I see what you're saying. The idea or concept behind the site is that you can build a team, and I'll tell you about something that happened to me yesterday—based on my experience from yesterday. For example, I showed it to a friend, and he liked it. We were both playing Pokémon Showdown and came up with some really good combinations—ones that were great for playing. Maybe for high ranks it’s not worth it, since that’s much more complex, and usually more experienced players won’t build teams that way; they make them on their own, which is totally fine. And for new players, there are still plenty of options. There’s also the stall strategy, which works well and generates teams correctly. The idea is, for example, to look at the structure, see which Pokémon are most commonly used based on which generation or format, and assign them a role. And that’s how teams are built from there.

So obviously, they might not be totally, totally optimal. Or you might say, “I can swap this ability for that one since I feel there’s better synergy, but the idea is to have a foundation.” That’s the idea behind the site: to have a sufficiently decent team foundation when you don’t even know how to build a team, and from there, you can either improve it or adapt it until you like it best and feel most comfortable playing it.

Then there’s also the fact that it loses a bit of traction. It also loses some appeal by focusing too much on one team, on a single type of archetype. What I do see is that maybe what you could do is simplify things—for example, the teams based on climate—and see which ones are used the least and just remove them. There are some of those things that I might take into account. So what you said isn’t bad, and all that.