Double Team (take two)

[ZhengTann]

This thread will be moderated to keep discussion focused. ​

After the last discussion clarifying the interactions between Double Team and attacks (come to think of it, we still haven't codify which non-attacking moves could dispel Double Team clones), concern has been raised about Double Team's over-centralization as an uncompetitive move. So here's the current NDA description of Double Team for reference:

The Pokemon rapidly moves back and forth between several locations, creating several illusory clones. The clones make it harder for the opponent to figure out which Pokemon is the real one. Each clone counts as a separate target in addition to the real Pokemon. Single target moves directed at the Pokemon will strike one target, apply an accuracy check for the move to hit and then, unless the move has perfect accuracy, apply another check for if it hits the real target (hit = 100% / # of Targets). If it hits a clone, that clone disappears while all other clones remain. Multi-target moves will target all clones and apply a single accuracy check - this does incur the spread move penalty. Double Team dissipates completely once the real Pokemon is hit. A Pokemon may have up to four clones at a time and may create between 1 and 4 clones for a given use of the move.

Discussion will be split into 2 parts. Let's start off with the following questions:

• Why Double Team is created so (by Deck? or R_D?) in the first place?
  
• How it affects the game as a probability problem?
  
• Does that fit the claim as being over-centralized and uncompetitive?

This is the first stage, where we discuss the motives, not the means, behind balancing Double Team. So please focus your thoughts on that for now. You may not need to answer all the listed questions - you may even post new questions from another perspective to keep the discussion thorough. But, please do read up opinions from other users, even from the Feedback thread in order to keep yourselves up to date. Progress of the discussion will be tracked and recorded in this OP.

EDIT: Second stage of the discussion, focusing on proposed methods to balance Double Team, can be found on post #15.

Fire away ^_^

 

[Dogfish44]

Why Double Team is created so (by Deck? or R_D?) in the first place?

This one's an old traditional one, codified to match common usage. Double Team was one of the first moves quite literally made by the community I believe?

How it affects the game as a probability problem?

Double Team requires you to either play around it (playing spread and perfect acc moves right off the bat) or it eats up a substitution. One of the reasons I've previously pushed for D.T. to be easily breakable was so that situations could arise in which D.T. cannot be used.

Double Team is usually used in 4 Clones. You can realistically predict 1 or 2 dodges out of it (60% to get 2 dodges).

Does that fit the claim as being over-centralized and uncompetitive?

Yes, but no more than a flat evasion boost confers. The difference is in access - we have to acknowledge that every Pokemon in ASB learns this move, so do we want every Pokemon in ASB having access to an easy way to increase evasion and burn through a substitution?

 

[Avnomke]

I'm going to disagree with df's last point. Double Team is a lot more reliable than other evasion boosters, and thus generally preferred over things like Mud-Slap (which a lot of things get) and Minimize. If we make Double Team equivalent to such moves, that would make it less used. (Also, it would still be better than minimize because of the rather large list of things that get double BAP and -- accuracy against minimized opponent)

 

[Gerard]

• Why Double Team is created so in the first place?

Pretty much how the anime has always used it. When you use it you pokemon surrounds the opponent with many dozens of copies of itself, and just like in the anime you're very likely to avoid one if not several of the opponent attacks.

• How it affects the game as a probability problem?

Look at substitutions in all big important matches, if they lack a double team sub is because they use a spread attack, otherwise they got wrecked by double team. It's so omnipresent that subbing for double team has become second nature even if the opponent doesn't have it (I've seen a few matches like this), and going first means having to sub for double team, damaging evasive moves, protect, or something even more dangerous (combinations, taunt, countercoat, bide, etc..)

• Does that fit the claim as being over-centralized and uncompetitive?

Yeah, burning subs is a powerful threat, and while I think it's a good thing so that people will realize that 2 subs is too little and 3 subs be made the standard, I also think it's too much of a deterrent against certain pokemon, I don't think it's uncompetitive but I do think at it's current state it's too much of a low risk, high reward move, with the reward being several free turns, no other move gives you the shot at so many free turns (sleep has a 1/3 chance to give you 1 without factoring accuracy, Encore gives you 1 if used correctly, and... I can't think of another move)

IMO, a simple change to the max amount of clones seems like it could solve eveything, or at least make the move not such of a guarantee dodge. By limiting the max amount of clones to three you get a 75% dodge on the first move & a 66% on the second, so a 49.5% dodge over 2 moves, less than 50 percent. You now have less than 1 in 2 shots at "gaining" an action and even if you're against the most unlucky player ever you have a max amount of 3 dodges instead of 4 like before (With a 25% of failing altogether).

 

[Frosty]

• How it affects the game as a probability problem?

More often than not (60%) it can stop 2 moves from hitting with 1 usage (4 clones). No other move does that (Confusion has 25% of getting that result and Confusion + Paralysis has 56.25% chance). 80% chance of a miss is a huge thing and it even worse when it is followed with a 75% chance. It can't be seen as an evasion move as other evasion moves work their way up in effectivity (assuming further use and ignoring decay), while Double Team already starts up and goes down (assuming no further use). Heck you can probably keep evasion at 66-80% (starting at 80) if you sub accordingly by using double team repeatedly (although that isn't the best course of action...), while with mud slap you would need 6 uses to get to 76% miss (something 1 double team achieves) and 1 use every round to keep that from decaying.

From a strictly mathematical point of view, 4 clones is simply ridiculous.

That is without considering the "competitive factor" as a hax-based win is not something you should bloat. I try as hard as I can to not use them (unless on pike and the like) not (only) due to power, but because their are ass-moves. I don't want to be known as that player that only wins with hax <_<;. But that is me and maybe others think differently.

Sure, evasion being uncompetitive is an old, tough (and unresolved) issue ingame too, so I am not sure if discussing this here is wise (we would need a much broader discussion). The thing about Double Team is that, as it stands, it is vastly superior if compared to...well...anything else in the market ._. be it confusion/evasion/paralysis etc.

 

[Stratos]

fuck double team its why i have to do meteor mash ~ bulldoze ~ meteor mash with kitsunoh and get encored into the bulldoze. this move is seriously shitty and needs an overhaul, no doubt.

edit: did you just say over-centralizing? fukcing lol how can double team be over centralizing. it's just overpowered and shitty

 

[Its_A_Random]

OP obviously has not been paying enough attention to what I said and thought I said that Double Team was over-centralising... LOL

I will let my post in Feedback speak for itself. If I really have to however...

• Why Double Team is created so (by Deck? or R_D?) in the first place?

Because people liked the flavour aspect and whatnot. It was one of those "It seemed like a great idea at the time" effects created by the community whose flaws have not been fully realised until recently.

• How it affects the game as a probability problem?

"At its full use (Four Clones), it has a 60% chance of giving the user at least one "free" action and up to even three free actions if the opponent is ridiculously [lucky]." No other chance-based flail offers such reliability when it comes to buying free actions. Need I say more?

• Does that fit the claim as being over-centralized and uncompetitive?

The only one that is saying it is over-centralised is the OP. A simple Ctrl+F of the Feedback Thread comes up with no results on the relevant page with the search term: "centr". I suggest the OP drops the claims of it being over-centralised as while it can have an influence on action-sets, it does not shape the ASB meta around it, which is pretty much what centralisation means.

Uncompetitive on the other hand—contrary to what some users want to think—is what the current effect of Double Team is to a tee. It is a chance-based flail that is consistent in terms of reliability and buying free actions that it is genuinely uncompetitive and there are no two buts about it. If anyone thinks Double Team is competitive, they will need to come out with a strong, adequate argument real quick as there is enough evidence in theory and in practice to prove that it is anything but.

Yes, but no more than a flat evasion boost confers. The difference is in access - we have to acknowledge that every Pokemon in ASB learns this move, so do we want every Pokemon in ASB having access to an easy way to increase evasion and burn through a substitution?

I respect your opinions but in what way is a flat evasion boost (Assuming like +1 Evasion or Sand Veil in Sandstorm) as uncompetitive as pulling off four clones of Double Team? It is not as consistent as things such as confusion and attract so... ??? Yes, something like Double Team will inherently be degenerate by design but what is the issue with simply making it as inconsistent as possible? I also understand that a simple +1 Evasion has the potential to be abused with Simple and Macho Brace but it is a lot more competitive than four Double Team clones IMHO.

Yeah, burning subs is a powerful threat, and while I think it's a good thing so that people will realize that 2 subs is too little and 3 subs be made the standard, I also think it's too much of a deterrent against certain pokemon, I don't think it's uncompetitive but I do think at it's current state it's too much of a low risk, high reward move, with the reward being several free turns, no other move gives you the shot at so many free turns (sleep has a 1/3 chance to give you 1 without factoring accuracy, Encore gives you 1 if used correctly, and... I can't think of another move)

IMO, a simple change to the max amount of clones seems like it could solve eveything, or at least make the move not such of a guarantee dodge. By limiting the max amount of clones to three you get a 75% dodge on the first move & a 66% on the second, so a 49.5% dodge over 2 moves, less than 50 percent. You now have less than 1 in 2 shots at "gaining" an action and even if you're against the most unlucky player ever you have a max amount of 3 dodges instead of 4 like before (With a 25% of failing altogether).

Simply suggesting that people should do three substitutions as opposed to two is a fallacy. It is like saying "You can prevent people from stalling; Just put a limit on Chills and Recoveries". Not everyone wants to do three substitutions and by the same margin, not everyone wants to play matches with a cap on the amount of chills and recovery moves.

Also, three clones is still too much. A 50% chance of gaining at least one free action is still consistent enough; It has gone from a biased coin-flip in favour of the user to a purely unbiased coin-flip that can still happen too often. Basically, reducing the cap to three clones will not change much at all.

 

[ZhengTann]

Okay fine, I perceived, and implied myself, the over-centralisation part.

... Even if as IAR said it is rather easily counterable, it is so powerful ..... your options are severely restricted JUST because the opponent can Double Team.......

I'll drop the "over" prefix.

But if we focus solely on the "uncompetitive" part, then are we going to ban BrightPowder next? Or Minimize? Will we have to implement an Evasion Clause? Yeah I stand guilty of "shifting focus away from the real issue", but "uncompetitive" should not be the only reason we change the mechanics, IMO. As far as I can see, the issue with Double Team is only this:

... There are many chance based flails to evade something in the game. You have Dodge, the Evasive moves, Sand Veil, Minimise and other things. While most of these are either passive or only take up an action, Double Team is different. At its full use (Four Clones), it has a 60% chance of giving the user at least one "free" action and up to even three free actions...

• Protective/Evasive moves and Dodge can buy every other action free, per use.
• Endure can buy up to 2 free actions, per use.
  
• Double Team can buy up to 4 free actions, per use.

Here's what the probability problem would look like (please correct my formulas if they're wrong):

And I'd like to quote Engi from the last discussion about Double Team, which apparently sat for almost 60 days without contest:

...... At the end of the day, Double Team is simply a high-risk high-reward move that is accessible to virtually every Pokemon. It costs a rather impressive amount of energy to use, and the result is up in the air, which is one of the worst things that you may have to deal with when ordering second. Oh, and you definitely don't want to use it going first. Can it completely screw over the person that ordered before you? Yes. Can it backfire, making you waste 16 EN and an action? Absolutely. I don't think Double Team is overpowered; it's excellent in select scenarios, and there's no need to make its effective situations even rarer.

The key words to me, are "high-risk high reward". IMHO if the risks do not justify the rewards, only then should we consider tinkering until it does.

 

[Its_A_Random]

What is so high risk about spending 16 Energy for a really reliable way to buy three actions? Sure the energy cost might be steep and it might backfire if your opponent is stupidly lucky but not everyone cares about the cost of such a move. As long as it gets the job done in the end, it does not matter one bit.

And seriously, it is called the Slippery Slope Fallacy for a reason. Just because Double Team gets hit, does not mean we will inevitably hit all forms of hax in the book. I called up Double Team because I felt that it is ridiculously uncompetitive and it needs to be addressed. It does not mean if things go my way that I will then call for a hit to Sand Veil, Brightpowder and the like.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Honestly this isn't as big a problem as y'all are making it out to be. There's two alterations I would make that would make it pretty well completely balanced. Limit the clones to 3 max and raise the EN cost to 5 EN per clone. That's a 50% chance of spending 15 EN for one free turn, with a 50% chance of wasting that EN and a 25% chance of wasting the EN and not even getting a free turn to show for it.

 

[Deck Knight]

What's reliable about a move that can be countered by two entire classes of moves: Perfect Acc (which includes things like Hail Blizzard and Rain Thunder) and Spread moves? It's not really a "free" action if it's sparing you four damage from Stone Edge because the opponent used Rock Slide instead. Instead of attacking, you took marginally less damage for a lot more damage than attacking would do.

The origin of double team is inspired by a first season anime episode of Ash's Bulbasaur vs. a Scyther in the Kanto tournament. More recent iterations of Double Team seem to have 20 encircling clones, but that battle basically had 3 independent Scythers attacking Bulbasaur, which was freakin' neat.

IMO the easiest balance is to remove the bit about spread penalty in 1vs1 battles, or up the EN cost per clone. Double Team has ample checks and balances, and unlike in-game it cannot be continuously built up behind something like Substitute to PP stall or Baton Pass out. Part of what makes it high risk, high reward is the very fact it has concrete counteractions which are commonly used attacks that fill in gaps to avoid consecutive EN penalties or are used on their own because of better accuracy that stronger single-target counterparts.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

50% of gaining one free turn vs 60% of gaining 1 free turn

20:52 Gerard 12.5% chance to gain 2 actions vs 40%

20:53 Gerard and you NEVER get more than 2 free actions

Do my proposal of dropping the clone limit and increasing EN, if its still a problem then limit it further. Zero reason to go holocaust on this shit,

 

[Dogfish44]

What's reliable about a move that can be countered by two entire classes of moves: Perfect Acc (which includes things like Hail Blizzard and Rain Thunder) and Spread moves? It's not really a "free" action if it's sparing you four damage from Stone Edge because the opponent used Rock Slide instead. Instead of attacking, you took marginally less damage for a lot more damage than attacking would do.

OK, let's see what we've got here:

• Your situation requires the user of Double Team to be going first (Surprise: Nobody does this because it's a stupid move 99% of the time), or to be going second and actively trigger a substitution (Doesn't happen often). Double Team is more commonly used
• The fact that several moves break Double Team doesn't make it less reliable in a large number of situations where using the aforementioned moves is infeasible (When a KO is not scored, etc.)
• Double Team does not ever need to be used in order to make an impact on a match.

Looking at Double Team, it's main role is two-fold: Substitution Drain is one role, and a Precision Blocking ability that is substantially stronger than any other evasion increase, due to the powerful ability to be timed. As for how to fix this, I'm not sure - as a temporary fix, reducing the cap on clones seems solid. So long as Double Team can act as it does, I still can't personally think we've fixed any overlying issue with Double Team, but a small fix is better than nothing.

 

[Its_A_Random]

As far as how easily counterable DT is in its current state, I will just draw from my post from Feedback when I addressed them. Basically it does not matter how many countermeasures there are to DT, it does not change the fact that four clone double team can still be seen as uncompetitive. It will still, given the chance, be able to reliably buy free actions.

Full quote for reference

Sure there are over 9000 countermeasures from weather to spread moves to never-miss moves to substitutions but to me, these countermeasures mean jack shit. I do not care if I can just "IF Double Team Clones THEN Earthquake." I do not care if you can sub around it because any move can be dealt with by subbing around it, especially when there are better things to sub for nine times out of ten. I do not care if I can just use spread moves in my action-set to deal with it (especially given it may prevent you from dealing the most damage). I do not care if any competent player should be able to deal with Double Team. I do not care if it can backfire in one action because the opponent was ridiculously lucky. I do not care how easily you can deal with Double Team. Not one bit. Why? Because no amount of countermeasures to deal with such a shit-box of a move can stop it from being uncompetitive.

That said after thinking it through off-line, I think we can all agree that four clone double team is uncompetitive and that a passive evasion booster—while less consistent—is not that much better. While I personally do not agree with three clone double team and prefer two clone or even one clone double team (A cheap coin-flip to avoid a powerful single-target move!) as they are less degenerate than three clone double team, three clone double team is still a lot better than four clone double team even if the probability changes is not that much better. What I want to see is what clone cap is the best in terms of making Double Team still "good" (since not many people want to see it unusable) while reducing how degenerate Double Team is.

 

[ZhengTann]

Alright, so far it has been pretty vocal that Double Team requires balancing in some way or another, and there have yet to be posts that outright stood against any changes to Double Team. Reasons for change include (quoting Dogfish's coined terms here) Substitution Drainage, coupled with reliable Precision Blocking, where the gambit's rewards far outweigh the risks. Still, if you have a (very) different view, and wished to speak up about it, you're welcome to backtrack the discussion.

When it comes to altering move mechanics, there's always the staples - raising EN cost, change it to adhere to in-catridge mechanics, putting a cap on the original effects, etc. In fact, most of these options have already been posted both in Feedback and in prior posts of this thread. But, thus far the logic behind each proposal is rather, how to put it, vague. So what we could do is:

• Quote proposals that had already been presented, or
  
• Put forward unique ones (there has been IRC chatter about not being able to execute certain moves while Double Team's effect is active, for example).
• Remember to format them nicely so that it's easier for Council members to put them on the slate.
  
• Compare and contrast the proposal you post with others.

Some questions that may help you include:

• What kind of move do you envision Double Team to be (generic/unique/competitive/risky/safe)?
• What is the objective of your proposed changes?
  
• What are the pros and cons compared to the original effects, or other people's changes?
• Do the numbers agree with your intended changes?

This is the second stage of discussion, where we build upon proposals to change Double Team's mechanics. Let the brainstorms begin, I guess?

 

[Stratos]

10:20 Pwnemon: i dont' think very many people will risk using double team on iron head * 3
10:20 Pwnemon: when max clones is only two
10:20 Birkal: it's still useful but not straight up broken
10:20 Pwnemon: yeah
10:20 Pwnemon: if you get lucky
10:21 Pwnemon: it buys you a free turn
10:21 Pwnemon: more often than not it breaks even
10:21 Pwnemon: but it never buys you a whole fucking round and then a little
10:21 Birkal: it'd be better to use something like confusion / thunder wave to gain momentum along with the free turn
10:21 Birkal: but dt would still have utility

the main problem with double team is that you have to prepare for it when you're ordering first. if we cut max clones to two, then it seems pretty fair. a 33% chance to buy you a free turn, a 33% chance to break even (perhaps avoiding something crucial like a combo for only 8 en? i guess if ur opp is the kind of fucker who uses combos when ordering first) and a 33% chance to do ass-all. your opponent can still bet on it when they need to but it's not "prepare for this or fucking die" like it is now

 

[ZhengTann]

Alright, let's wrap this up and move to Voting. We might not get it in time for SICK tournament plays, but at least it's better than keeping this hanging. 24-hour window until slate appears and close the thread.

EDIT: Slate will be as follows.

What should be done with Double Team's effects?
Change to +1 Evasion
Limit maximum clones to 3
Limit maximum clones to 2
No changes (4 clones maximum)

If Options 2, 3, and 4 are chosen:

What should be done with Double Team's EN cost?
5 EN per clone
No changes (4 EN per clone)

If Option 1 is chosen instead at question 1, the EN cost will probably mirror that of +1 Evasion or -1 Accuracy moves. Thank you for your time, mods may now close this thread.