I'm being honest, I tried a few of those mons myself in the way that you described, and I'm going to be honest with you and say that I really have no idea what the actual point of these sets are. Hardly any of these have any applicable use in the current metagame, most of them are just max / max spreads with no real purpose (and not even using the remaining 4 EVs either umu), and I'd firmly say that these sets are rather inferior on a type that is already really inferior in the current metagame. While I can respect the fact that you want us to explore utilizing Ghost teams further, and I applaud your bravery in doing so, I'm going to have to say that none of these sets are really outstanding to me that I'd be willing to use them, even casually. I'd be more than willing to try them again once there's more factual evidence and replays to support your claims, and don't let us dissuade you from posting.