Doubles Usage?

[Viking]

i updated my personnal usage rate, i only take usages from 'confirmed players', who uses specifics doubles teams and not random OU comps.

 

  /*sum = 481*/

 

And i heard some TC members are pretending old players are 'recycling' outdated comps for doubles. So funny how this argument is idiot.

Doubles is a tier that needs differents spreads and sets than in single. 

 

About RNG, the rng is strong in doubles because it's an aggressive tier and when you spam a lot RS Tbolt Muddywater aand these kind of things it's normal that crits, flinch comes out. Single tiers are pretty much stallish so rng sometimes isnt strong enough to help beat a wall.

 

 

 

[OrangeManiac]

@Viking

 

I appreciate the work you're doing, thanks for your personal gathered usage as it surely helps to take a look at current metagame.

 

However, to be able to valuate the metagame officially, give us the damn usage board pls thanks 

[Viking]

Just now, OrangeManiac said:

@Viking

 

I appreciate the work you're doing, thanks for your personal gathered usage as it surely helps to take a look at current metagame.

 

However, to be able to valuate the metagame officially, give us the damn usage board pls thanks 

it isnt the the classical usage format they use here, i'm not sorting by tournament but by player. It's more like a super scout workbook :D

[gbwead]

56 minutes ago, Viking said:

And i heard some TC members are pretending old players are 'recycling' outdated comps for doubles. So funny how this argument is idiot.

Doubles is a tier that needs differents spreads and sets than in single. 

I you say this that means you did not understand my argument. Tyranitar, Salamence, Dragonite, Gengar, Blissey and Snorlax were OU at one point. These pokemons that were bred for an OU meta back in the days would never be used if it wasn't for Doubles tournaments. In that sense, these old OU comps - that had specific sets for the old OU metagames - have been recycled with new movesets and ev spreads into Doubles comps. I don't think there is anything idiotic about that statement.

 

Great work for that gathered usage btw. It is a good idea to not take the usage from the round 1/ round 2 non doubles players.

 

@OrangeManiac

Both JJ and Rendiz have stated in this thread that touching Doubles would be a mistake since the Doubles metagame is in somekind of sweet spot. That is pretty much a "don't fuck with Doubles statement" to me. PBJ stated that removing Metagross from Doubles is not a good idea. LuisPocho said at one point that Metagross' versatility is not an issue. And then we have Doubles players liking the posts of other Doubles players. This leads me to believe that the Doubles competitive scene is super small or that the Doubles competitive scene is uninterrested in discussing Doubles. As for your Zangoose example, it was pretty clear that people did not want it ban since hardly anyone said they wanted it ban. Dodrio and Absol discussions got people riled up really fast. Doubles has been around forever and, in all that time, the community hasn't pushed for any bans. I don't know what you want the TC to do about Doubles when the community has clearly shown throughout history and in this thread some unwillingness to do anything. Usually when people are silent that means they agree with the status quo. Let's wait and see if people bother to participate in this conversation.

[Draekyn]

2 hours ago, gbwead said:

Tyranitar, Salamence, Dragonite, Gengar, Blissey and Snorlax were OU at one point. These pokemons that were bred for an OU meta back in the days would never be used if it wasn't for Doubles tournaments. In that sense, these old OU comps - that had specific sets for the old OU metagames - have been recycled with new movesets and ev spreads into Doubles comps. I don't think there is anything idiotic about that statement.

If some people managed to recycle old comps, good for them. I currently own 33 doubles comps, only 6 of which date back further than Jan. 2015, and I am not the most active doubles player. Most of your arguments are over-exaggerated.

 

2 hours ago, gbwead said:

@OrangeManiac

Both JJ and Rendiz have stated in this thread that touching Doubles would be a mistake since the Doubles metagame is in somekind of sweet spot. That is pretty much a "don't fuck with Doubles statement" to me.

"Don't fuck with doubles" is what you have repeatedly used to refer to what the doubles players are saying. 

How does that compare with what we are actually saying: "Doubles is in a good place right now so it probably doesn't need tweaking, Metagross is high in usage, let's discuss it and ask for the usage table" ?

Once again, exaggerating isn't making a point. Hyperbole can be irritating when used poorly (ask Trump). I suggest you stick to the facts.

 

2 hours ago, gbwead said:

PBJ stated that removing Metagross from Doubles is not a good idea. LuisPocho said at one point that Metagross' versatility is not an issue. And then we have Doubles players liking the posts of other Doubles players. This leads me to believe that the Doubles competitive scene is super small or that the Doubles competitive scene is uninterrested in discussing Doubles.

The fact that we reached a consensus thanks to the sound arguments of the people you mentionned does not mean that "the doubles competitive scene is super small" or "uninterested".

If someone likes another person's post in a tiering discussion it means that their lines of thought are similar, what good would it do to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam? One would have to be a special kind of weirdo to enjoy that kind of discussion, I for one am glad that things don't go that way with doubles.

 

3 hours ago, gbwead said:

I don't know what you want the TC to do about Doubles when the community has clearly shown throughout history and in this thread some unwillingness to do anything.

From what I've gathered from the OP the usage table would be a step in the right direction.

 

3 hours ago, gbwead said:

Usually when people are silent that means they agree with the status quo. Let's wait and see if people bother to participate in this conversation.

What do you believe those 3 pages in a day of people putting up with your nonsense are?

[gbwead]

44 minutes ago, Draekyn said:

The fact that we reached a consensus thanks to the sound arguments of the people you mentionned does not mean that "the doubles competitive scene is super small" or "uninterested".

If someone likes another person's post in a tiering discussion it means that their lines of thought are similar, what good would it do to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam? One would have to be a special kind of weirdo to enjoy that kind of discussion, I for one am glad that things don't go that way with doubles.

You can't have it both ways by saiying TC doesn't care about Doubles and then say don't touch Doubles because it is in a good place. 

 

You also misquoted me; I said the Doubles competitive scene is either small or uninterested in the current discussion. I did not say the Doubles competitive scene is uninterested in Doubles, that makes no sense.

Orangemaniac tried to argue that the doubles competitive scene did not express itself yet, but you just stated they reached a consensus which proves that the competitive scene is either small (if you can reach a consensus with only 5 people speaking) or doubles players don't see anythign wrong with the tier which is fine, even though I think they are wrong.

 

44 minutes ago, Draekyn said:

What do you believe those 3 pages in a day of people putting up with your nonsense are?

When I said "usually when people are silent that means they agree with the status quo", I was talking about the 2 years consensus. Orange expects more conversation, I say if people don't talk that means they agree. You just said the exact same thing I did. So we are on the same page. Before accusing me of talkign nonsense, I strongly suggest reading more carefully what I say instead of assuming the worst when nitpicking.  

 

Edit:

45 minutes ago, Draekyn said:

"Don't fuck with doubles" is what you have repeatedly used to refer to what the doubles players are saying. 

How does that compare with what we are actually saying: "Doubles is in a good place right now so it probably doesn't need tweaking, Metagross is high in usage, let's discuss it and ask for the usage table" ?

Once again, exaggerating isn't making a point. Hyperbole can be irritating when used poorly (ask Trump). I suggest you stick to the facts.

I said "Don't fuck with doubles" as an answer to the "lol fuck doubles" comment of Orangemaniac which is also an hyperbole. I basically answered to an hyperbole with another hyperbole, but I guess there is some kind of irritation double standard that I was not awared of.

Edited December 27, 2016 by gbwead

[Rendiz]

5 hours ago, gbwead said:

Both JJ and Rendiz have stated in this thread that touching Doubles would be a mistake since the Doubles metagame is in somekind of sweet spot. That is pretty much a "don't fuck with Doubles statement" to me.

Urm. I did I or did I not agree with you that some clause changes could be beneficial? Did I not also say that I would be all for BoX format wherever it was applicable but It's not likely to happen in standard officials due to time constraints. I'm not entirely sure how you could consider me to be saying "Don't fuck with doubles". What I am against however is any possible bans since I do not consider any pokemon to be banworthy. Sure metas usage is high but it fills so many roles that nothing else can fill to the point where banning it would most definitely impact doubles in a negative way and then force more stuff to be banned. Doing all this for a meta game that won't necessarily be better doesn't seem very justifiable.

 

And yeah I did like JJs post that said to keep TC away from doubles and if we were to make changes there should be a doubles only TC. This isn't because I'm against any changes being made ever it's just that I don't particularly trust the TC (no offense) to make these decisions without significant input and maybe even votes from more doubles players. Yeah I understand that lots of the TC may understand doubles to some extent but let's be honest not many actually dedicate a lot of time to the tier.

[JIceJDragon]

Haven't been really active the past weeks but I think a small test ban for meta would be fun just to see how teams would be built and how the tier would look competatively...

but overall meta isnt much of a threat and shouldnt be banned because of its usage. There are many ways to kill meta or wall it completely.

Spoiler

The only reason why its usage is so high is because of its ability, high base stats in all stats and movepool, and its typing obv.

Ability: Isn't effective by intimidate which is huge in doubles... ez

 

High Base Stats and movepool: With its high base stats in every stat and its diverse movepool this allows meta to run many different movesets, making it hard to predict a metagross's moveset just by looking at it. It could be special, physical, mixed, wall and with the mixture of items in the game its even more unpredictable

 

Typing: Meta has a weakness of fire and ground... and there aren't many viable pokemon that can use those moves and significantly damage metagross. There are only a few and since this isn't 1v1, you can easily swap out without being ohkod and demolished by fire blast if you predict correctly

 

Weaknesses: Meta has many pokemon that can wall it, but there are meta set's out there that can counterattack these pokemon. The first few pokemon that come to mind are ludicolo, milotic, blastoise and swampert. These pokemon outmatch metagross in a 1v1 match and wall almost anything meta attempts to do. Other pokemon that can wall specific sets of meta are WoWgar, vaporeon, charizard, venusaur, salamence, manectric, aerodactyl.

Honestly have know idea why I typed that up... I got going and couldnt stop. But basically what im trying to say is a small test ban with like a week or two without meta won't kill. Just like one or two tournaments without meta to see how the competative scene is. Meta is a huge part of doubles which is why its usage is so damn high, but thats what was said about any other pokemon before it was banned (especially blissey). But because doubles isn't a huge tier anyway I think it would be fun and very competative to see what can fill the role of metagross temporarily and what strategies can be built to win without using meta.

 

PS: idk if this has been implemented or not, but batonpass should be tested in doubles too... In and out of tournaments

 

PPS: Shit about recycling comps and shit... thats how most players start out with doubles, but as players get more and more involved they develop more stronger and specific pokemon towards the tier just like any other tier or any smart player would. So neither party is wrong... yall gotta stop bashin on each other.

 

Spoiler

if im lucky and they listen to me outta all of dem smart uguus out there, I probably wont even be online to play in that tourney... smh

 

[Gunthug]

Baton pass is 100% legal in doubles and if it isn't currently allowed, that's just a bug 

[Munya]

It should be, unless a player is not selecting ubers when doing doubles.

 

Should be allowed, that is.

[Viking]

i wanna ask why there is not a sleep clause in doubles, i mean being able to spam spore / sleep powder is just gay.

[Gunthug]

6 minutes ago, Viking said:

i wanna ask why there is not a sleep clause in doubles, i mean being able to spam spore / sleep powder is just gay.

I think this is one of the doubles issues that probably does warrant a discussion - the argument I've heard in the past is that it's much harder to keep your sleep-inducer alive long enough to abuse sleep spam. For example, common sleep users like venu and breloom are open to not one but two attacks per turn when trying to use spore/sleep powder, which only works on one target. I mean, even in VGC where dank void hits both opponents, there is no sleep clause. So there's quite a lot of precedent to overcome. However, I do understand those who think it should be banned, since a little follow me support can turn things into a snooze fest which is arguably uncompetitive. But follow me support makes a lot of strategies stronger, so again I dk its probably worth a discussion though.

[RysPicz]

26 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

dank void

@xXBlu3BreathXx xddddddddddddddd

[Moetal]

On 12/26/2016 at 11:57 AM, Maelstrom said:

"Doubles is cool" they said...

@DoubleJ

[BurntZebra]

2 hours ago, Gunthug said:

I think this is one of the doubles issues that probably does warrant a discussion - the argument I've heard in the past is that it's much harder to keep your sleep-inducer alive long enough to abuse sleep spam. For example, common sleep users like venu and breloom are open to not one but two attacks per turn when trying to use spore/sleep powder, which only works on one target. I mean, even in VGC where dank void hits both opponents, there is no sleep clause. So there's quite a lot of precedent to overcome. However, I do understand those who think it should be banned, since a little follow me support can turn things into a snooze fest which is arguably uncompetitive. But follow me support makes a lot of strategies stronger, so again I dk its probably worth a discussion though.

Well let's not look at VGC which isn't a great example for precedent, since all the rules are just kinda made up and there's not much changing them after the fact. As for other doubles metas, ORAS doubles banned dark void as a whole and they banned the use of gravity+sleep moves (I think spore might be complex unbanned since its distribution is so low and it's essentially unaffected by the increased accuracy). So there is some precedent to nerfing sleep in some form or another. And smeargle can no longer learn dark void as of gen 7, so I think both the players and the "developers" realized that sleep was cancer in some form or another. 

 

I guess sleep in doubles somewhat boils down to whether or not it is too rng reliant. There's rng in whether or not sleep powder hits, then there's rng in whether or not a pokemon wakes up in 1 turn or if it has 3 whole turns of sleep. 

[Rendiz]

Now that we are going to be getting doubles usage I feel as though something needs to be pointed out.

 

From the gastly thread:

 

The fact that the main reason used to justify the ban being it had above 50% usage is very worrying when thinking about doubles usage and how high meta is likely to end up when we get the usage. Please don't mindlessly don't push for a meta test, Although I do believe that most of you have the common sense not to do so.

[OrangeManiac]

5 minutes ago, Rendiz said:

Now that we are going to be getting doubles usage I feel as though something needs to be pointed out.

 

From the gastly thread:

 

The fact that the main reason used to justify the ban being it had above 50% usage is very worrying when thinking about doubles usage and how high meta is likely to end up when we get the usage. Please don't mindlessly don't push for a meta test, Although I do believe that most of you have the common sense not to do so.

 

Over 50% usage shouldn't be a reason to justify a ban but it definitely should raise a discussion about what are the reasons for this high usage. I know what comes to Metagross it's highly due to Intimidate being so prevalent in Doubles and this resulting in breaking Blissey very hard. Metagross is the only Pokemon being unaffected by this, hence its popularity. Even though I personally am pushing for a discussion, I am perfectly aware what makes Metagross so good. It's just to figure out what the fuck to do and I feel like a discussion is needed to be done in order for Doubles to be considered a more competitive metagame. Just because we didn't do anything isn't a problem but that we actually reached that conclusion with discussions is what would make that result a good one.

Edited January 11, 2017 by OrangeManiac

[Rendiz]

7 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

Over 50% usage shouldn't be a reason to justify a ban but it definitely should raise a discussion about what are the reasons for this high usage. I know what comes to Metagross it's highly due to Intimidate being so prevalent in Doubles and this resulting in breaking Blissey very hard. Metagross is the only Pokemon being unaffected by this, hence its popularity. Even though I personally am pushing for a discussion, I am perfectly aware what makes Metagross so good. It's just to figure out what the fuck to do and I feel like a discussion is needed to be done in order for Doubles to be considered a more competitive metagame. Just because we didn't do anything isn't a problem but that we actually reached that conclusion with discussions is what would make that result a good one.

The main issue I saw was that to my knowledge they banned gastly without even making a discussion thread and then when people voiced their concerns after the fact they were disregarded with "It had 50%+ usage" without any counter arguments for why people wanted gastly to stay. And considering how doubles in the past has often been neglected and is still looked down upon by a certain tier council member I find it very worrying that something like this could be possible. I'm fine with a discussion thread since I'm almost certain on the end result but I just want to make sure no rash action is made.

[OrangeManiac]

Yeah for the record, I don't really understand the decision to just ban Gastly without a discussion thread (especially with the posted reasoning, which for any active LC player it doesn't really make much sense). However, I decided I won't complain about lack of discussion threads anymore because I felt like I was the only one who actually found it wrong that there was no Kangaskhan or legitimate Zangoose discussion prior to the ban. So now on I only comment about the decision itself.

[Bilburt]

Just quit doubles aint even a real tier better to play a real tier @gbwead

[Rigamorty]

Usage wasn't the reason we banned gastly it was more the reason we decided to look at it in particular compared to a lot of the other shit in LC. 

 

If you clicked the link in that post you screen shotted you'd see it was banned as an offensive uber in the tier, not just banned because lol high usage. 

 

Just like how Metagross has radically high usage in doubles meaning it'd probably get a good looking at but not necessarily a ban. Hell people are using its usage when we don't even have official usage for it as an example of why doubles should or shouldn't get looked at as a whole. 

[OrangeManiac]

50 minutes ago, Rigamorty said:

Usage wasn't the reason we banned gastly it was more the reason we decided to look at it in particular compared to a lot of the other shit in LC. 

 

If you clicked the link in that post you screen shotted you'd see it was banned as an offensive uber in the tier, not just banned because lol high usage. 

 

Just like how Metagross has radically high usage in doubles meaning it'd probably get a good looking at but not necessarily a ban. Hell people are using its usage when we don't even have official usage for it as an example of why doubles should or shouldn't get looked at as a whole. 

The thing is Gastly hardly is Offensive Ubers, even if it has such a nice coverage it's irrelevant in a tier like LC where speed is almost all that matters. That's why some people feel like the over 50% usage was the reason why it got banned.

 

Yeah, EndureSalac Gastly was pretty strong because you couldn't Quick Attack it but surprised why other Pokemon (faster than Gastly) didn't start to use the same set.

 

Honestly, for the record, I have no issues with Gastly ban as much as some do. I find it really strong, maybe a bit too much. But when offensive ubers bans happen like this, it's going to cause some backlash.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by OrangeManiac

[LuisPocho]

is there any rule that forbid the council to ban something withouth a discussion thread?

[Rendiz]

7 hours ago, Rigamorty said:

Usage wasn't the reason we banned gastly it was more the reason we decided to look at it in particular compared to a lot of the other shit in LC. 

 

If you clicked the link in that post you screen shotted you'd see it was banned as an offensive uber in the tier, not just banned because lol high usage. 

 

Just like how Metagross has radically high usage in doubles meaning it'd probably get a good looking at but not necessarily a ban. Hell people are using its usage when we don't even have official usage for it as an example of why doubles should or shouldn't get looked at as a whole. 

The problem really isn't the ban itself or why it got banned rather than a lack of a discussion thread. And then when one is made where people are brining up reasons as to why they don't think it should have gotten banned they get shot down with no counter argument, which is where the lol high usage comes in.

 

I must admit I haven't looked much into tiering rules and what constitutes a quick ban or not but from my albeit small amount of knowledge of LC it was a relatively contraversial decision. To be honest this thread isn't the place to be discussing this and I probably shouldn't have posted it here. But it's just a scary thought that things can be banned like that with no discussion and with doubles usage coming soon and with Meta likely being stupidly high I would rather be safe than sorry.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Rendiz

[OrangeManiac]

11 hours ago, LuisPocho said:

is there any rule that forbid the council to ban something withouth a discussion thread?

From this thread:

 

Are there any limits to bans?

After any ban in a specific tier, that tier must wait at least 1 month before they can ban another pokemon. Likewise, before a pokemon can be banned, a discussion thread for that pokemon must have been open for at least one week. It is important to note that a discussion thread does not necessarily mean that pokemon must be suspect tested, which would be a temporary ban; simply a thread discussing the pokemon and informing people that the council are looking at the pokemon.

 

 

The thing is so many people are asking for faster actions which made the council act faster while there still are people who are asking for more moderate approach and not banning things too quickly (like me). What the council is doing is somewhere in between while ultimately neither side is happy.

Edited January 12, 2017 by OrangeManiac