Jump to content

Doubles Usage?


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, gbwead said:

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.
     

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Even though you obviously should be entitled to your opinion most definitely, it's the fact that if you do nothing regarding tier management of Doubles - no one can. (You as in all 8 members of TC). You should be representing the community and basically if all 8 of you said "lel fuck Doubles" you would represent the whole community implying that no one in the community cares for Doubles. Basically doing so you invalidate the whole position you've been named to - as the leaders of community regarding tier management. This is what I have a problem with, not you representing your own opinion regarding something.

 

I personally see the first 2 rounds of OU with much less skill than Doubles in terms of both teambuild and overall playing but for the sake of argument let's say people prepare less for the Doubles tournament than Singles and bring their Singles mon. To me this argues way more that there is no reason to invest for Doubles comps because of the neglecting it gets, but people like to play the Doubles format so they join even with bad Pokemon. If you would actually treat it as a legitimate metagame, maybe people would be more interested about it? Isn't it kinda never-ending cycle that "let's ignore it because it's not popular"? The fun thing is, NU used to be that format as Doubles is now. Laughed upon, not called a real tier. Called useless. And look at now? It's the favorite tier for many players.

 

Also you're strawmaning my "matches are never over" argument. It's not because of RNG, it's because with actual plays and predictions you can change any match around. Unlike singles which is often decided by that one crucial crit on that needed counter.

 

P.S.

 

Could please stop calling Doubles as anything "wannabe"? Thanks.

 

 

 

Edited by OrangeManiac
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Rendiz said:

Fuck the silly table. Could somebody just post the raw numbers or is it not possible?

My understanding is that the raw data is not accessible to anyone - including TC - unless it is put into a table. The usage gathering is automatic, but not usage displaying.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, gbwead said:

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.
     

Please, do tell me how this differs from any other tier... noobs are in every tournament during the first few rounds... welcome to MMO

 

Also, the vast majority of the succesful doubles playerbase was not around before the breeding update, this isnt an argument, quit spewing nonsense

 

 

24 minutes ago, gbwead said:

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.

 

RNG has a huge impact in every meta, the RNG counter isnt magically increased for doubles, again this isnt an argument... you get good games and bad games as does every tier, sure its more noticeable in doubles because you are getting twice the moves in a single turn... but doesnt mean its any more prevalent.

 

Doubles is the most skillful mode (tier) in MMO. Sure I get its a skill you are clearly not good at, but doesnt mean you should free-reign spew nonsensical arguments backed up by nothing but theory.

 

 

Orange said just about everything else I wanted to say

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

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.

I actually see it the opposite way - calling doubles a "tier" (or as I've seen more recently, a wannabe tier) actually undermines it because it's much more than just a tier - it's a completely different game format. For that same reason though, we need to be careful when approaching doubles with tiering policy for the singles metagame. I personally think a discussion about metagross wouldn't hurt, but I'm also inclined to agree that high usage doesn't always necessarily mean something is instantly broken. I can 100% see the multi faceted niche that metagross is currently filling, and it seems like a staple of the tier at worst, but not a source of unhealthiness from the matches I've spectated from recent tourneys. A discussion would likely increase the legitimacy of the metagame, as well - even Cody's OU2 had discussion threads (kek)

 

And yeah I disagree pretty strongly with @gbwead regarding the skill involved in doubles, neither singles nor doubles is inherently more skillful than the other IMO. Its just two completely different ways of approaching competitive battling, but both are highly respectable and deserve our attention.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, DoctorPBC said:

@gbwead where are you?

2 hours ago, DoctorPBC said:

Doubles is the most skillful mode (tier) in MMO. Sure I get its a skill you are clearly not good at, but doesnt mean you should free-reign spew nonsensical arguments backed up by nothing but theory.

Knowing how I feel about Doubles, you decided to tag me in a Doubles discussion thread just so you could get personal once I started talking. What kind of low life are you? Anyhow, I don't really teambuild or breed for Doubles because this tier is not that interresting right now. The only Ubers I have are a Jolly 30 speed Dugtrio with reversal as a non-eggmove, a Blissey with Aromatherapy as a non-eggmove and a Tyranitar without Pursuit. I clearly don't spend as much time as you to succeed in Doubles. I paticipate in Doubles officials only because there is no other officials at that time and also because no one in RNG is interrested in Doubles - I don't blame them.

 

2 hours ago, DoctorPBC said:

Please, do tell me how this differs from any other tier... noobs are in every tournament during the first few rounds... welcome to MMO

Do you see people running metang in first rounds of OU officials? No. So why are people running Haunter in Doubles? Because they are playing their OU team... 

 

Imo, the main reasons why Doubles official brackets fill up is because:

  • there are no pokemon restriction and fewer clause restrictions in Doubles;
  • Doubles prizes officials are usually significantly better than other officials;
  • Doubles tournaments are somewhat more rare which makes them a change of pace from what we usully get.
2 hours ago, DoctorPBC said:

Also, the vast majority of the succesful doubles playerbase was not around before the breeding update, this isnt an argument, quit spewing nonsense

Well I said the majority was either one of two things. You just adressed one these things. Since I try to keep up with who wins what in the Best of 2016  thread, I know who wins these officials. Beside YUBEL, K9 and Lkrenz, there is no doubles players that joined after 2014 that are doing well in another tier than Doubles. Since you ranted on how YUBEL and K9 were undeserving for beating you in Doubles, it says a lot about how you feel post 2014 players...

 

2 hours ago, DoctorPBC said:

RNG has a huge impact in every meta, the RNG counter isnt magically increased for doubles, again this isnt an argument... you get good games and bad games as does every tier, sure its more noticeable in doubles because you are getting twice the moves in a single turn... but doesnt mean its any more prevalent.

RNG has a bigger impact in Doubles. There are tons of examples where RNG had a major role to decide the outcome of a duel, but I think the infamous Aerodactyl/DD or Scarf Tyranitar Rock Slide example shows this quite clearly. Flinch is quite good in Doubles. That is why Fake Out is so much used in Doubles unlike other tiers. So it is fair to say that Flinches are overall more impactful in Doubles than any other tier. When we look at Rock Slide now, the move has a 27% to flinch a pokemon in Singles and a 47% to flinch a pokemon in Doubles. So overall, Rock Slide has a better chance to flinch and those flinches are more impactful. 

 

I understand that it takes skills to predict correctly when to protect or sub in Doubles. However, the dmg output when 2 Doubles powerhouses focus a single pokemon is quite overwhelming and the slightest crit makes all the difference in these situations. Once again, I feel for this reason that RNG has a bigger impact in Doubles. 

 

 

2 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

Even though you obviously should be entitled to your opinion most definitely, it's the fact that if you do nothing regarding tier management of Doubles - no one can. (You as in all 8 members of TC). You should be representing the community and basically if all 8 of you said "lel fuck Doubles" you would represent the whole community implying that no one in the community cares for Doubles. Basically doing so you invalidate the whole position you've been named to - as the leaders of community regarding tier management. This is what I have a problem with, not you representing your own opinion regarding something.

 

I personally see the first 2 rounds of OU with much less skill than Doubles in terms of both teambuild and overall playing but for the sake of argument let's say people prepare less for the Doubles tournament than Singles and bring their Singles mon. To me this argues way more that there is no reason to invest for Doubles comps because of the neglecting it gets, but people like to play the Doubles format so they join even with bad Pokemon. If you would actually treat it as a legitimate metagame, maybe people would be more interested about it? Isn't it kinda never-ending cycle that "let's ignore it because it's not popular"? The fun thing is, NU used to be that format as Doubles is now. Laughed upon, not called a real tier. Called useless. And look at now? It's the favorite tier for many players.

 

Also you're strawmaning my "matches are never over" argument. It's not because of RNG, it's because with actual plays and predictions you can change any match around. Unlike singles which is often decided by that one crucial crit on that needed counter.

 

P.S.

 

Could please stop calling Doubles as anything "wannabe"? Thanks.

 

I think you are taking my critique the wrong way. I think Doubles is crap right now because there is no tiering discussion from the TC or the community about Doubles issues. I doubt the TC will take it upon themselves to fix a tier that doesn't interest anyone. I feel it is quite unfair to expect tiering from TC if you guys give us absolutely nothing to be concerned with. It would be nice to get Doubles meta analysis from the community.

 

If people were actually interested, perhaps a discussion thread like the one you just posted would have appeared sooner. It is there now, so please let's keep the discussion going about metagross and all other potential problems with Doubles. Imo, if Metagross goes, I sadly anticipate some follow up bans, but perhaps that is what Doubles needs.

 

I am saying wannabe tier, just because the tier needs work to become somewhat competitevely decent imo.

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment

Image result for triggering intensifies

 

Listen here, I tagged you for the rofls... I already am well aware of your stance and obvious bias against doubles, its clear for both myself and every other player who has commented against you in this thread

 

Consider my like on your post my little way of saying that im pre over this argument, you win... GGs

 

Also @LionKIng, told you nobody in RNG liked doubles... to think that you were all ready to "welcome me with open arms" hue

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

Do you see people running metang in first rounds of OU officials? No. So why are people running Haunter in Doubles? Because they are playing their OU team... 

I have seen this before. On the same note you can often see a bunch of people bringing UU / NU teams into OU and NU into UU. But honestly this topic is completely irrelevant.

 

11 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I think you are taking my critique the wrong way. I think Doubles is crap right now because there is no tiering discussion from the TC or the community about Doubles issues. I doubt the TC will take it upon themselves to fix a tier that doesn't interest anyone. I feel it is quite unfair to expect tiering from TC if you guys give us absolutely nothing to be concerned with. It would be nice to get Doubles meta analysis from the community.

 

If people were actually interested, perhaps a discussion thread like the one you just posted would have appeared sooner. It is there now, so please let's keep the discussion going about metagross and all other potential problems with Doubles. Imo, if Metagross goes, I sadly anticipate some follow up bans, but perhaps that is what Doubles needs.

 

I am saying wannabe tier, just because the tier needs work to become somewhat competitevely decent imo.

I'm honestly not sure what work you think it needs to be done, because I really don't see anyone complaining asking things to be banned because nothing seems restrictive or overpowered enough to warrant this. And based on some of the previous bans and constant tier shifts in the other meta games I'm not sure it would be beneficial in any way, and any changes would probably destabilize the format massively and would very likely to be extremely detrimental. As far as I see it the only things that I think are arguably problematic is the lack of sleep clause but outside of that I've never once thought of anything I've seen to be overpowered or restrictive enough to warrant a discussion let alone a ban.

Link to comment

@DoctorPBC

I never said we liked Doubles. There are no savages in RNG; we respect each other even when we disagree and I really don't see how us not liking Doubles would make us not welcoming.

 

1 minute ago, Rendiz said:

I really don't see anyone complaining asking things to be banned because nothing seems restrictive or overpowered enough to warrant this. And based on some of the previous bans and constant tier shifts in the other meta games I'm not sure it would be beneficial in any way, and any changes would probably destabilize the format massively and would very likely to be extremely detrimental.

I think it is utopic to think Doubles upon its creation was perfectly balanced and never ceased to developped in the most competitive environment possible. That is simply not the case, there is a lot of centralisation and rng factors that are quite problematic imo.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Love doubles or hate it, the fact of the matter is it's important in PokeMMO.

 

The format has been around forever, on showdown and PokeMMO and although it doesn't get as much love as the primary tiers(could be down to less officials given to doubles) it is a tier played in TTs which will always make it important.

Edited by KaynineXL
Link to comment
1 minute ago, gbwead said:

I think it is utopic to think Doubles upon its creation was perfectly balanced and never ceased to developped in the most competitive environment possible. That is simply not the case, there is a lot of centralisation and rng factors that are quite problematic imo.

I don't think Doubles is perfect. But I do feel like the tier is in a good spot. Not perfect, but good. Let's say there is a perfect hypothetical sweet spot where its possible to have almost no centralization and limited rng. Looking at the current meta I think the amount to be banned to achieve that would end up being considerably large to the point where it wouldn't even be recognizable comparable to the current meta game. To strive for this hypothetical perfect meta where we would likely have to ban out a huge amount of mons and destabilize the tier for a massive amount of time when the current meta is already in a fairly good spot doesn't seem like a great idea. That is even thinking that we can hit this hypothetical perfect tier which considering how this game has been out for ages and yet we have never hit it in any other tier seems very unlikely.

 

And saying there are rng factors that are problematic is pretty meaningless. There has been a discussion to ban Swagger and to complex ban body slam on lax to try and reduce rng and its been made pretty clear that banning things simply because they are obnoxious and rng related is not going to happen. rng in doubles sucks but it is perpetuated by how doubles is typically more offensive than singles which is one of the main draws, to change this would again likely be detrimental to the tier. Yeah rng is a fucking uguu and in recent history I've been rnged out of way more than my fair share of tournaments but I still think you are somewhat overplaying its magnitude in comparison to singles. Even if this wasn't the case doing drastic fundamental changes to the format just to lower rng seems extremely unlikely and really not that necessary outside of sleep clause.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Rendiz said:

I don't think Doubles is perfect. But I do feel like the tier is in a good spot. Not perfect, but good. Let's say there is a perfect hypothetical sweet spot where its possible to have almost no centralization and limited rng. Looking at the current meta I think the amount to be banned to achieve that would end up being considerably large to the point where it wouldn't even be recognizable comparable to the current meta game. To strive for this hypothetical perfect meta where we would likely have to ban out a huge amount of mons and destabilize the tier for a massive amount of time when the current meta is already in a fairly good spot doesn't seem like a great idea. That is even thinking that we can hit this hypothetical perfect tier which considering how this game has been out for ages and yet we have never hit it in any other tier seems very unlikely.

 

And saying there are rng factors that are problematic is pretty meaningless. There has been a discussion to ban Swagger and to complex ban body slam on lax to try and reduce rng and its been made pretty clear that banning things simply because they are obnoxious and rng related is not going to happen. rng in doubles sucks but it is perpetuated by how doubles is typically more offensive than singles which is one of the main draws, to change this would again likely be detrimental to the tier. Yeah rng is a fucking uguu and in recent history I've been rnged out of way more than my fair share of tournaments but I still think you are somewhat overplaying its magnitude in comparison to singles. Even if this wasn't the case doing drastic fundamental changes to the format just to lower rng seems extremely unlikely and really not that necessary outside of sleep clause.

In most competitive games where RNG is quite impactful, competitions usually involves best of 3, 5 or 7 to prevent RNG to determine randomly who is the winner. Changes to the tier doesn't have to be banning a pokemon or several pokemons, it can be clauses implementation too.

Link to comment
Just now, gbwead said:

In most competitive games where RNG is quite impactful, competitions usually involves best of 3, 5 or 7 to prevent RNG to determine randomly who is the winner. Changes to the tier doesn't have to be banning a pokemon or several pokemons, it can be clauses implementation too.

I honestly hadn't been thinking along those lines, but that's probably because I doubt it would happen. I'd be all for BoX but I doubt it will ever happen in any standard officials due to time constraints and would be limited to psl and/or seasonal. I've suggested a few times to have more VGC style tournaments to help prevent massive tempo gain / loss purely based off of lead matchup to lower rng but it seems to have fell on deaf ears. Maybe some doubles specific clauses could help if anyone can think of anything that is applicable. But in reality outside of a clause or 2 which likely won't change much there isn't many options to make the tier more competitive without doing some massive overarching changes.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I need to screenshot what you say more often.

I agree that it is sometimes more a hax fest than anything else (the 2 last TTs with Doubles were quite awful). But I guess it's just Pokemon in general. This game will never be extremely competitive. The first prize of world championships is like 10k dollars lol. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, DoubleJ said:

Keep the tier council away from Doubles. They literally know nothing of this tier

True for most of them, I know Riga doesn't know much about it at the moment, also he's bad.

 

1 hour ago, DoubleJ said:

we get more criticism from them than we do for any other tier.

If you are talking about those anti-doubles rants I agree, but we do see constructive criticism coming from the tier council. I think gunthug's post above shows a sound understanding of what the tier is.

Hence why I don't think their input should be neglected altogether, the opinions of one individual, as clear-cut as they may be, don't reflect the opinions of the tier council as a whole, clearly.

 

1 hour ago, DoubleJ said:

It's a different game entirely and a seperate council should be erected to work on doubles, which imo is absolutely fine at the moment. 

Agreed and yeah doubles is in a pretty good place right now, as I've said before it's evolving naturally (without any bans) at a faster pace than the other tiers which is amazing.

Link to comment

My position on Doubles is strictly personal and has nothing to do with me being a TC member. If people wanted some tiering being done with Doubles, nothing would please me more. However, since the majority of doubles players enjoy this status quo metagame, there is truly no point in having tiering discussion. 

 

@OrangeManiac, as you can see, the community is not giving us any reason to look at Doubles. We are not saying "lel fuck Doubles", you guys say "don't fuck with Doubles" for 2 years now. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, DoubleJ said:

Keep the tier council away from Doubles. They literally know nothing of this tier and we get more criticism from them than we do for any other tier.

 

It's a different game entirely and a seperate council should be erected to work on doubles, which imo is absolutely fine at the moment. 

What are you even talking about? I don't speak for the rest of the tier council but I think we're all knowledgeable about doubles. Artemiseta is primarily a doubles player (at least from PSL standpoint). I've played doubles in PSL and have had some tournament success in doubles. Gbwead has had some tournament success with doubles as well. Gunthug is smart enough/has enough common sense to be able to tier for doubles, even if he doesn't actively play comp (aka senile 2.0). I assume the rest of the tier council is up to date on doubles, or if they aren't, then they are free to abstain from discussion/possible votes.

 

I don't really know what you mean by the tier council criticizing you/the community? I certainly haven't criticized anyone about doubles. The closest thing would be gbwead saying that people just join doubles tournaments with chansey/haunter/weezing and that just kind of inflates the number of actual doubles players.

 

I'd love to have separate tier councils for each tier, as having one tier council for ~5 metas/tiers spreads us a bit thin, but I think there is some fear from staff that there is some conflict of interest (I assume anyways), as let's say we have a standard tier council of 7 people for doubles. Then we look at the actual dedicated playerbase for doubles and I'd go out on a limb and say its 20 or less. Then there's probably less than 10 people that actively make comps for doubles and is their main tier. So you need to somehow form a tier council from a super small base of players, which is a recipe for disaster really. This is also assuming that doubles *should* be tiered actually, since if the majority of people agree that there shouldn't be bans in doubles, then there's no point in having a tier council for doubles. 

 

I'd say the most plausible thing that would be done, is if tier council is discussing something doubles related on teamspeak, then we could pull in a few doubles players to give their input/argument/counter arguments to what tier council thinks about an issue. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, BurntZebra said:

(aka senile 2.0).

Hey, lets watch what we say to each other.

 

Just dropping this here but PokeMMO does not currently support "tiers" for doubles.  The discussion is fine I suppose just making sure you are all aware its not currently supported to be a thing.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, gbwead said:

My position on Doubles is strictly personal and has nothing to do with me being a TC member. If people wanted some tiering being done with Doubles, nothing would please me more. However, since the majority of doubles players enjoy this status quo metagame, there is truly no point in having tiering discussion. 

 

@OrangeManiac, as you can see, the community is not giving us any reason to look at Doubles. We are not saying "lel fuck Doubles", you guys say "don't fuck with Doubles" for 2 years now. 

Majority of the Doubles players? As I can see there has been roughly 10 people in total joining this thread by either commenting or upvoting. I know the Doubles demographic is lower than the rest of the tiers but c'mon man. This is like I would say "The majority of the UU playerbase did not want Zangoose to be banned" when there was roughly 4-5 comments in the whole Zangoose thread while the most upvoted one was BlueBreath saying "Well it seems scary without Haunter but let's give it some time" and no one commented to disagree with him. Also there has never been a Doubles Discussion out in public. I am aware you briefly discussed about Metagross back in the day when I was there (a discussion I did not participate because at the time I felt as my Doubles knowledge was not sufficient), but there was never out any public discussion thread. At what part did Doubles players have said "don't fuck with Doubles"? There has not been a single chance to do so. In addition, it's not that Doubles players necessarily want a status quo. As I brought up Metagross Doc explained why he doesn't find Metagross Uber in Doubles. No one said "This is Doubles, we don't talk about bans in Doubles". It's just that current state of the metagame might be the best one we can achieve without a huge number of bans and bans are less noticable and needed to make Doubles enjoyable compared to singles which is unplayable if one Pokemon sweeps without effort.

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.