Resource Doubles Overview, Rules, and Q&A - Ask Questions Here! (Resource Index Inside)

Status
Not open for further replies.
sumwun said:
Why are Snorlax, Shuckle, and guard split not viable in this format? Someone claims to have used them to reach 1600 on the ladder.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I've decided to try playing Doubles OU for the first time today, and built a thrown-together goodstuffs team of Incineroar, Tapu Fini, Zapdos, Zygarde, Kyurem-B and Genesect to clear my way through the low-ladder noobs. However, I was quite surprised by the wide variety of gimmick teams that were on the low ladder. There was an Entrainment Shedinja giving Wonder Guard to a Balloon Drapion (who actually succeeded, but my Zygarde's Thousand Arrows ignores the balloon, so I beat it), an all Eeveelutions team, various Belly Drum + Trick Room pairs, Beat Up Whimsicott with... not even Terrakion, it was Lucario for the Justified Pokemon, and one person that had normal-looking species but with Bulk Up Mew and Liquidation and Ice Punch Blastoise. Whilst you do get this kind of stuff on other ladders, they usually have cleared out by reaching 1300, but there are still lots I'm seeing there.

Although I haven't reached the "proper" levels of the ladder yet, from looking at the usage statistics for the last three months this seems to be even happening higher up, with Comfey, Entei, Regieleki, Glastrier, and Dusclops all unranked yet DOU by usage, and numerous "niche" tier 5 Pokemon extremely popular, like Whimsicott, Tyranitar, and Dracovish. Even the usage of viable Pokemon doesn't reflect the VR with Kyurem-B, considered the best Pokemon in the tier at the moment, only at #11 below two of the aforementioned Pokemon, and a premier threat, Spectrier, not even DOU. (I'm aware usage does not reflect viability in any format, but it doesn't usually seem to be this different between the two in most tiers).

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?
 
TailGlowVM said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

For the usage stat part? Tl;dr most of the ladder probably hasn't touched Smogon, use what they think is good, and face players similar to them. (This is true for other tiers as well, DOU ladder is just small enough so its felt more)

And for your own sake, dont try to help them. I've tried, they refuse to listen 80% of the time.
 
TailGlowVM said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

If you're just looking for a way to be good on the ladder, the VR is absolutely the best resource out there to get you started. However, you should understand that it was built by people who have just about 0 respect for the ladder with just about 0 input from ladder usage (not sure if the disconnect is as complete in other metas). It's built to reflect the current tour bros metagame (mostly comprised of say 50 or so experienced tour bros playing each other and chatting with each other about it). Therefore, it evolves significantly over time as the tour bros meta does. The ladder may evolve in different ways. Tour bros and ladder heroes both play to win, but they have fundamentally different objectives. To be successful in tours, you have to beat very very good players in the tour bros meta more often than not and gimmicks don't really work (because most tour bros have seen them, and you are probably going to reuse your team, such that even a gimmick that worked once probably wouldn't work again). To be successful on the ladder, you need to beat all kinds of different teams with more varied mons, usually ones lower ranked than you, very consistently. The best ladder heroes play a LOT of games and have like ~3-4 to 1 win loss ratios (even after getting to the highest level). If a tour bro ever tells you that there's 0 difference between what's viable in tour bro tours and what is viable on the ladder, they are not a top ladder player.

If you want to invest a lot of time in getting good at the DOU ladder, you can definitely start with VR, but also watch the top players on the ladder. Watch their matches and replays. That's ultimately what you want to be, so you can learn from them. Use what works for you on the ladder. There are definitely a few unranked mon that you could make work on a ladder team after you get more exposure to them, but you really can't go wrong by starting out with a balanced highly ranked VR team like the one you have (though you'll have to figure out how to deal with all the room/semiroom teams out there).

As for dnagerbadger saying don't try to help people on the ladder? The affectation of tour bro elitism from someone like him is pretty silly (and it won't even help him get drafted for their tours). There are people on the ladder who just want to have fun and many others who genuinely want to learn and appreciate advice. Strike up a friendly convo and you can find out ("nice team" if the opposing team really looks good is often a good starter).
 
I was away from the dou discord for almost a month and I hadn't realized how many new players joined since I left. For all the new players out there, I hope you stick around. There are so many great players in the dou community! Some of them might even decide to take on a disciple if they have time. Don't be afraid to reach out to them, some of them might say yes. I actually have a disciple of my own :p.

Dou is starting to take off and its only going to get stronger. We were able to get osdt to happen this year(Congrats Nido-Rus!), DPL is as strong as ever, and dwcop is having its 2nd iteration this year. The community is doing its best to make sure dou is a welcoming place and its only going to get brighter. Thank you MajorBowman and talkingtree for all the hard work you did. I'm positive Yoda2798 and Paraplegic will do their best to achieve the same results :)

Arcticblast i finally pressed the enter button lmao
 
As I was looking at other tiers, I noticed that they have compendium sets which were really helpful for me as a beginner in those tiers. I was thinking maybe DOU could also use a compendium set.

https://pokepast.es/44d47c009627839f

This is something I just made. This is still very rough and there may be sets that are outdated or wrong so bear with me. I was thinking maybe the community can make something like this? It's just an idea and I wanted to know your thoughts on this.
 
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?

Also is it possible double OU will someday have a speed tier resource like other tiers?
 
Himura said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's a great question!
- 216 outspeeds Dragapult and Zeraora under tailwind
- 80 outspeeds 4 speed Volcanion and Metagross
- 92 is strange. My guess is somebody picked a semi-random value and others copy and pasted it, but maybe I'm missing something.
 
Creation of the Second Coalition against "someone to be decided (Ezrael hasnt registered as of today)"xd.

Following in the steps of the "DOU Winter Coalition against Ezrael", we shall unite our forces so we may together overcome the odds and defeat the tough opponents which no doubt lie ahead of us on OSDT. Even if we may not yet know who the enemy is, we shall unite so that no foe may overpower us, and so that rng may be ever in our favor.

By joining our Discord group, we will able to teambuild together, allowing us to make teams better than any of us would be able to do by ourselves, and battle against each other to practice. Furthermore, we will jointly spy on the replays of whoever we decide to be the enemy so that we may counter their threat more effectively. Participation on this group makes you immune to being labelled "the enemy".


Anyway, I wrote this statement as a bit of a joke xd, but the team is real, if you wish to join just message me and I will add you to the Discord.
Not a personal attack against whoever we decide to be "the enemy", whoever he/she is, is a trully excellent Pokemon player.
 
Last edited:
SOM/05 said:
Does pressure stacks in doubles ?
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
fespy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Not like I'll ever make it to finals in DOU though ):
 
I am extremely opposed to best-of-five finals, or anything other than best-of-three. I played a best-of-three best-of-three for the BW money tour finals and didn't like that, and in an old 2017 VGC invitational tournament we had best-of-five in final tournament stages, and I wasn't a fan of that either. Here's a few reasons why I think this would be a poor change for DOU:
  • Best-of-five values endurance, not consistency. A best-of-five set, assuming it plays to 5 games, takes an awful lot longer and is two additional games of high stress Pokemon. Given that not only DOU sets, but nearly all other forms of competitive Pokemon in general are currently best-of-three, you introduce a skill of elongated mental endurance that isn't needed for any other part of the tournament. What this leads to, typically, is not an increase in the value of play, but a decrease, where the longer a set goes on the more likely you are to not think as clearly and make mistakes. This is extremely important for VGC play, where you are sometimes playing 9 best-of-threes in one day, and I can tell from experience that people do not play as well later on in the day than at the start. 2 extra games is obviously not 8 extra best-of-threes, but it is non-trivial - watch my set vs marilli and notice how play degrades the longer the set draws out.
  • Best-of-five is a greater time commitment. Yes, it's finals, but if you only, say, commit to an hour of time for a typical best-of-three, you may actually have to commit to an hour and a half to guarantee you have enough time to complete a set. Anything that increases the odds of players needing to schedule twice should be seriously scrutinized. Players already commit to late hours in the night to accommodate time zone differences; we shouldn't make that issue worse. It also is less attractive to live spectators; instead of being able to reasonably expect to watch a completed set if you have the time, you may have to leave mid-set and be spoiled later.
  • Best-of-five does not inherently decrease the chances of luck "ruining" a set. In fact, it magnifies it. You're increasing the odds that a player loses a game to hax, not decreasing it, because you're playing more games. The relative distribution of hax may be more even, but you are absolutely not decreasing variance. A one-game buffer is typically sufficient for players who get haxed, but are still better than the opponent, to come out with a win. You would need to show some example where, if some player had not been haxed, they plausibly could have won in the additional 2 or 3 games allotted. Obviously you can't provide any examples because there are no best-of-five DOU tournaments currently, so that's kind of unfair (it did not come up in the aforementioned VGC invitational). But let me put it another way: how many examples can you provide of a player, clearly "better" than their opponent, losing a game of a best-of-three to hax and coming out on top? That is, they basically won three games. We can extrapolate that to best-of-five.
  • Best-of-five makes finals a different format than the rest of the tournament. Tactics like matchup fishing become stronger, and building unique, individual teams becomes weaker. I think it is easy to demonstrate certain approaches to best-of-five are stronger/weaker than best-of-three, which means finals is a different game than the rest of the tournament. The ruleset is the same, but the playing conditions are not the same. Consistency within a tournament is valuable. And of course, we don't want to make all tournament sets best-of-five. Also presumably "finals" for Seasonals means "Grand Finals" which is two best-of-five sets you're asking the player from Losers' Bracket to win, which to me exacerbates the advantage the Winners' Side player already has to possibly unfair levels.
I also don't think sports analogies are apt here. I am sure the reason sports teams do long sets is because that results in increased ticket revenue, not because it's deemed more competitive (even if it's spun that way).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top