Non-VGC Doubles Metagame

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whirlwind and Roar, along with Overhead Throw and Dragon Tail, also deal with Trick Room. WW/Roar is actually useful when you can have your partner unleash Roar of Time and then not have to deal with the recovery turn. DT/OT prevent your foe from setting up, getting a free switch if you score a KO, and can mess with many other strategies. A smart use of Encore also botches the strategy (as with all set up/Protect moves). TR can be devastating but not all the time. Bulky mid-speed based Pokemon can usually take care of themselves until TR is down and then dish out some damage. Priority from the likes of Scizor, Azumarill, Giratina, Roobushin, Breloom, etc. are also very useful for tearing the strategy apart.

@TheMaskedNitpicker: I'm curious as to why you chose Salamence, Dragonite, etc. to be banned. I agree with the all legendaries ban (I'd just call it the 660+ ban since that knocks all those guys off). I heavily disagree with the list of proposed rules. They, from my perspective, would make this metagame seem like a knock off of VGC, which is what we're trying to avoid unless I am mistaken.
 

TheMaskedNitpicker

Triple Threat
is a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I have to disagree with this. Version mascots and friends, sure. Perhaps some of the 600 BST legendaries like Manaphy and maybe Mew. But I don't see how the lesser legendaries are overcentralizing to any meaningful extent. How often do you see Articuno sweeps? Does anyone even use Mesprit? Yes, you have to build your team considering top threats like Heatran and Zapdos, but no more than you do for Scizor and Blissey.
You make a good point. On the whole, I'd say it's pretty easy to split these Pokemon into two general groups.

Everything with at least 600+ stat points tends to be incredibly centralizing just in-and-of itself. It's not the 20 extra stat points above the lower legends that do it; it's the fact that they tend to have much better movepools, abilities, and typing. They don't need to sweep to be centralizing. Cresselia is a huge threat just due to its bulk and support movepool.

The 580-stat legends are significantly smaller threats individually. You throw Articuno into a tier and it may not change much by itself. Maybe it'll make Hail teams and Rock-type moves more common. No big deal. Every viable Pokemon changes the metagame to some small extent. However, taken all together, these Pokemon serve to raise the bar enough to cut off a much larger variety of Pokemon from viability, some through being superior versions of other Pokemon, but most just through their sheer combination of stats.

In singles, Pokemon that pool all their stats in one area tend to dominate. If you're picking a Pokemon for a specific role, you want it to fill that role extremely well. That role no longer fits the situation? You switch out to another Pokemon that fits another specialized role. In doubles, it really pays to have above-average stats in all areas, because a weakness in one area is so easy to exploit. Got low attack stats? You've got to worry about the ever-present Taunt, Encore, etc. Got low defenses? Watch out for oh-so-common priority moves! Got low Speed? You might be flinched and wiped out by both opposing Pokemon before you ever get to act.

Guess what almost all of the 580 legends have? No significant stat weaknesses. And with each new generation, their movepools get more robust. In the fifth generation, they all get a huge boost with new abilities. I'll take Snow Cloak on my Articuno over Pressure any day. And yes, it can sweep on a Hail team, especially with Tailwind.

So what I'm saying is that not all Pokemon were created equally and we've got to draw a line somewhere, and it makes zero sense to just carry over the one from singles. In my experience with previous generations, this is a very good place to draw such a line. By cutting out the 580 legends, which amount to some 20 Pokemon, many more Pokemon become viable farther down the stat chain without requiring yet another tier below this one.

EDIT: As far as Scizor and Bliseey vs. Zapdos and Heatran, they're in two different ballparks and just serve to prove my point. You want to set up your team to deal with Heatran? You'll need to have something very fast or strong vs. Fire that has a Ground-type move. Even if you do prepare a specific counter, its Shuca Berry ensures that it's going to spew fire all over your team once or twice. You don't need a special counter for Blissey. You're going to have Taunt and a physical attacker on almost any given team already. Scizor's a tougher customer, but its attack movepool is very limited. Effective, but limited. Its type combination may have only one weakness, but that's not nearly as useful as an Electric/Flying type with Lightningrod on a doubles team.

I'm curious as to why you chose Salamence, Dragonite, etc. to be banned. I agree with the all legendaries ban (I'd just call it the 660+ ban since that knocks all those guys off). I heavily disagree with the list of proposed rules. They, from my perspective, would make this metagame seem like a knock off of VGC, which is what we're trying to avoid unless I am mistaken.
Well, you have to see where I'm coming from. I don't care at all about VGC. They've made it clear that they're not interested in setting up a game that promotes strategy, but only with hyping the Pokemon brand. That's fine: it's their job.

I see absolutely no reason to remove or add a rule based on what the VGC does or does not have. I only care about making a set of tiers that includes a very large variety of strategies while promoting skill. I believe the rules I've proposed do that. If you have a problem with a specific rule, tell me about it! I definitely want to discuss the points on my list.
 
Ah, Nitpicker, glad to see you again. Appreciate your input on the subject but I have to disagree with some of your points.

Firstly, your advocation of dividing doubles into two tiers seems, quite frankly, arbitrary, not inherently so but because your specific criteria for dividing those tiers. If it were something like we have in OU--ubers with everything and standard with only the broken pokemon banned--that'd make more sense to me, but from what I see it you're promoting a tier with everything allowed then a tier with things banned because...because what? Because of some arbitrary outside characteristic (legendary, pseudo-legendary) that in most cases fails to server as an accurate predictor of that pokemon's performance in the actual game.

A lot of those pokemon you listed don't seem particularly strong or bulky or fast to overcentralize the metagame (Articuno? Mesprit?) but to dismiss it so easily would be fallacy. But I have to ask, what kind of testing did you do that resulted in your coming to the conclusion that this is the best way to handle bans? What was your sample? What criteria did you use to form your conclusion--"a combination of enough hitting power, bulk, and speed to make most other fully-evolved Pokemon obsolete" is in actually a rather vague claim because we have no idea what the actual threshold is for making enough other pokemon obsolete. And above all, are your results even applicable to the 5th gen metagame? You are basing your results on previous gens but that doesn't mean that they necessary apply to this gen (look at all the gen-5 speculation about threats and whatnot).

This is not to say that an initial banlist wouldn't help, as a matter of fact I believe it would be the best course of action, but I simply do not believe your banlist is the best possible one.

Secondly, I don't get your ruleset either. We already discussed (or are still discussing) why sleep clause would be beneficial to the metagame and I don't see why we would ever need item clause (seriously what good does it do? How is having more than one item on a team possibly broken in anyway?). Are you basing it on past PBR/VGC games?

EDIT: Ugh I type slow as molasses.
 

TheMaskedNitpicker

Triple Threat
is a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Hey Starman! Good to see you again too and thanks for starting this thread.

Let me explain my reasoning a little better. First, my desire for this tier system is not as arbitrary as it seems. The way I see it, you've got two kinds of Pokemon players. On the one hand, you've got people who want as few bans as possible in order to have a metagame that's still 'playable'. These people like to hone their skills at dealing with a limited variety of Pokemon and strategies. This is what the upper tier is meant for. It starts as a blank slate and things get banned as necessary. I frankly don't give two hoots about how this tier eventually ends up. It'll be too centralized for my taste.

On the other hand, you've got people who like variety and want to play in a metagame where they face interesting teams and strategies that they've never seen before and have to adapt to on the fly. The second tier therefore aims for the maximum amount of variety, which is why I advocate so many bans. Now I don't claim that the banlist that I propose is the 'best'. I do claim, however, that it's a much better starting point for a tier that tries to maximize variety than just banning the 670+ Pokemon.

As far as the "Legendary Pokemon" go, that's just a convenient label for most of the Pokemon that I believe are too powerful for such a tier. Really, what I advocate is an initial ban all Pokemon with a base stat total of 580 or higher, with the exception of Slaking, who has a very crippling ability (Yes, Truant is far worse than Slow Start). I put Volcarona in the list initially because of its crazy stat/movepool combo, but I'll easily concede that one.

Now, I agree that a Pokemon's BST is not a perfect indicator of its power. But I've noticed with each new game released, it gets better and better. It used to be that the 580 BST Pokemon all had poor movepools and lackluster abilities to compensate for their stats. No longer. With each new release, these Pokemon have received upgrades in their movepools, and with 5th gen, in their abilities. They now have the power to use their stats to the fullest. Nowhere can this be seen as clearly as in the beast trio. Weather Ball/Aura Sphere/Thunder Raikou is a nightmare on any Rain Dance team. Even Entei now has Flare Blitz and ExtremeSpeed.

Now keep in mind again that I'd like to build a tier that promotes maximum variety. We could start with just using the VGC banlist and doing suspect tests, but be realistic. We wouldn't even be close by the time the sixth gen games were released. This banlist jump-starts that process with a cutoff point that, while arbitrary, should promote much more variety than the Standard OU banlist or the VGC banlist. If you plot the BST of all fully evolved Pokemon, you get a bell-shaped curve with a bunch of outliers at the top. Once you cut out those outliers, most of the Pokemon in the curve become much more viable.

If you don't believe that maximizing variety is a reasonable goal, then obviously it would be better to just have a bunch of little, centralized tiers. If you do think such a goal is worthwhile, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to my banlist suggestion.

As far as Sleep Clause goes, I think we may eventually need it. But the changes to the Sleep mechanics that have been introduced in the 5th generation are significant enough that I believe a test is in order. Non-cartridge Sleep Clause is messy, especially when you factor in Magic Coat, Natural Cure etc. If we can get by without it, so much the better.

NOTE: For those of you who aren't aware, Sleep only lasts 1-3 turns now, as opposed to 1-4. Also, the sleep counter resets if you switch out, encouraging you to keep your sleeping Pokemon in play, especially if they were put to sleep by a faster opponent. With these changes, Sleep Clause seems less necessary than it once was.

Item Clause is simply a rule that encourages variety and strategy. Why do most Smogonites accept Species Clause, but hate Item Clause? Only because it's what they're used to. They both serve the same purpose. Why have Species Clause?

Anyhow, Item Clause promotes variety in an obvious way. I don't think it would break the game not to have it, but you only have to fight a team of 6 Focus Sashed or 6 Choice Scarfed sweepers once to see that there might be problems. That aside, Item Clause promotes strategic thinking simply by process of elimination. If you see the Weavile's Focus Sash go off, you know the Gengar doesn't have one. It's a less-important rule than some, but I believe it to be better than the alternative. Have you played with Item Clause extensively, and if so, what did you find objectionable about it?
 
Also gonna chip in and say glad to see the guy who got me into doubles back again!

That said, I'll throw in my view on the issue. I strongly agree on the creation of an intial banlist because I very much enjoy the variety Doubles brings to the table. However, I do agree on it being somewhere around the 680 BST mark as opposed to 100 lower, for several reasons. As mentioned all pokemon are not created equal, and the same is true of the pixies, legendary dogs, etc - and not based upon their BST. Azelf may well prove very common due to its Imprison prowess, whereas Mesprit will most likely prove useless given the more specialised roles its family takes. Mew will obviously be excellent due to its movepool, but Celebi perhaps may suffer from its 4x Bug weak. Zapdos may prove crucial to an offensive partnership or two, and Moltres may be neutered by the presence of SR and other weathers.

While I see the point that a lot of these mons may prove overcentralising to a tier I'd like to see varied, I also see that a lot of them would not do that, and to initially ban them on the basis that other things near them in BST would be overbearing seems somewhat hypocritical when we are looking to create diversity. The initial ban bar should be set only as low as it reasonably could without wrongly banning any things that do not deserve to be, and no lower, and I believe 680 BST is around this mark. Suspect testing works either way, but by convention pushing things up rather than pushing them down seems the right way to do things as well, and doing so is more likely to make this meta more appealing to new potential members, which we also direly need (starting with a somewhat peculiar banlist may have the same impact).

In terms of clauses, I personally have little issue with Item Clause other than it does restrict you in terms of power you can apply to mons by using multiple LOs, though this may serve to balance the meta, and that is is unfamiliar and would likely drive people away, given how hard it is to make a doubles team when new without Item Clause in effect. Given that team preview now is standard I do not believe picking four is necessary, especially with the short length of doubles battles and them being so hard to find, playing for as long as possible is probably a good thing. I'm on the fence about Sleep, OHKO and Evasion - it just seems a bit too much hassle to unban them and test them, but there seems few reasons why not to. Perhaps when the initial tier is sorted it should be decided.
 
Let me explain my reasoning a little better. First, my desire for this tier system is not as arbitrary as it seems. The way I see it, you've got two kinds of Pokemon players. On the one hand, you've got people who want as few bans as possible in order to have a metagame that's still 'playable'. These people like to hone their skills at dealing with a limited variety of Pokemon and strategies. This is what the upper tier is meant for. It starts as a blank slate and things get banned as necessary. I frankly don't give two hoots about how this tier eventually ends up. It'll be too centralized for my taste.
Ah this is a bit more understandable, as the way you phrased it I was under the impression that this higher tier would be the uber tier of sorts and that we would not ban things from it. Although if it is the case that we can indeed ban things from this tier then why bother with the banlist for the lower one? If these pokemon are so overcentralizing (ugh what a loaded word) as you claim, then wouldn't it stand to reason that they could very possibly get banned from this higher tier as well leading to the distinction between the two becoming redundant?

On the other hand, you've got people who like variety and want to play in a metagame where they face interesting teams and strategies that they've never seen before and have to adapt to on the fly. The second tier therefore aims for the maximum amount of variety, which is why I advocate so many bans. Now I don't claim that the banlist that I propose is the 'best'. I do claim, however, that it's a much better starting point for a tier that tries to maximize variety than just banning the 670+ Pokemon.
Got some loaded language there bro.

Again, the problem we run into here is how do we determine if this new metagame is inherently less centralized than the higher tier? There's no guarantee that with the legendaries and psuedo-legendaries gone that the metagame will suddenly become much more varied. Take, for example, Drought and Drizzle, which in my opinion run a much, much, MUCH higher risk of limiting variety of the metagame than nearly any of those pokemon in your initial banlist.

Now, I agree that a Pokemon's BST is not a perfect indicator of its power. But I've noticed with each new game released, it gets better and better. It used to be that the 580 BST Pokemon all had poor movepools and lackluster abilities to compensate for their stats. No longer. With each new release, these Pokemon have received upgrades in their movepools, and with 5th gen, in their abilities. They now have the power to use their stats to the fullest. Nowhere can this be seen as clearly as in the beast trio. Weather Ball/Aura Sphere/Thunder Raikou is a nightmare on any Rain Dance team. Even Entei now has Flare Blitz and ExtremeSpeed.
Yes they are stronger now, probably not the total crap they were gens prior. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are broken or limit variety, only that they are a threat now, and to be honest I can't really accept that alone as evidence that such pokemon should be banned.

Now keep in mind again that I'd like to build a tier that promotes maximum variety. We could start with just using the VGC banlist and doing suspect tests, but be realistic. We wouldn't even be close by the time the sixth gen games were released. This banlist jump-starts that process with a cutoff point that, while arbitrary, should promote much more variety than the Standard OU banlist or the VGC banlist. If you plot the BST of all fully evolved Pokemon, you get a bell-shaped curve with a bunch of outliers at the top. Once you cut out those outliers, most of the Pokemon in the curve become much more viable.
Yeah I still agree a starting banlist would be best. I still do not understand though why exactly this banlist will inherently provide more variety than any other banlist proposed in this thread. It again comes back to your argument that these 580+ pokemon vastly limit the variety in the metagame and again back to my question, "how and why?". The right stats in the right places? Good movepool? That's the same for any pokemon worth using. Besides, what pokemon are they limiting? Take Metagross--is it making TR pokemon unviable? Sand, sun, rain, hail? Goodstuff? Gravity? Skill Swap? Psycho Shift? These more-controversial pokemon are good, yes, but who are they overpowering?

Also I'll take your word on the shape of the BST distribution if only because I can't be bothered to actually plot it out right now. What's the mean and standard deviation by the way?

If you don't believe that maximizing variety is a reasonable goal, then obviously it would be better to just have a bunch of little, centralized tiers. If you do think such a goal is worthwhile, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to my banlist suggestion.
Whoa man again with the loaded language. You shouldn't imply such a dichotomy of "either you support this banlist or you don't believe in maximum variety".

Anyway my counter-argument has been sprinkled throughout but I'll say it again: I don't see why your banlist would accomplish the goal of maximizing variety any more than any other banlist that has been suggested so far. You say it will reduce centralization but you haven't really explained why other than "pokes with these BSTs are usually good" (if you'll forgive the crude paraphrasing). It also ignores all the other possible sources of centralization that could come in with or without these pokemon (again, Drought and Drizzle are the big ones).

I know doubles has a lot of variety but quite simply some pokemon will be losers and be outclassed by other stuff. That's the way it is. These "bunch of little tiers" simply try to somewhat mitigate this situation by allowing those outclassed pokemon a place where they can shine. Maintaining variety is important but trying to force it plain just will not work. There will be trends in the metagame and a lot of platers will flock to certain things until someone tries something crazy, bring about a new trend, etc etc.

As far as Sleep Clause goes, I think we may eventually need it. But the changes to the Sleep mechanics that have been introduced in the 5th generation are significant enough that I believe a test is in order. Non-cartridge Sleep Clause is messy, especially when you factor in Magic Coat, Natural Cure etc. If we can get by without it, so much the better.

NOTE: For those of you who aren't aware, Sleep only lasts 1-3 turns now, as opposed to 1-4. Also, the sleep counter resets if you switch out, encouraging you to keep your sleeping Pokemon in play, especially if they were put to sleep by a faster opponent. With these changes, Sleep Clause seems less necessary than it once was.
Yeah Sleep Clause is a messy area but honestly I see more reason to support it than not. Having an incapacitated pokemon is no laughing matter in singles so why would having more in doubles, a faster-paced metagame to begin with where every move counts even more, possibly be better? Also who cares about the sleep counter, who's gonna willfully stay at a 2-1 disadvantage hoping that they might possibly wake up next turn when they could just switch out to something that can help them regain momentum or even get rid of the status? Actually no sleep clause would suck even more in this case as you have to choose between being at a disadvantage and possibly having to sac a pokemon or risking getting another pokemon incapacitated in an attempt to gain lost ground. Yeah no thanks.

Item Clause is simply a rule that encourages variety and strategy. Why do most Smogonites accept Species Clause, but hate Item Clause? Only because it's what they're used to. They both serve the same purpose. Why have Species Clause?

Anyhow, Item Clause promotes variety in an obvious way. I don't think it would break the game not to have it, but you only have to fight a team of 6 Focus Sashed or 6 Choice Scarfed sweepers once to see that there might be problems. That aside, Item Clause promotes strategic thinking simply by process of elimination. If you see the Weavile's Focus Sash go off, you know the Gengar doesn't have one. It's a less-important rule than some, but I believe it to be better than the alternative. Have you played with Item Clause extensively, and if so, what did you find objectionable about it?
Well I dunno why we have species clause, although one could make an argument for it I guess (double Outrage Garchump aaaaaaaa) but items really don't have the same impact. If I'm fighting a team of 6 Focus Sash users I know they can't hit me hard with choice or LO attacks, recover the damage I deal to them with lefties, trick me a surprise Toxic Orb or whatever, and they'll generally get buttfucked by any sort of residual damage or spread attacks and can't switch around freely ('sides not like every attack against a pokemon is an OHKO to begin with). 6 Choice scarfed sweepers are stupid easy to outpredict and regain moment with decent switching and get fucked even harder by TR. What's the problem here? I don't see it. All adding item clause does is actually gimp teams to fix a problem that doesn't exist under the illusion of promoting variety when in fact it does the opposite--you can choose all different items anyway under no item clause but the clause actually limits your choices and you can't experiment with, say, double scarves or more than one macho brace TR sweeper and whatnot. Item choice is the only information management available aside from moveset with the advent of team preview and I can't see what good it would do to limit it.
 
Don't ban Slaking or Regigigas, but also ban Kyurem. Its Blizzard spamming, especially under Hail, is devastating. Unlike Glaceon, its stats are better in pretty much every other category.
 
Yeah Kyurem does seem pretty damn strong. STAB Blizzards coming off a 130 Sp. Atk every turn seems pretty obscene and 125/90/90 seems pretty respectable defenses. although it's not spectacularly fast (maybe it'll run CS?). I haven't seen much so I can't really make a too reliable judgement on it but I can definitely see a case for it to be initially banned.
 
95 base speed and its defenses are much better than Glaceon's. That's why I think it's broken. Slap on NeverMeltIce, Life Orb, Choice Specs, Choice Scarf, whatever and stuff is gonna die.
 

breh

強いだね
95 base speed and its defenses are much better than Glaceon's. That's why I think it's broken. Slap on NeverMeltIce, Life Orb, Choice Specs, Choice Scarf, whatever and stuff is gonna die.
I feel the main reason is not behind that but behind the amazingness of Blizzard as a move in general when in Hail. While it certainly competes with Muddy Water and Heat Wave, the coverage that it gets is phenomenal and the lack of resists it has is helpful as well.

The fact that Kyurem hits hard as fuck helps it too.
 
I'm also coming down on the side of not wanting an Item Clause implemented. If someone wants to run a team of Abomasnow and five friends all using choice scarf Blizzards, why not let them? Item clause just seems to needlessly limit people's options. Item usage is generally more diverse in doubles anyway.

As for Sleep Clause... Dark Void Smeargle, anyone?
 
So I've been thinking about this recently and I want to know what's people opinion on Wonder Launcher in doubles. I know that we haven't gotten a chance to really test it but I know many people have nonetheless had some very strong (vehement? passionate?) reactions and arguments for and against it. So do you think we should give it a shot (at least in some sort of alternate metagame) when we learn of the mechanics or ignore it on principal and tradition.

Personally I'd be very willing to try it out, since the main arguments I've seen against it are that you can stall for full revives and it makes stall much stronger, yet doubles matches tend to rarely exceed 10-15 turns in my experience so I don't see how either strategy could be possible. What do you guys think?
 

breh

強いだね
So I've been thinking about this recently and I want to know what's people opinion on Wonder Launcher in doubles. I know that we haven't gotten a chance to really test it but I know many people have nonetheless had some very strong (vehement? passionate?) reactions and arguments for and against it. So do you think we should give it a shot (at least in some sort of alternate metagame) when we learn of the mechanics or ignore it on principal and tradition.

Personally I'd be very willing to try it out, since the main arguments I've seen against it are that you can stall for full revives and it makes stall much stronger, yet doubles matches tend to rarely exceed 10-15 turns in my experience so I don't see how either strategy could be possible. What do you guys think?
Separate meta, please. Doubles is already hectic enough IMO; I care less that it's not too helpful in doubles due to its offensiveness and I just want to leave it be.
 
My only fear then is that we won't have it anywhere--or, to be more accurate, we won't have even tried it out anywhere--since we're struggling to get a regular doubles metagame already (lack of Smogon support really does hurt things) so envisioning side metagames at this point is a pretty confectionery in the stratosphere thought.
 

Destiny Warrior

also known as Darkwing_Duck
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
The question of testing Wonder Launcher arises if coyotte implements it in Pokemon Online first. I've already spoken to him about WL for a different reason, and he said he wasn't going to implement WL or Rotation battles.
 
Really? Was it due to a current lack of knowledge and he would consider it when the mechanics were made clear, complications with the current engine, or simply a refusal to implement them at all, and if it's the latter of those three options, do you think anyone could possibly devise a way separate of coyotte to somehow code it (I would do it myself if I knew anything about coding but alas...)
 

Destiny Warrior

also known as Darkwing_Duck
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Really? Was it due to a current lack of knowledge and he would consider it when the mechanics were made clear, complications with the current engine, or simply a refusal to implement them at all, and if it's the latter of those three options, do you think anyone could possibly devise a way separate of coyotte to somehow code it (I would do it myself if I knew anything about coding but alas...)
He mentioned on IRC it was more out of laziness(not that I'd blame him, he's done a lot already), so if we could get somebody who can code in Pokemon Online, we can get Wonder Launcher and Rotation battles implemented.

As a side note: The first suspect testing period is over, and voting has begun.
 

Destiny Warrior

also known as Darkwing_Duck
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Double posting both to revive this and for an announcement.

No.1: WHat do you guys think of Giratina? I didn't see him very much during teh suspect test period, so I have no real idea of what he could do. What possible uses could he have.

No.2: A big, big, sorry to everybody, especially teh voters. A technical screw-up on my end meant the forums weren't visible, so I've extended the voting time by another 4 days.
 
No.2: A big, big, sorry to everybody, especially teh voters. A technical screw-up on my end meant the forums weren't visible, so I've extended the voting time by another 4 days.
I can't see the forum voting thread - if there is one, and so cannot vote.

EDIT: Herp, can indeed now, thanks.
 

Destiny Warrior

also known as Darkwing_Duck
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Bumping, because of important information.

The first suspect vote is over! Arceus, Darkrai and Kyogre are banned, while Lugia, Rayquaza and Reshiram are automatically nominated for testing next round.

I'm working out another method for suspect testing for the next vote.

P.S: Keep following the news fader for important announcements, like news of our new ladder!
 
Good job getting us the ladder on PO Destiny Warrior! I'll be redesigning my team slightly and probably fighting some more often now that Arceus the king of versatility in particular is gone. No worries about the lack of time either, I think me and Human had a bit of a communication issue.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Groudon nommed next time since Kyogre has gone, but we'll have to see.
 

Destiny Warrior

also known as Darkwing_Duck
is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Announcing that the second round of suspect testing has begun.

Have fun laddering!

P.s.: Guests. join sheesh, there are 60+ of you dudes everyday :(
 
I don't know about everyone else who's been lurking there, but I've had trouble getting the activation key sent to my email. I've tried several times. It's a shame, I'd really like to join such a place.
 
Admittedly I haven't made much attempt to do any sort of laddering or what not for whatever reason (probably 'cause the PO server blows). I should really get in on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top