2v2 Ladder

[rory]

2v2 is likely not going to be popular enough to warrant two ladders, so we're just going to stick to our metagame. If it proves to be more popular than we expected we may expand at that point but it's not likely.

VGS is just going to be a clause in sb2, so people that want to play VGS will just have to find each other or host their own tournaments.

 

[Revolution.Z]

Ah , Ok fair enough as the 2v2 metagame may not be as big as I suspect. The VGS clause is a good idea. Hmm things are shaping up very nicely would you agree?

 

[The 198]

What if you reprogrammed the move (Dark Void) so it'll target both pokes, but only successfully put one of them to sleep.

I.e. Darkrai uses Dark void.
Fastest opponent pokemon is targeted 1st, if he is hit with the move, then the dark void will fail on the slower one. Otherwise the move will try to put the slower one to sleep.

That way you can still keep your Sleep Clause with only 1 poke asleep. You don't have to ban the move. And allows the move dark void to be more than just a bad version of spore. Because its so-so acc. is balanced out by the fact that it could hit either poke.

Just an idea.

 

[iKitsune]

What if you reprogrammed the move (Dark Void) so it'll target both pokes, but only successfully put one of them to sleep.

I.e. Darkrai uses Dark void.
Fastest opponent pokemon is targeted 1st, if he is hit with the move, then the dark void will fail on the slower one. Otherwise the move will try to put the slower one to sleep.

That way you can still keep your Sleep Clause with only 1 poke asleep. You don't have to ban the move. And allows the move dark void to be more than just a bad version of spore. Because its so-so acc. is balanced out by the fact that it could hit either poke.

Just an idea.

its only really a last resort to change game mechanics

 

[Revolution.Z]

its only really a last resort to change game mechanics

Agreed, It's not necessary to do this.

 

[rory]

It is not a last resort. We will not change game mechanics. Period.

I am going to get so pissed at the next person who suggest we change game mechanics.

 

[The 198]

Then leave the move as is and when the sleep clause is activated you can't use a team with that move on it.

 

[rory]

We also aren't going to ban Dark Void. If you had read the entire thread you would have realized that we have discussed the possibility that if sleep clause is in effect, if you sleep two of your opponents Pokemon, they automatically win. This means you can use Dark Void, but if it is successful you lose. This will surely make players not use it.

That being said it is still a possibility that there will be no sleep clause (though I am against this).

 

[Cathy]

I don't understand why you are acting as though decisions have been made. None have. This is a discussion thread and anything we discuss here is obviously highly tentative, seeing as we don't actually have the doubles ladder yet.

 

[rory]

I probably shouldn't have been so rude in my post. I guess no formal decision has been made but I really want to encourage people to read the whole thing and give their input on what has already been discussed.

I would like to hear his argument of why that solution is better than the "auto-loss" solution.

My apologies.

 

[The 198]

I'm just trying to be helpful. I didn't mean to overstep or anything.

 

[rory]

No, I'm sorry I made you feel that way, I'd really like to know how you feel about the sleep clause implementation as discussed earlier.

 

[The 198]

I understand that w.o a sleep clause people will completely abuse it and everything will revolve around sleep immunities etc. and thats not really the kinda of meta-game I want to see the 2v2 become.
Yet this is a by the people/for the people game... kinda, so I think, honestly, it should come down to a vote. Similar to the suspect ladder.

 

[Revolution.Z]

Ok I would like to suggest a ban on Dark Void. The Auto-Loss for the user of Dark Void is somewhat silly as no one is going to use it then so Why not just ban the move? That way no one uses it and it's cleaned up. Other sleep moves such as Hypnosis, Spore etc should be given the Standard sleep clause rules.

The Auto Loss rule is somewhat useless as it just the same as banning but with consequences. Generally The ban of Dark Void may be better.

 

[scampy]

I think the problem here is that Dark Void does not necessarily break sleep clause. Your opponent might have a lum/chesto berry, for example. Granted it is a very risky move, and most people would never use it, but it's still within the boundaries of acceptable attacks. Some players might use it by mistake, but it should be up to them to learn the rules of competitive play.

Regarding the sleep clause itself, I don't think we can really build an enjoyable meta game without it. You only have to look as far as environments without sleep clause enabled (PBR wifi, VGS) to see how over centralized teams become around sleep status. However, as there is a large disagreement over the issue (that cannot be solved in a mere discussion thread), I think the best route we can take is to just go ahead with the 2 week test. That way, if multiple sleeps do prove to be broken, we'll have (even more) solid evidence to back up our claims of adding a sleep clause.

In short, if you want sleep clause, try and break the game in the 2 week test.

 

[Revolution.Z]

I think the problem here is that Dark Void does not necessarily break sleep clause. Your opponent might have a lum/chesto berry, for example. Granted it is a very risky move, and most people would never use it, but it's still within the boundaries of acceptable attacks. Some players might use it by mistake, but it should be up to them to learn the rules of competitive play.

Regarding the sleep clause itself, I don't think we can really build an enjoyable meta game without it. You only have to look as far as environments without sleep clause enabled (PBR wifi, VGS) to see how over centralized teams become around sleep status. However, as there is a large disagreement over the issue (that cannot be solved in a mere discussion thread), I think the best route we can take is to just go ahead with the 2 week test. That way, if multiple sleeps do prove to be broken, we'll have (even more) solid evidence to back up our claims of adding a sleep clause.

In short, if you want sleep clause, try and break the game in the 2 week test.

When is this 2 week test?

 

[RaveSage]

I support the idea of making sleep clause up set up so the limit is two pokemon asleep at a time if we decide that 2v2 needs a sleep clause at all.

I'm sure that Dark Void will not be as broken as some might think during this testing period, however, if the lack of a sleep clause is too much for the metagame to handle then making a two pokemon limit seems to be the best choice, especially in non-VGC style battles since it seems we'll be using 6 pokemon as the standard.
I also noticed that the fastest Dark Void user, Darkrai, can be easily taunted by Deoxys, Aerodactyl, Crobat, and Mewtwo as far as comparing base speeds. While this is a limited list of counter options, it’s still a good bit of extra support alongside Natural Cure, berries and such. Not to mention there's always the option of just hitting Darkrai hard and fast with Fake Out or milti-target moves.

 

[scampy]

The two week test looks like it's set for when SB2 first becomes avialable. The date of the release is likely to be around September at the earliest, according to what ColinJF has posted.

One thing I think we should consider now is how we would possibly determine whether a sleep clause is needed or not. Could we determine this by recording how often sleep attacks are used (along with counters such as chesto berry and safeguard)? And how do we know when a meta game has become "balanced"? Given that we won't be able to test out SB2 for another few months, we might as well use this time to debate such issues and (if we are lucky!) resolve them.

 

[RaveSage]

The two week test looks like it's set for when SB2 first becomes avialable. The date of the release is likely to be around September at the earliest, according to what ColinJF has posted.

One thing I think we should consider now is how we would possibly determine whether a sleep clause is needed or not. Could we determine this by recording how often sleep attacks are used (along with counters such as chesto berry and safeguard)? And how do we know when a meta game has become "balanced"? Given that we won't be able to test out SB2 for another few months, we might as well use this time to debate such issues and (if we are lucky!) resolve them.

I think a system of successful and unsuccessful use of sleep moves would be good. Successful being that at least one pokemon was put to sleep when the move was used and stays asleep at the end of the turn. Unsuccessful being if no pokemon stays asleep at the end of the turn, the move user was taunted, or just straight out fainted before it could use the attack (not sure if the last one would be posible to implement).

 

[makiri]

How can you ban a move without any testing whatsoever, at this point it is all theorymon as most people have very little experience in any sort of ranked or ladder environment. I think treating Dark Void and Sleep Clause like a suspect at this point is the best course of action for when we eventually do get a ladder up and running. Sleep is an entirely different monster in doubles and doubles is an entirely different metagame from singles and strategies that are considered devastating in singles are often not very good or just flat out fail in doubles. Again I'll restate what I said before, Leftovers and other singles type items are not often very used in the doubles format because of the faster paced action, items like Lum Berry are much more common and make sleep a smaller threat compared to singles. I do have a suggestion for sleep clause supporters, but I'll keep that to myself until we have a better understanding of what we will do with the doubles ladder.

Additionally I think not supporting the VGC ruleset in ladder or at least a find tab form is a big mistake, the VGC is now a yearly occurance and is gaining in popularity among the forum members. We promote being the best in competitive battling I feel we have some sort of obligation to promoting Nintendo's metagame through a ladder for people who wish to participate in these tournaments to aid in practicing and developing and testing new team ideas. Forcing people to find their own battles through PMs or hosting their own tournaments isn't very conducive to testing as to properly prepare for a tournament like this you need a large sample size which a ladder could easily bring.

 

[crobatchop]

I am here though I have no opinion on the sleep clause and Dark Void issue (yet), but rather, I would like to talk about the ladder tiers.

First of all, Arceus is banned from normal gameplay as far as I am concerned. For the Uber list, my opinion is to first follow Rory's. I believe there would be many situations like in the singles, such as Garchomp, Shaymin, Deoxys-S, Latios, Latias w/o Dew etc. where it is hard to decide which group they belong to, and these will be suspected for a good amount of time. However, the standard ladder should be balanced, and try to be as open to all Pokemon as possible.
The question comes in: Would the Uber tier be unpopular because of the lack of variations (14 on Rory's list) ? Well, it seems like it on paper, but in the current single battles of Uber already tells us other pokemon is also usable, such as Sizcor, Kingdra, Parasect, etc. and works well together. The problem remains: would non-Uber Pokemon be able to take two powerful hits from an Uber? I am not a fan of Uber ladder, and it would be up to those more experienced players.

On the other hand, the OU list would certainly be different from the singles. Stragegies such as Follow Me, Gravity, and abilities like Inner Focus, Damp, Lightinghod, etc. is limited to certain Pokemon. Since methods can be used with a large number of Pokemon, getting top 25% as the OU list would not be as good as there would be a massive load of BLs. We should be looking at the usage of each Pokemon before making any decisions of this kind.

If the game is overcentralised then that would be another issue, but I reckon it is best to test literally everything possible right at the beginning of the release. The problems then will come up AUTOMATICALLY if there is any.

 

[Illithian-Z]

Additionally I think not supporting the VGC ruleset in ladder or at least a find tab form is a big mistake, the VGC is now a yearly occurance and is gaining in popularity among the forum members. We promote being the best in competitive battling I feel we have some sort of obligation to promoting Nintendo's metagame through a ladder for people who wish to participate in these tournaments to aid in practicing and developing and testing new team ideas. Forcing people to find their own battles through PMs or hosting their own tournaments isn't very conducive to testing as to properly prepare for a tournament like this you need a large sample size which a ladder could easily bring.

I agree that an eventual doubles server should support Nintendo's banlist, which consists of:

Mewtwo
Mew
Tyranitar
Lugia
Ho-oh
Celebi
Kyogre
Groudon
Rayquaza
Jirachi
Deoxys
Rotom
Dialga
Palkia
Giratina
Phione
Manaphy
Darkrai
Shaymin

The only ones of those which are highly disputable are Tyranitar, which was only included because Platinum doesn't have a level adjuster (which HGSS might, so thats subject to change), Rotom, and Celebi, although I think Celebi should be put as suspect for doubles. All the rest of them should be put on banlist, then tested as suspects.
Edit: And Jirachi. Sorry.

 

[ungulateman]

I actually like the above list, although Jirachi should be suspect along with Celebi in my opinion.

 

[Revolution.Z]

I actually like the above list, although Jirachi should be suspect along with Celebi in my opinion.

Agreed along with manaphy in my opinion.

 

[Quantum]

The 6v6 metagame is definitely not going to use Nintendo's ban list. For one, Nintendo's ban list is based on accesibility and level and the point of the "standard metagame" is to create a ban list based on criteria for competitive battling. Imagine if Jirachi was banned from singles because, in "real life", not everybody has access to the promo disc its available on. Adhereing to Nintendo's banlist also means that Rotom and its formes cannot be used because they weren't programmed into PBR, which is not fair at all.