Jump to content

Doubles Usage?


Recommended Posts

I was wondering why aren't we getting Doubles battles usage statistics while everything else is recorded including Little Cup. I know bans are something we aren't really looking forward to do in Doubles as much as in Singles, but it would be still good to be able to valuate the metagame the metagame through usage statistics.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Tyrone said:

Cause it is a lot of work to make since it's not automatically put into tables.

Looking for automated usage system so that the TC leaders won't have to spend hours on something that could be fairly easily automated.

Wait, what? I thought automated usage gathering was running for a long time now, hence why matchmaking usage is there. Does it only apply to matchmaking but not tournaments?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

Wait, what? I thought automated usage gathering was running for a long time now, hence why matchmaking usage is there. Does it only apply to matchmaking but not tournaments?

I think he means it works for all the other tiers but not doubles.

Link to comment

Doubles usage is collected. But I haven't done anything with those numbers since it seemed a waste of time back then, only a few players would be interested in the numbers.

A staff member can access the raw data for usage though, so you'll have to convince them there is a large enough incentive to do so.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Tyrone said:

Doubles usage is collected. But I haven't done anything with those numbers since it seemed a waste of time back then, only a few players would be interested in the numbers.

A staff member can access the raw data for usage though, so you'll have to convince them there is a large enough incentive to do so.

Just gotta give it to Jice, he loves to sort things out like that.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tyrone said:

Doubles usage is collected. But I haven't done anything with those numbers since it seemed a waste of time back then, only a few players would be interested in the numbers.

A staff member can access the raw data for usage though, so you'll have to convince them there is a large enough incentive to do so.

I strongly think Metagross deserves a forum discussion. Yes, I'm skeptical about the amount of community input but I think this is something to be discussed about. A Pokemon which reaches over 60% usage in my opinion should be discussed by default even if it had good traits for the metagame but Metagross is just ridiculous. Because you can run Protect in Doubles there are little to no drawbacks of running a Metagross because you can never teambuild against it too much without losing massive amounts of coverage against other threats.

 

So yeah for that reason I kinda hope Doubles usage is posted. Idk, just me trying to get a ball rolling to make Doubles an actual diverse tier. Well, more than it is right now.

 

Edited by OrangeManiac
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tyrone said:

Cause it is a lot of work to make since it's not automatically put into tables.

Would it be possible for the TC leader to just post the numbers or would it not work like that in the format? We don't need a fancy table or anything just the numbers would suffice.

 

36 minutes ago, Viking said:

you would be scared about some players personal usages ^^

Do you happen to have my personal usages? If so can you post them would be interesting to see.

 

 

Also on the topic of banning meta I really don't like the idea since it is pretty much the only viable steel type as well as being the only viable psychic type. We already have very little psychic resists as is outside of ttar which needless to say its often not a viable switch and removing meta would be pretty bad. The main 'issue' with meta is that it is able to fill so many different roles, for example its scarf set shits on most offensive teams but vs defensive teams feels really lackluster. But in out current state of having almost no pokemon to play around with there isn't really anything else to put into those roles. It's steel typing allows it to be a much more proactive switch into lots of offensive threats where we really don't have any other alternatives outside of some dumb wall pokes.

 

To me Meta seems like a necessary evil. Even though its usage is high I've never played vs a meta and felt like its too strong and I can't do anything against it. As far as team building goes I find it a lot less restrictive to build around than other pokes that have high usage. I still feel like overall Meta is the best mon in the 'tier' but it really doesn't feel oppressive enough to deserve a ban. Not to mention starting discussion threads / banning mons in doubles sets a bad precedent for the 'tier'.

Link to comment

The reason meta is such high usage is down to a number of factors

 

1: it is the only viable steel type, with scizor not being usable and forretress/skarmory not providing enough offensive output

2: it is one of a small handful of mons that can attack physically without being hindered by intimidate spam

3: godly stats?

 

Meta isnt strong, its just a great mon you can legit fit into most teams, isnt affected by sand, benefits from rain, pivots nicely between offense and defense, can run mixed, special and physical sets, scarf, choice band, agility, specially defensive, physically defensive... you name it.... its just really freakin versatile

 

Not ban worthy, please dont do this

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, DoctorPBC said:

 its just really freakin versatile


yeah, and still its not like you will lose cuz you dont know what kind of meta it is, as happened with stuff like gengar in OU

Edited by LuisPocho
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, DoctorPBC said:

The reason meta is such high usage is down to a number of factors

 

1: it is the only viable steel type, with scizor not being usable and forretress/skarmory not providing enough offensive output

2: it is one of a small handful of mons that can attack physically without being hindered by intimidate spam

3: godly stats?

 

Meta isnt strong, its just a great mon you can legit fit into most teams, isnt affected by sand, benefits from rain, pivots nicely between offense and defense, can run mixed, special and physical sets, scarf, choice band, agility, specially defensive, physically defensive... you name it.... its just really freakin versatile

 

Not ban worthy, please dont do this

I am not saying Metagross is banworthy but when a Pokemon has near 100% usage something could be wrong with the metagame. I don't think anything needs to be banned for the sake of banning but to be considered "an actual tier" having an actual discussion thread for a Pokemon that on paper seems insanely strong is required in my opinion even if people don't think it needs to go. I'm aware Metagross is so good mostly for Clear Body because Intimidate is everywhere but for 90% usage everything needs to be considered. I think the best way to make Doubles seem like a "stray" tier is to just let it be there like no one cares.

Link to comment

As usual I feel it's necessary to point out that doubles is not a tier. It's a completely separate meta game, it doesn't need to behave anything like any of the singles meta games because it's not just another "tier," it is something different altogether 

 

This doesn't invalidate any of your points @OrangeManiac as I think what you're saying about such high usage warranting a closer look is valid. But it's important to understand that at its core doubles is not a tier

Edited by Gunthug
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

As usual I feel it's necessary to point out that doubles is not a tier. It's a completely separate meta game, it doesn't need to behave anything like any of the singles meta games because it's not just another "tier," it is something different altogether 

 

This doesn't invalidate any of your points @OrangeManiac as I think what you're saying about such high usage warranting a closer look is valid. But it's important to understand that at its core doubles is not a tier

When I wrote about Doubles as "an actual tier", yes I'm aware that isn't correct terminologically because Doubles is not tiered but I used that term for lack of a better word. I couldn't say "an actual metagame" because any metagame is a metagame, so I used the word "tier" as a format people play. It's a little bit on play on words where people want to undermine Doubles by saying "it's not an actual tier" by trying to undermine its merits while that is correct technically. I just referred making Doubles as an actual format of play that is taken seriously, which includes taking look at Pokemon that could be too good for the metagame.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, DoctorPBC said:

@gbwead where are you?

I think doubles usage is gathered, but - since it takes a lot of time to put the usage into a table format and since doubles is a crappy wannabe tier - it would just be a waste of time to show doubles usage for the few players actually interrested in that lesser skilled inclined metagame. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I think doubles usage is gathered, but - since it takes a lot of time to put the usage into a table format and since doubles is a crappy wannabe tier - it would just be a waste of time to show doubles usage for the few players actually interrested in that lesser skilled inclined metagame. 

Don't get me wrong, shoutout to Noad to actually making Little Cup usage board because it's obviously helpful but I still find it somehow absolutely ridiculous that the effort is there to make usage tables for everything else but Doubles. Also did you just call Doubles "less skill inclined metagame"? Gb, I'm surprised seeing something this factually incorrect and opinionated comment presented as a seeming fact from someone like you. It's fine if you think that but writing that under "Tier Council" tag seems really really biased approach from someone from such position. 

 

But I'll address why Doubles isn't less skill based.

 

1) Matches are never over

 

I was one of the people to call Doubles "more RNG effected tier" but to be fair, Doubles is the one metagame where no matter what happens you can turn even a 3v6 situation into a victory with the right attacks and Protects. In singles getting crit on that one hard counter to that sweeper may cause a loss. I'd say in this regard singles is more RNG affected.

 

2) You have multiple times more to think every turn

 

This is the reason why I'm on the hype train for Doubles now. I love the fact it isn't such simple that you have a few options to think about but rather dozens of thinks to be considered every turn. Isn't calculating the best out of this MORE skill based?

 

We're comparing apples and oranges here, I'm not saying Doubles on its own is more skill based but I'm saying neither can be called more skill based just because one of the factors is taken into consideration. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

Gb, I'm surprised seeing something this factually incorrect and opinionated comment presented as a seeming fact from someone like you. It's fine if you think that but writing that under "Tier Council" tag seems really really biased approach from someone from such position. 

I don't believe this TC tag means that I am not entitled to my opinion regarding this discussion. I also don't think saying Doubles is crap is factually incorrect:

  • When I look at round 1 of Doubles official tourneys, I see a fair amount of people running their OU team with Haunter and Chansey. Round 1 of official tourneys is not great, but round 1 of Doubles is quite bad. Very few people actually teambuild and breed for Doubles. I think this shows the little interest the PokeMMO players have in Doubles. 
    Most players that - based on merit and not rng hax - win or go far in Doubles brackets are either old players that see Doubles as a good way to recycle their old 2015 OU comps or players that see Doubles as an opportunity (shiny + $$$) in playing doubles because of the severe weakness of that competitive scene.
     
  • RNG has such a huge impact - often detrimental - in Doubles battles. The fact that matches are never over until they actually are doesn't mean much when more often than not this could simply be because how hax can save anyone from the shittiest situation. This doesn't make Doubles mroe competitive, simply more skilless and rng based since the outcome of a duel has more chance to be determined by RNG than any other tier.
     
40 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

2) You have multiple times more to think every turn

 

This is the reason why I'm on the hype train for Doubles now. I love the fact it isn't such simple that you have a few options to think about but rather dozens of thinks to be considered every turn. Isn't calculating the best out of this MORE skill based?

I completly agree with this point, but sadly this is not enough for me to justify the ridiculous amount of praise this wannabe tier is getting. Doubles needs a lot of work tiering wise and community wise before becoming remotely worthy to play. Doubles could be great to play, but sadly this is not the case because the community is not really into that tier despite the amazing tournament prizes of Doubles tournaments.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.