2 actions per round Doubles

[Exclaimer]

This thread is moderated to keep discussion on track.​

Proposal: change doubles to 2apr instead of the usual 3apr
Reasoning: right now doubles are decided by the initial coin-flip since 6 actions is too much of an advantage and if the player ordering last manages to get an early KO (which let's face it: is pretty easy), they can end up with twice as many actions (as well as turn-order advantage) on that round, something not even triples has. We did 2apr on some tourneys and battles and nothing was broken by it afaik.

Initial proposal by Frosty to change the standard of 3 actions per round doubles matches down to 2 actions per round.

Oh crap this is actually going fast so: I don't prefer 3pr for Doubles, for personal reasons obviously. Wall of text incoming because I'm thinking while I type.

Attempting to counter Frosty's premise

I agree that unlike Singles, you have a near-guarantee of scoring a KO in R1 alone. However, by personal experience, I find that going down that route usually ends up with you scoring a KO while you:

1. Have a member of your team severely crippled, forcing you to switch out while your opponent replaces a fainted mon, turning the tables on them instead, or
   
2. Have both active mons of your team at moderate health, allowing your opponent the possibility to KO you by A2 of the following round.

So does it confer a lot of advantage to the battler ordering second at R1? Yes, it does, because both battlers are trading mons every round and the battler who first loses a mon usually ends up being the first to lose the whole team. But is it any different from Singles in this regard? No, not really.

Moving on, say we're in the middle of a battle. And then this happens. One battler gets an early KO, netting 6 actions to her opponent's 3 (or 2 because I saw Paralysis proc'ed A1), and proceeds to gain unstoppable momentum unless she played poorly later in the match (which she didn't, props to her for that). But is this possible on R1? No, I think not (feel free to prove me wrong). Any battler who wants this turning point will need to work for it - crippling with Paralysis, reducing to KO range during the round prior, as was shown in the example battle above.

Unless I misunderstood Frosty, whom I'm basing the above paragraphs on, I do not think it is possible to score a KO that comes along with more than 2 extra actions at R1 of a Doubles battle unless the match-up is horribly lopsided. As to later rounds, that incredible advantage is not a given - you'd actually have to work towards it, just as I was taught to when I'm playing Singles with a non-meta team.

So here I am, saying 3apr Doubles' strength lies in its volatility. We haven't found a meta team with Doubles yet, and I doubt we will, because it has the options that come with having more than 1 mon active on the field while not being limited by 2apr as with Triples. Every team will be non-meta, and every battler will have to actively attempt to create that win condition while bereaving their opponents of the chance to do the same. Is it fun? Here I disagree with Birks - I do think it is fun, as much as I am sore when losing.

That said, I do agree that 2apr does not break Doubles at all. If anything, it makes Doubles "tamer" - easier to predict, easier to work with and win, and therefore easier to learn perhaps. But I will remain, unless convinced in the future, that 3pr Doubles is as good as it is. It may be volatile, it may not appease to a lot of players, but it is not "broken".

Side note: Expect 13th Council to vote on this if it comes to be, not the 12th.

This post by ZhengTann gives some good points for 3APR doubles, while still giving support for 2APR.

What are your opinions on these points? Is the volatility of 3APR worth keeping it as the standard? Or does the more controlled, slower format of 2APR have merit as a competitive standard?

Are there other points that are not covered by the two posts, such as how this will affect reffing? Discuss!

Tagging other council members: FMD smashlloyd20 Maxim Mowtom Ooraloo Someoneelse

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I'm not opposed in any way per se, but I'm am a tad concerned about changing a major mechanic with relatively little fanfare. Given that this issue boils down to "which do I prefer", I'd like to see a doubles tourney run on 2 APR and/or a community poll/referendum held.

This issue is major enough and integral enough to the game that it would supersede the council I think

 

[Mowtom]

Is there a reason it has to be one or the other? Can we just add that you now have to specify in the ruleset if it should be 2 actions or 3?

 

[Toon]

Is there a reason it has to be one or the other? Can we just add that you now have to specify in the ruleset if it should be 2 actions or 3?

A standard format is nice to have so we know what to base off of for tournaments/qualifiers/etc, like standard for singles is 3v3, standard for recoveries/chills is 2/5, standard for send outs in Battle Tower is Challenger sends out first

EDIT: but there's nothing wrong with choosing the amount of actions you want, like how currently our standard for doubles is 3apr and some gyms/tours uses 2apr

 

[Gerard]

As someone who used to play almost exclusively doubles I think the 2apr is much better. Doubles is an incredibly fast paced game because access to spread moves, helping hand, and two mons vs one, in addition to regular mechanics such combinations make it very easy to win or lose on a single round.

The best strategy is usually to do one or two high powered attacks to get rid of one pokemon. Thus leaving whoever loses said mon with a 2v1 situation until the end of the round (along with the lose of actions from losing that mon). Which makes spamming combinations an incredibly dangerous and effective combination in doubles, especially because eliminating one pokemon doesn't end the round as it would in singles where you could take advantage of the cooldown action and inability to switch with another pokemon.

In addition to making combo spam less attractive this would reduce the effect of powerful moves such as Endure, Torment, Rooms and Weather, even though they would still be very effective ways to control the match.

Another very important point is that it makes the actions without a partner less of an unwinnable fight and more a temporary setback if you can stand one action alone instead of the previous two whole rounds without a partner that would ocurr not infrecuently, and would often snowball into a low health mon being KOed at the start of the round thus leaving yet another pokemon without a partner.

This Snowball Effect is the biggest weakness in doubles. Kill one pokemon and leave the other in KO range, KO it on the fist action next round, rinse and repeat. This is almost impossible to stop once it gets going with the only way to counter it being starting your own when ordering second.

 

[smashlloyd20]

First off, I agree with Texas that council shouldn't just vote on this to standardize it. That said, we NEED more discussion about this. This is a massive change we're talking about here-we're considering changing the second most popular battling format in ASB, and that isn't something we should go about lightly.

I think everyone on both sides of this issue needs to ask themselves: what 'should' an ASB battle be? Do we want battles to be more variable? Should second order be able to dictate the flow of the battle? Or do we want momentum to change more slowly? Do we want the player ordering first to be able control the battle to an extent? As it stands right now, our singles metagame is definitely more in the 'slow momentum battle' category. Matchup control is highly sought after, and most high-level battles consist of both players wrestling for matchup control until they land in a matchup they value and then trying to do as much damage as possible. Momentum shifts relatively slowly, and unless one player does something extraordinarily intelligent or mind-bogglingly stupid battles are rarely decided in a round. Is this a problem? Of course not-I love singles, and it's definitely more popular than doubles.

There are absolutely plenty of arguments in favor of standardizing doubles at 2APR. For lack of a better term, it cuts down on bullshit. I recently did a B101 3APR doubles battle with silver_lucario42; I ordered second first round, destroyed his orders, and rode that advantage for the rest of the battle. He really didn't do a whole lot wrong after the first round-I just took an insurmountable lead right at the beginning of the battle. This can make 3APR doubles pretty difficult and frustrating to learn, as when you're ordering first sometimes you're just screwed no matter what, thanks to the 'leave one opponent on low health and then get a 2v1 next round' pattern of play described by Gerard and other users above. I am a strong proponent of getting new users into the game, and 2APR doubles is way more approachable and easy to learn; it cuts down on crazy momentum swings and can be seen as having a more logically flowing pace.

That said, remember my description of singles just now? It should sound familiar. This is important. 2APR doubles make doubles more like singles. It effectively slows down the rate of momentum changes because first and second order alternate much more frequently, producing a more 'singles-like' playing environment. That isn't necessarily a bad thing-it's no coincidence that singles is easier to learn and much more popular than doubles. There is much to be said, however, for letting doubles maintain its role as a unique experience in ASB. Doubles encourages combinations more than singles, which I personally like because combinations is one of ASB's unique systems and I don't think it sees enough use in singles. Doubles also leaves more room for underused Pokemon to shine. The singles metagame is clearly moving in the direction of being almost totally dominated by top tier Pokemon. Although ASB's definition of 'usable high tier' is pretty broad, it's hard to deny that singles is becoming more and more centralized as time passes. In doubles, particularly 3APR doubles, a lot more Pokemon are viable. Plenty of Pokemon that wouldn't be considered in singles see use in doubles because of a particular damage-dealing or support mechanism they have access to that helps a lot in doubles but isn't enough to make them viable in singles. 3APR doubles is also a pretty different skill set from singles, which can be seen as a good or bad thing, but I do like that we have room for alternative skill sets in ASB.

Ultimately, I see good reasons for both switching to 2APR doubles and staying at 3APR doubles. I would just ask the ASB community to think hard about why they want what they want-is it to help new users get into the game? Or is it because you want to be playing singles when you play doubles? Either way, a discussion of this importance needs more activity (especially after how active policy has been elsewhere in the last week or so).

 

[zarator]

2APR doubles make doubles more like singles.

I do not believe this is an accurate statement. I mean, sure, changing from 3 APR to 2 APR will definitely slow down the pace, but this does not necessarily mean "turning Doubles into Singles". Heck, Triples is 2 APR too, and frankly, I find it to be less frantic and "momentum swinging" than Doubles. You might as well say we're gonna "turn Doubles into Triples", and it would make just as much sense.

 

[ZhengTann]

First off, I'd like to say that I do not mind Council voting to decide the outcome of this discussion. The way I see it, there are a few routes we can try:

• Council Voting.
• Full community voting - everybody's vote counts. Once. This isn't that much different from Council voting - the basic rule of "majority wins" still do not change, and I expect that with 7 members, we already have an adequate representation of the ASB population, that the results would not have swayed.
• One guy to play God and judge. This is the least likely option, and for good reason. Any one person would be wary of bias.

This is a personal opinion - I'll ask the rest of the mod team for a second on whether they feel strongly otherwise. In the meantime, I urge anyone who wants their voice heard to type up and hit "Post Reply". If you think this issue is big enough and integral enough to the community, then it should affect you, and therefore you should act in some way to affect it as well. Even likes and quote-reposts (where you agreed with one part of someone else's post but not the whole) can help others understand your views and stance. Also, I am urging Council to at least get tl;dr of each argument and weigh them in their votes, to mitigate the personal biases as much as possible. You should know that this is what you signed up for - this is the equivalent of jury duty SPARTA.

* * * * * * *​

Zar addressed smash's second bolded statement, and I agreed, so I'll leave it at that. His first though, is interesting.

What 'should' an ASB battle be?

I told him that everybody's answers are going to be different and this'll end up all over the place. Here's my own, okay?

IDK

I like ASB to be flavourful. Where you can tie Cyclohm's three heads with a Grass Knot and then run circles around it so it can never hit with Flamethrower. Where Rock Tomb becomes a wall that Tomohawk slams into for trying to use Flying Press. Failing that, I'd at least like ASB to be the place where I can have fun using Corsola and still manage to win about half the time.

We can all agree that it's impossible in Singles. Corsola will never win against, say, Greninja or Gardevoir. But Doubles give that hope of possibility... Right?

And that's why I'll always like 3apr Doubles more than 2apr. If I wanted 2apr I would've simply played Triples+. If it hadn't been made clear yet when Exclaim quoted my post.

* * * * * * *​

Finally, I think no matter which option wins in the end, it will not affect reffing / tutoring negatively. It may mean a lot more rounds to reff, sure, but the rounds are faster now. Tutoring courses will simply adopt the new standard - after all, it's undeniable that 2apr will be "easier" so to speak. All the hoo-hah that remains is who wants to play what, and that I'm sure is an exercise of personal choice. If you don't want to fight a Gym simply because it is 3apr Doubles, don't. If you want to win that badge, however, be prepared to learn and fight it.

 

[zarator]

All the hoo-hah that remains is who wants to play what, and that I'm sure is an exercise of personal choice. If you don't want to fight a Gym simply because it is 3apr Doubles, don't. If you want to win that badge, however, be prepared to learn and fight it.

You might be right to an extent, but not as much as you might think. It is true that gym leaders do have some leeway in how they select the format of their battles, but they also have tighter limits than, say, a Battle Tower match. For example, a 6v6 singles, or a brawl, would be fine for a BT match, but I seriously doubt a gym battle would be allowed in such a format. Similarly, if we decide that the standard format for Doubles is 2APR and not 3APR, I'd expect all Doubles gyms to comply. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[EndlessAge]

I may be fairly new to the game, and I'm a pretty crappy battler and I've never battled doubles in my life. But I've reffed a few training ones, and I've read a lot of interesting battles happening with doubles. I'd like to throw in my two cents after reading ZhengTann post.

Honestly, I think the sentiment that the 3apr is core to the differences between doubles and singles is true. 2apr, will indeed make doubles more like singles, slower paced, and easier to recover from, and I understand why people would want that. However, people also don't like that, and they want a more fast pace version of the game in that sense. For Gyms battles who use double battles, I'm fairly certain they did that on purpose. Gyms are weird and they have weird arenas to do all that they possibly can for a slight advantage seeing as they're forced into monotype obviously and that's exploitable without those advantages. Even if we decide on a 2apr standard, I think it would be unfair to force them to change as well, seeing as it would defeat the purpose of having a doubles gym to begin with at least in my opinion and the opinion of others who've commented on the matter.

Also, I believe that full community votes are generally best for things like this, which while is still "Just changing a number" has a wide impact on a huge portion of the game, and I feel like this goes beyond any committee, but that's just my opinion and I also respect the power of the committee too, they're all there for a reason. I just think this is something worth giving everyone a vote over.

Just my two cents. Thanks.

 

[Exclaimer]

I agree with the multiple sentiments above that this should be a community poll and not just a council vote; I, for one, feel that 7 people is not enough of a consensus, even if we were voted into the position to vote on these things, to make such a drastic decision that has a lot of repercussions. Doubles gyms should have the ability to remain 3apr if they wish to, as well.

I'll post my own indepth opinions later.

 

[Dogfish44]

Oh, hey, I can comment here.

2APR Doubles and 3APR Doubles are very different formats. The former has a slow momentum build, but it's harder to swing momentum in than even singles, in my mind. The latter has some of the swingiest momentum in the game if you get it right. But both are different formats. I must object to trying to force the switch on gyms - I would almost certainly want to rebuild a substantial part of Elec gym team if I was going to be forced to play 2APR, because it is a very different style - one which the gym is not actually that suited for in the grand scheme of things.

I... honestly don't see why both can't be seen as accepted formats? It's really not unthinkable, imo, for us to have ASB Standard Formats be 'Singles, 2APR Doubles, 3APR Doubles, Triples' or something similar.

 

[Matezoide]

I am with Doggie here. Even if 2APR is considered to be a better format, there is still place for 3APR imo.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Supporting corgishark here because that adequately summarizes the my initial stance on this

 

[zarator]

Not to sound too blunt, Dogfish44, but the main reason people are advocating for a change to 2APR Doubles is because they feel there is something fundamentally wrong with 3APR Doubles to begin with - namely, "right now doubles are decided by the initial coin-flip since 6 actions is too much of an advantage and if the player ordering last manages to get an early KO (which let's face it: is pretty easy), they can end up with twice as many actions (as well as turn-order advantage) on that round, something not even triples has."

If we say "Ok, let us change to 2APR, but if you want to keep 3APR is fine", it defeats the whole purpose of discussing the change to 2APR in the first place. I mean, we already can have both 2APR and 3APR Doubles matches, gyms, tourneys, and what not. We do not need a PR discussion for that as that's the system we're currently on. If we're having a discussion, it's to make 2APR the standard instead of 3APR, not to ALSO allow some 2APR Doubles matches (which we already do).

But again... if we say 2APR is the standard, but we allow gyms currently going 3APR Doubles to stay that way (and I'm pretty sure all gyms which currently are 3APR Doubles would stay that way, if allowed to), then this whole discussion would be pointless. Tournaments can already be 2APR Doubles, and in fact the next Doubles tourney will be 2APR regardless of the outcome of this PR. Battle Tower matches can be whatever the Match Seeker decides. RPs have their own formats. So, the main target of this discussion is inevitably going to be gyms. But if we allow gyms to do w/e, then that amounts to basically say you're opposed to the 2APR change.

I'm not saying that it's not an acceptable stance, but I believe it should be presented as such. If you say that gyms should be allowed to stay 3APR, then say simply that you oppose the change to 2APR as the standard, because that's what your position basically amounts to. Those who want the change to 2APR, on the other hand, definitely WILL press for gyms to adapt as well if the change passes through, as otherwise their vote would change absolutely nothing compared to the current situation (which, I'm pretty sure, it's not why we're having this PR discussion in the first place)

 

[Its_A_Random]

Just going to note here that A.S.S. will assume whatever the standard Doubles Format is for its doubles sims (currently 3 APR) so if this change does happen, doubles sims in A.S.S. will go to 2 APR. So I guess there is some "point" to the change even if we allow 3 APR as a non-standard option or whatever, even if it's a super minor one.

About the discussion itself I don't really have anything to add other than to echo the sentiment that this is definitely a matter that supersedes the council.

 

[Gerard]

Dogfish44, I personally dislike the snowball effect that is doubles currently. You need just one bad turn for you to start the chain and then the match is pretty much decided. Why? Because if you have one weakened pokemon in doubles you can easily get KOed turn one (priority combo, helping hand fast attacker, just plain old two attacks, etc...), weaken the other thanks to being a 2v1 match and repeat. Control the rest of the match with little to no counterplay (since you'll be going two vs one). I dislike how this encourages the spam of combinations whenever you go second and makes battling in doubles (at least to me) less interesting and fun than it would otherwise be.

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

Not to sound too blunt, Dogfish44, but the main reason people are advocating for a change to 2APR Doubles is because they feel there is something fundamentally wrong with 3APR Doubles to begin with - namely, "right now doubles are decided by the initial coin-flip since 6 actions is too much of an advantage and if the player ordering last manages to get an early KO (which let's face it: is pretty easy), they can end up with twice as many actions (as well as turn-order advantage) on that round, something not even triples has."

If we say "Ok, let us change to 2APR, but if you want to keep 3APR is fine", it defeats the whole purpose of discussing the change to 2APR in the first place. I mean, we already can have both 2APR and 3APR Doubles matches, gyms, tourneys, and what not. We do not need a PR discussion for that as that's the system we're currently on. If we're having a discussion, it's to make 2APR the standard instead of 3APR, not to ALSO allow some 2APR Doubles matches (which we already do).

But again... if we say 2APR is the standard, but we allow gyms currently going 3APR Doubles to stay that way (and I'm pretty sure all gyms which currently are 3APR Doubles would stay that way, if allowed to), then this whole discussion would be pointless. Tournaments can already be 2APR Doubles, and in fact the next Doubles tourney will be 2APR regardless of the outcome of this PR. Battle Tower matches can be whatever the Match Seeker decides. RPs have their own formats. So, the main target of this discussion is inevitably going to be gyms. But if we allow gyms to do w/e, then that amounts to basically say you're opposed to the 2APR change.

I'm not saying that it's not an acceptable stance, but I believe it should be presented as such. If you say that gyms should be allowed to stay 3APR, then say simply that you oppose the change to 2APR as the standard, because that's what your position basically amounts to. Those who want the change to 2APR, on the other hand, definitely WILL press for gyms to adapt as well if the change passes through, as otherwise their vote would change absolutely nothing compared to the current situation (which, I'm pretty sure, it's not why we're having this PR discussion in the first place)

I for one am opposed to the whole "gyms should stick to whatever the standard format is", as that goes against the whole point of GLs having funky arenas and choosing uncommon formats. Gyms, for the most part, can choose whichever format they please regardless of "standard" formatting. Standard for singles is 3v3 and standard for doubles is 6v6 3apr, yet we do 4v4 singles and two subs instead of three and even 1v1 series. We alter combination mechanics and abilities and BRTs and sig item interactions. Hell, standard is Megas: 1, yet we have gyms with Megas: 5 and Megas: 0.

The point being, no matter the outcome of this discussion, you cannot expect Gyms to stick to either 2APR or 3APR regardless of the GL's profficiency at either format, unless we have a significant change in current committee policy. Forcing a particular GL to do 3APR, for example, when they might be more skilled at 2APR simply because of "standard" defeats the purpose of different arenas and should make that particular gym less challenging.

Basically listen to df and let ppl do 2apr if they want imo

 

[cityscapes]

I'm going to cite two double battles I had a part in: [Battling 101] Pupil silver_lucario42 vs. tutor smashlloyd20 and CUBONES VS. AIMBOT. Both of them were 3 actions per round. Here's a brief summary of what happened in each one:

Battling 101
(

)

vs. (

)

• Round 1: Instead of trying to beat down Slowbro immediately, I go for a Trick Room strategy and am forced to sub for Slowbro's own Trick Room attack while flinching Aerodactyl with Fake Out so it can't immediately use Taunt. Bad orders, but they should have at least allowed me to set up Trick Room. Instead Spiritomb flinched, causing me to fall behind in damage.
• Round 2: smashlloyd forgets about Endure. I'm able to KO Slowbro. Spiritomb and Aerodactyl each have about 75 HP left, with Kecleon on its last legs.
• Round 3 (this is the big one): Kecleon gets off a combo before being KO'd. Spiritomb gets beat up for three actions, ending the round with 3 HP.
• Round 4: The same thing basically happens again, except Mawile gets beat up instead. I'm able to KO Aerodactyl by Action 2, but the damage is done. Tomohawk leads by about 50 HP.
• Round 5: yeah

Although my gameplan and some of my choices (lol Expert Belt Kecleon) were kind of bad, I didn't really make any major mistakes. I was able to catch up Round 2, but then all my mons got 2v1'd :(

Cubones vs. Aimbot
(

) vs. (

)

• Round 1: Vanillish Wafer forgets that Solar Beam is disrupted by Bonemerang. S0L1D G0LD uses this opportunity to KO Porygon with combos. The Cubones end the round at 80 and 40 HP, but the weaker one has boosts from Skull Bash. Timburr sits at 100 HP.
• Round 2 and beyond: Timburr gets beat up by the Cubones. Nothing much to say here.
• "As soon as I saw the dinosaur skulls, I knew it was going to be bad." --Carno the Timburr, 2016

Unlike the other battle and any formal Doubles match, this battle had 2 Pokémon to a side. However, it really just goes to show how insane a 2v1 situation is. Vanillish Wafer had Timburr, one of the strongest LCs, and it still seemed like he was doomed from the minute Porygon fainted.

Overall, I think 3 APR Doubles is just crazy. The person ordering second basically holds the fabric of space in their hands. Maybe I'm just missing something here (of course, neither Vanillish Wafer nor me are extremely good at Doubles [or maybe Vanilla is just a doubles god and we just don't know it yet /me pets Vanilla] and Gold and smashlloyd have had lots of experience) but it seems like there's not very much control that the player who orders first can exert.

 

[smashlloyd20]

Okay this is really damn important but it seems like everyone here has said all they're going to say. Seems that the current consensus is to make 2APR doubles and 3APR doubles both standard formats. Petition to move to voting (or get a mod ruling idk) with the options being: keep 3APR doubles standard, make 2APR doubles standard, make 2APR doubles and 3APR doubles both standard formats.

 

[Someoneelse]

I think having both as standard formats is a good idea, but I think there does need to be a default, particularly for Battle Tower matches. For instance, I doubt new players would want to have to understand what the differences between 2APR and 3APR are, they just want a doubles battle like there are in the games. It should fall back to one or the other if it's not specified, which I can see being fairly common. Personally, I'd prefer this to be 2APR since it's much easier to ref and less reliant on turn order, making it more enjoyable in my opinion.

Also, I feel like referee compensation will have to be looked at for 2APR doubles if it's being implemented more commonly, particularly the bonus UC formula. It may need to incorporate actions over the "average" amount instead of being in terms of rounds - consider 9 actions average for a 2v2? I'm not certain on a solution right now, but I feel like it certainly needs changing.

 

[ZhengTann]

Agreeing with Zam's first paragraph above, but not quite with the second.

To provide some historical context without hyperlinks, I tried advocating for UC compensation based on amount of individual actions reffed the last few times we rehaul/raise referee compensation. Back then IIRC the opposition was that it places the (unnecessary) burden upon approvers to open the hide-tags and count the actions. Triples and Doubles were given the same UC compensation formula as Singles because, again IIRC so I could remember incorrectly, "Referees are only required to reff more actions in less rounds". Essentially the overall time-investment factor is the same, so there's no need to really compensate between formats. If 2apr Doubles is a standard then the reff is basically looking at reffing "more rounds with less actions in each". Unless we do another major rehaul of the referee compensation (Arceus-forbid, I think it is happening in another Discussion thread as I type this), I personally don't think Doubles should be singled out for a change.

Note: Whenever I use "personally", I mean "I'm not convinced to agree with you just yet", not "I'm going to veto it as a mod".

 

[Someoneelse]

ZhengTann: I think you missed my point by a little bit. Reffing fewer actions in more rounds gets you more UC for the same amount of work. Let's take a 4v4 3APR Doubles, going for the "average number of rounds", which is 6, approximately 18 actions. This earns you [15+(6-(3*4/2))]=15UC. No bonus UC there.
Let's convert this to 2APR Doubles. This is still 18 actions, and earns you [15+(9-(3*4/2))]=18UC. Same time-investment, easier reffing from what I've experienced, yet more UC.

As I said above, I'm still not sure of a solution, but I see this as a potential problem. I agree that that actions is most likely not the best course of action, but I personally don't like bringing up problems without at least suggesting something for a solution.

 

[Deck Knight]

I don't see why both can't be acceptable formats.

For some perspective, 3APR Doubles was initially selected because it does make combos much, much more viable. If you Combo on the second turn of 2ABR, you're stuck in Cooldown A1 of the next round, which is a massive limiting factor and centralizes play around A1. Contrast the Triples formats and TLR, where 2ABR was chosen out of necessity because 3 actions per mon (w/subs) is just insanely difficuly and time-consuming to ref. There was also the balance of retaining 6 actions between Doubles and Triples Formats, as that's really the limit of having a sensible, playable format.

I confess I've not played in a while, but one of the reasons ASB has Commands is because Doubles play would necessarily promote "Focused Fire" Strategies. That's what Bodyblock and Take Cover Commands are for, though I suppose those are useless against Aerodactyl Rock Slide SPAM. The Cubones scenario was a battle of fairly fresh mons, but one thing you could have done with slightly expanded movepools is had Porygon Icy Wind and then Bodyblock with Timburr while Porygon used Solarbeam. I suppose you could have done Bodyblock normally but you'd have to deal with Speed ties. Though perhaps that could be fixed by making Take Cover and Bodyblock take highest priority when speeds are equal.

 

[ZhengTann]

Reviving 3.

Frosty - asking your opinion as Battling Tutoring Manager. And also FMD / deadfox081 as Tournaments slash Gym Committee members - feel free to tag the rest of them here or ask them via Discord/PM.

Is there an absolute need to set one of 2APR/3APR as standard Doubles format? As in, if we don't, will Tutoring programs be feasibly maintained with 2 separate Doubles tutoring, and will there be any foreseeable conflicts in terms of managing Gym and Tournament formats?