Not likely.Are there any suspects in the foreseeable future?
gimmicky strats and traditional singles walls are countered easily in doubles with the use of taunt, fake out, simply ignoring the passive mon, and even double targeting (attacking one opponent with both of your mons.) any doubles player that is either: somewhat decent and / or knows the specific nature of the gimmick they are fighting can very easily take advantage of passive mons like shuckle, or the gimmick in question, in order to set up their own sweeper or simply move towards their win condition. i dont know about snorlax specifically, but my guess is that it requires way too much set up and team support (bd + tr, im assuming.) i dont doubt that someone reached 1600s on ladder with these techniques because many ladder players do not necessarily meet the aforementioned criterea. you can read my post on defensive mons in doubles for more information on this topic.Why are Snorlax, Shuckle, and guard split not viable in this format? Someone claims to have used them to reach 1600 on the ladder.
I'd attribute the gimmicks to the fact that most of the ones you see are ether only possible in doubles, or far easier in it. VGC may not be an option sometimes due to the restricted movesets, but im currently under the impression that it's ladder is pretty similar.So is there any reason why the ladder is so different from what the viability rankings would suggest? Is it just lots of poor players, some serious people particularly enjoying one archetype, or what?
There are several different reasons for the phenomenon you have observed. First, yes, the ladder has a number of poor players, in addition to some good ones. There are a lot of literal kids just having fun, who never read the VR, and there are people who primarily play in OU or other metas just trying out doubles with mons they like. There are a number of gimmicks that are only viable in doubles. Beyond that, there are some mons that may be more interesting/fun to play than others. Among the ones you mentioned, Regieleki is ridiculously fast and powerful, Whimsicott has prankster and beat up, Tyranitar is a weather setter (especially important in doubles) and Dracovish is super powerful when it outspeeds. Very good players can play around these mons better than your average ladder denizen, making them less attractive for the VR. Spectrier only has one strong attacking move and can feel one dimensional, though it's very good when played right. However, when constructing teams, you also also have to look at possible substitutes. Spectrier can hit psychic and ghost types super effectively. Well, Incin can do that and so much more. So even most very good players end up picking Incin over Spectrier for their balanced team.So is there any reason why the ladder is so different from what the viability rankings would suggest? Is it just lots of poor players, some serious people particularly enjoying one archetype, or what?
That's a great question!I've been considering building a team around meteor beam Celesteela and have been looking at the various sets. I've noticed that the speed evs often used are 80, 92, and 216. What are the intended pokemon each speed creep is meant to outpace for these variations on ev investment?
It does have one! It's in the OP of this thread too, but here's a direct link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0d62ONXlMlnwyRrokBXl7c-t8/edit#gid=1495081247Also is it possible double OU will someday have a speed tier resource like other tiers?
I think beat up plus terrakion can be good if set up properlyI think simple beam + Regigas can be good if set up properly
yes it can be powerful but for beatup i would choose whimsicootI think beat up plus terrakion can be good if set up properly
I, uh, don't think this note is necessary anymore.Also note that if you have a Pokemon holding a Choice Scarf, Dynamaxing that Pokemon will cause it to lose the Speed boost from the Choice Scarf.
If you use a spread move, yes. For example, a Diancie using Diamond Storm against a Pressure Dusclops and a Pressure Suicune will lose 3 PP (2 additional PP loss.) However, Pressure is based on being targeted, so if the Diancie simply uses Moonblast, a single-target move, it will only lose 2 PP (1 additional PP loss, since it's targeting only one Pressure user).Does pressure stacks in doubles ?
I ve been participating in the Random Doubles Open, and over there from best of 16 on its best of 5. To be fair, it being a random format does imply a lot more rng, but making the finals best of 5 is definately reasonable, the random crit or freeze is still very noticeble.All DOU tournaments could be improved with a relatively small change. For ease of explanation I'll focus just on seasonals but it should be obvious how this can translate into other circuit tournaments.
In pretty much every major sport (and esports, chess, etc) the number of games needed to win a set increases as the tournament progresses. Best of 3 is a sweet spot the Pokemon community has decided on that doesn't require an obnoxious amount of prep but still is more consistent than a best of 1. And for the most part, this is fine and good. Increasing to a best of 5 or 7 would lead to the better player winning a higher percentage of the time, but the extra work required to make it happen usually isn't worth it.
The key word there being usually. As the tournament gets to later and later stages, the importance of decreasing variance is magnified. The expected gap in skill between two players shrinks as the bracket thins out, meaning more games are required to truly determine who the better player is.
The MLB is a great example of this. Regular season games are a best of 1, wild card rounds are best of 3, then playoffs move to a best of 5, and the finals are a best of 7. This inverse relationship between contestants remaining and number of games per set is seen everywhere, and also goes a long way towards building hype.
Now, bringing things back to Pokemon. By the time the finals come around, it's reasonable to start upping the bar and requiring players to prep for a longer set. This yields a fairer set that's less influenced by factors outside of the players' control, and also makes the finals stand out as compared to every other round (currently, seasonal finals are a bit lame. This is coming from the person who won the last one).
So the point I'm making: Tournament finals should be a best of 5, not a best of 3. There might be some value in coming up with a more complex structure that moves from best of 1 to 3 to 5 to 7 like baseball does, but I think even just making the final round slightly longer will go a long way to making the tournament more legitimate and more fun to watch.