A New Direction for Other Metagames

Megazard

The turtle moves
is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Top Team Rater Alumnus
PU Leader
I'd just like to throw out there that there's also going to be one more crazy, run as many weird things and combos that people might not be able to predict as you want, fairly incomprehensible metagame getting added as well (at least that's what m&m looks to people not heavily familiar with it). I don't really think stabmons is harder to grasp than sketchmons either, both have fairly basic adding move concepts and if anything stabmons is easier to predict, if not get into. Ultimately both ladders are coming down to what the community wants, not what might be best for outside people to get into (I'm saying this because mix and mega is incomprehensible and I don't think something like rozes becoming AAA jesus overnight will happen with something way more complex like mix and mega but this is more of an opinion so could be flawed) and what the community wants is directly related to activity anyway so that's not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously I have to be a bit biased because my favorite metas are either dead or never leaving but still dead on forums but I don't think pushing out a meta with more history and time to grow is necessarily the best thing unless you're truly convinced there is no revival and sharing the ladders or even breaking this arbitrary limit (I assume there's a reason but any way to circumvent would be nice) and I thing people should really think about the long term presence the meta will have, rather than the short term hype that will lead absolutely everybody to pile on the new ladder.
Also Eevee you can come back to PU fsr
 

Funbot28

Sé que a ti te gustan mis labios de fresa
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
So yes I agree it was wrong of me to compare a meta with a permaladder to a meta without one, but as Eevee General has stated previously, STABmons was still able to garner much community input on the forums even before it got a permaladder, which can correlate to its overall likability it pertains in comparison to Sketchmons.

Also would like to address this:

Sketchmons simply can't be as competitive as Stabmons. There's just too much to prepare for; aka nearly anything. Stabmons has stable threats for the most part, which limits it and allows you to bring checks to common stuff. There is no possible way to know besides attempting to scout which is unreliable as hell for a multitude of reasons. The fact of the matter is sketchmons is less competitive at the core. Forget counters; nothing even has reliable hard checks.
You claim that Sketchmons is imbalanced which can make it subjectively "fun" to play in as a meta right. How can you decide that a more imbalanced meta that by your definition cannot be considered as "competitive" be able to replace a meta that did have its ups and downs in a balance perspective, but it ultimately was able to achieve a quite stable balance competitively after the Thundurus ban (besides maybe Keldeo can go but that's it really). I guess its exciting to play a meta where u can abuse broken shit the first month or so before stuff starts getting suspected and banned to achieve easy ladder points, but ultimately Sketchmons will receive its state of balance down the line (may I add a more vigorous and complex journey compared to STABmons case imo) and will become to a steady metagame in which players might lose interest to play anymore (as in the case of STABmons after the August changes last year) because that layer of "fun" a player is experiencing while abusing broken stuff that u assume is the case will no longer be present.

Sketchmons will be more popular than Stabmons, it's more attractive to new players.
This is yet another bold claim that is extremely subjective and imo bias to what it truly evident as of know. Ik you can never know how popular a meta will be without having a ladder to make players try it on, which is why my initial suggestion of having rotational ladders might seems plausible, as we might be able to juxtapose the activity of the STABmons ladder in comparison to the Sketchmons ladder in order to gain an accurate assumption as to wqhat the playerbase wants to play. As of know all this discussion of popularity if all theorymon (but evidence does lean towards STABmons having a more desirable attraction to the community compared to Sketcmons...)

Sorry if I worded my opinions oddly, its late for me right now, but wanted to push my opinions out a.s.a.p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mq
I'm going to make a few bold and possibly ignorant claims.

1) New ladders are easy to add. There's been some hullabaloo pointing to the contrary but two new ladders are added literally every month, and with rotation ladders this is doubly true. My point is that if Sketchmons bombs fairly early in the generation, I think there's a pretty obvious replacement for it in the rotation and it rhymes with CRABmons (Uselesscrab).

2) Both STABmons and Sketchmons are easily playable via Custom Battle. If only one of them can exist at a time the other can still see activity in the OM room and on the forums. I also don't know how this works but there might be the possibility that the format could be saved on the server even if it doesn't take up room on the ladder list or as a challenge format, so it can still be a part of daily tournaments. Don't quote me on that one, though.

3) A few people have said that it's not fair that ladders get distributed based on which has more ladder activity and...what? That literally sounds like the only fair way to do it. As I said above, metas can exist and be popular without a ladder, it's entirely up to the leadership of those metas to engender interest like Mazz has done with Middle Cup and Eevee General has done with STABmons as of late. Despite being popular, STABmons doesn't have high ladder activity. So it shouldn't have a ladder. Of course, none if this means that Sketchmons will have a popular ladder, but I'm all for trying out new things so we might as well give it a shot and see how things work out.

4) Free Inheritance
 
Unrelated to the Sketchmons vs STABmons debate, but I think I need to ask about this.

How many Metas that will be part of rotational? I believe it's around 3 (AAA, Mix and Mega/TS, STAB/Sketch depending on decision)? If it's 3, then the same metagame will roll every 3 months. This means that people will need to wait around 2 months to play the same metagame in the rotational, assuming the ladder will change every month.

Many people will probably disagree with this, but thing is, I don't believe that waiting only 2 months is enough to make the meta feel "renewed" so I think rotationals should have more than 3. Maybe 4 or 5? The point of Rotational is to make ladders feeling "refreshed" and I think waiting just 2 months isn't enough to give that "refreshed" feeling, that's why I think there should be more metagames than 3 for rotational.

If it's me, I'd prefer at least 4 metas included for rotational. Maybe AAA, TS, Mix and Mega, STAB/Sketch depending on decision.

Edit: it seems unlikely that TS is going to stay bc last month it only got around 600 plays, fewer of than Inverse, which managed to get 1k. Maybe Middle Cup as part of Rotational, since I see the thread was pretty active?
 
Last edited:

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
I want to clear up that it isn't about Sketchmons vs STABmons. STABmons has to go no matter what. If STABmons had ladder activity equivalent to AAA, then there would be no debate; it would have stayed. Whether or not Sketchmons is the best OM to replace STABmons is debatable, but like I probably said earlier in this thread, it was chosen based on its OMotM activity + the concept itself.

I'm not going to debate why STABmons is being removed; I've done that enough both in this thread and to Eevee General directly. The bottomline is that its ladder activity is terrible. So, we're giving something else a chance, something that has shown to be popular during its OMotMs and by its forum thread.

Chopin Alkaninoff I'd like Tier Shift to stay, at least as a challenge option if not rotation, however it's not going to exist for several months anyway because lower tiers don't exist at the start of a new generation. So, we're likely going to start with three in rotation. Whether or not Tier Shift will be added can be decided later. We'll see how it goes!

If you have a legitimate suggestion for a new ladder, feel free to make a case. Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss about STABmons; any arguments are not going to change its ladder activity.
 
Imo the two that should be made permanent ladders are Inheritance and Mix and Mega, but that is just me. Inheritance is quite popular though and idk about Mix and Mega's popularity besides that it was played a lot when it was OMotM.
 

EV

clap sound effect
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Contrary to popular belief, "Eevee only wants to keep STABmons because it's his baby" is only half true. The other half of the story has to do with ladder integrity, a word I just invented but goes back to the Hackmons removal.

People in this very thread have admitted to Sketchmons being unbalanced--potentially even impossible to balance--but that we should allow it anyway because it's fun(!) and bound to be popular(!). The same was said of Inheritance, but The Immortal and I struck that down because it was close to BH in premise (anything can virtually be anything/have any move/ability, etc) and because it's wildly unbalanced and uncompetitive. I talked to Josh and he even says Sketchmons isn't competitive. I know Josh isn't the only arbiter on Sketchmon's competitive qualities, but he's a smart guy, so bear with me.

[paraphrased conversation]

Eevee We've always strived to keep competitive formats and get rid of the uncompetitive ones, like Hackmons. AG is an exception because it's a "soft" OM and chaos made it. So why gut the competitive, relatively balanced OM with a long history and playerbase in favor of the uncompetitive, unbalanced Sketchmons?

Josh Activity is why.

Eevee There's no proof of Sketchmon's sustained activity. So on the basis that STABmons is a more balanced and competitive metagame, we're letting unforeseen activity trump all else?

Josh Well OMotM proved activity. But the point is it will have more activity.

Eevee Lol OMotM is always popular.

Josh OMotMs are also candidates for official ladders.

Eevee I could use OMotM activity to give 10 other OMs ladders. I could use that as an excuse to get rid of AAA.

~

So it appears to boil down to "this is gonna be yuge" and "it had high OMotM numbers". Hype is hype. Like I said, anything is popular when it's new. STABmons will be popular when the new generation starts because of all the interesting additions from Sun/Moon. But what will last longer? The uncompetitive, unbalanced Sketchmons or the metagame we know can be balanced? Activity alone wasn't enough to save Hackmons, so why is it being used as an argument now to add Sketchmons?
 
Last edited:

EV

clap sound effect
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I'm going to stop posting my opinions about this publicly because I don't want to give off the impression that this is me versus TI. This "drama" might indicate otherwise but we're still a cohesive unit on like 99.9% of decisions we make. I just get a little excited sometimes.
 
This whole debate between which metagame to choose made me think about some proposal. Not sure if it would work out, but hear me out.

What if, once the SuMo games come out, we give a sort of "test drive" to the current official metagames (AAA, STABmons, Balanced Hackmon, etc.)? Maybe we could give a time limit of two months (it could be also be only one month, or even more time) to test out the various metagames with the new addictions (Pokémon, Abilities, attacks and items), and the metagames which prove to be the most successful after the test drive will be kept, while the least active metagames will be axed or reformatted as Challenge Only format or whatnot.

Because, let's be frank here, we have no idea what's ahead of us. Some metagames may get some toys that will be enough to make them successful and active again, while some other metagames could get something that will doom them. And since the actual permanent ladders are essentially "classic", since anyone who has a bit of interest and/or knowledge of Other Metagames knows them and knows (more or less) how they work, they would be the best starting point for the new generation. Basically, using the permanent ladders to try the new generation would be like exploring an unexplored area with a compass, while other popular-but-still-mostly-unexplored metagames would be more like traveling in said unexplored area during nighttime.

As such, to sum up everything, I would suggest to keep the current permanent metagames for the first months when SuMo arrives, before eventually removing the ones which are shown to be the least successful of the bunch and choose other candidates as replacements.
 
Last edited:

lost heros

Meme Master
Wow, this conversation has clearly taken off. Anyways, I'd like to address some points, made by both sides, in this post. I'm not going to name anyone in particular just because that's a lot of effort, and you'll all more than likely get the notification anyways. The claim will be made in bold and will not necessarily be my viewpoint.

1. Sketchmons will be a more active/just as active/less active than STABmons.
First off no, we're not fortune tellers. We don't know how popular Sketchmons will be when Gen 7 rolls around and we also won't know theoretically how popular STABmons will be in Gen 7. Sure we can make guesses based on previous plays the metagame had month to month for STABmons or how popular it is on its ladder during its time as OMotM, but there's no telling how popular either meta or really any meta will be as a permaladder in Gen 7. Furthermore, popularity alone is a horrible reason to make something a permaladder especially for an OM. Any metagame requires balance, and I'm not talking about just OMs here, I'm talking about all metagames within pokemon and outside of pokemon. To give a pokemon example, it's why Mega Rayquaza was banned from Ubers, the tier that never had a pokemon banned before. Without balance, a metagame becomes frustrating rather than exciting. It's the difference between Hackmons and Balanced Hackmons, quite literally. And any metagame that potentially wants to be a permaladder MUST BE BALANCED. Popular OMs should stick to OMotM. (I'm aware AG is a popular metagame that takes a very laissez faire approach to its metagame. However, it serves a very important purpose in allowing everything, so that other tiers don't have to.)

2. Sketchmons will be more fun!
And by "fun" you mean, offense will dominate the meta and fuck stall amirite? That doesn't sound fun to me. That sounds incredibly one-sided and neglectful of the portion of the community that plays Stall. I get it, if you don't play Stall, you hate Stall. The games are longer. It's hard to kill things. There's a bunch of negative perceptions to stall like: "it takes no skill" or "it's literally cancer". But that doesn't mean we should just outright ignore the play style. It's a valid play style. And I'm sorry if you and some other people don't like it, it's a part of competitive pokemon, and having a permaladder with a meta with no stall for the sake of fun is a horrible reason for a permaladder.

3. Sketchmons will be more attractive!
I know this statement sounds like the previous two, but when someone mentions this, I'm forced to wonder, "(Assuming they're right,) Why?" And the answer seems obvious, new players would think it'd be funny. By replacing STABmons with Sketchmons, we'd be replacing a balanced metagame, with a wildly broken (and supposedly impossible to balance) metagame. That's not good and only reinforces the piss poor idea that "OMs are a Joke." Now I'd like to emphasize that I reserve the right to be completely and totally wrong, as I am not from the future and will not now what happens. I also am not saying replacing Stabmons with Sketchmons is the worst idea ever, I am merely saying that I believe it is a poor idea and I do not support it for the above reasons.

TLDR: Keep STABmons please.
 

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
Contrary to popular belief, "Eevee only wants to keep STABmons because it's his baby" is only half true. The other half of the story has to do with ladder integrity, a word I just invented but goes back to the Hackmons removal.

People in this very thread have admitted to Sketchmons being unbalanced--potentially even impossible to balance--but that we should allow it anyway because it's fun(!) and bound to be popular(!). The same was said of Inheritance, but The Immortal and I struck that down because it was close to BH in premise (anything can virtually be anything/have any move/ability, etc) and because it's wildly unbalanced and uncompetitive. I talked to Josh and he even says Sketchmons isn't competitive. I know Josh isn't the only arbiter on Sketchmon's competitive qualities, but he's a smart guy, so bear with me.

[paraphrased conversation]

Eevee We've always strived to keep competitive formats and get rid of the uncompetitive ones, like Hackmons. AG is an exception because it's a "soft" OM and chaos made it. So why gut the competitive, relatively balanced OM with a long history and playerbase in favor of the uncompetitive, unbalanced Sketchmons?

Josh Activity is why.

Eevee There's no proof of Sketchmon's sustained activity. So on the basis that STABmons is a more balanced and competitive metagame, we're letting unforeseen activity trump all else?

Josh Well OMotM proved activity. But the point is it will have more activity.

Eevee Lol OMotM is always popular.

Josh OMotMs are also candidates for official ladders.

Eevee I could use OMotM activity to give 10 other OMs ladders. I could use that as an excuse to get rid of AAA.

~

So it appears to boil down to "this is gonna be yuge" and "it had high OMotM numbers". Hype is hype. Like I said, anything is popular when it's new. STABmons will be popular when the new generation starts because of all the interesting additions from Sun/Moon. But what will last longer? The uncompetitive, unbalanced Sketchmons or the metagame we know can be balanced? Activity alone wasn't enough to save Hackmons, so why is it being used as an argument now to add Sketchmons?
I really want to point out that STABmons isn't very balanced and people don't really enjoy it anymore. And, as several people have said, Sketchmons will find its balance with time and playing. The beginning of STABmons was PAINFULLY unbalanced, almost moreso than sketchmons.

And honestly STABmons stall was worse than Sketchmons stall at the inception of the STABmons permaladder. With time, as the metagame stabilizes, stall will probably gain limited viability like in STABmons.

Furthermore, for those of you who are complaining about stall, stall being viable has NOTHING to do with metagame balance. I really don't know where that thought came from. Metagame Balance is a term that indicates metagames being naturally won by skill and good teambuilding. Metagame unbalance is coined by battles won by matchup-based battles. Futhermore, stall's usage is so little that having a metagame without stall will probably draw MORE players to the OM versus the ones that will not play because they don't enjoy offensive metagames.
 

Josh

=P
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Mafia Champion
offense will dominate and fuck stall, yes, you am rite (and you am annoying). it isnt one sided because balance and stuff will exist too, stall just wont as strongly.
if you don't play Stall, you hate Stall
this is exactly what I said in my post, you are literally using my argument. "Stall being mostlu unviable isn't a huge loss to most people and actually makes some people want to play it more." and like I said in my post, stall isn't exactly the dominant archetype in stabmons either. it is more common than in sketchmons, yes, but zygarde's moves basically let lando and other grounds neuter stall in stabmons, and offense has always been the predominant archetype. stall isn't completely unviable in sketchmons either, you're blowing it out of proportion. you can let anything be your hazard control, give everything recovery.
It's a valid play style. And I'm sorry if you and some other people don't like it, it's a part of competitive pokemon, and having a permaladder with a meta with no stall for the sake of fun is a horrible reason for a permaladder.
are you aware we are quite literally all on ps "for the sake of fun" ?_? you don't gain anything by being on ps besides entertainment. and saying "its a part of competitive pokemon" is wildly inaccurate because it is completely non-existent in official competitive pokemon (vgc). it is a valid playstyle, you're right. every meta has stronger playstyles. in ts and bh stall dominates. in ag and sketchmons offense dominates. etc etc. metagame balance is when the more skilled player wins consistently and battles are not decided at team preview. it is not when all archetypes are equally viable.

your first paragraph is just full of a bunch of bullshit.
We don't know how popular Sketchmons will be when Gen 7 rolls around and we also won't know theoretically how popular STABmons will be in Gen 7.
we don't know exact numbers, but the fact is sketchmons is more appealing to new players. yknow what? sketchmons could potentially have mediocre activity to stabmons. but stabmons has had its chance and doesn't have it. nostalgia isn't a good reason to keep a meta, regardless of if its fun.
It's the difference between Hackmons and Balanced Hackmons, quite literally.
if this is true explain why hackmons is so popular and so many people wanted/probaly still want back? are you aware how much shit eevee and ti got for removing it? it didnt become "frustrating rather than exciting". the rest of this paragraph is also just dumb.
I reserve the right to be completely and totally wrong
this is the only part of your post that is intelligent.


now that im done with that, let me clear this up. i wasn't saying sketchmons is uncompetitive. the point i was making was simply a comparison; in theory it is less competitive than stabmons. sketchmons will reach a balance. talon will start running close combat most of the time, so rotom will still be a fine check. it is more comparable to bh, where nothing for the most part is truly counterable but that doesn't mean the meta isn't competitive.
ultimately Sketchmons will receive its state of balance down the line
this line from funbot is basically it. sketchmons will improve faster than stabmons because it will have a bigger playerbase. there is more to balance out, however, so it will probably still take longer than stabmons in a linear sense. i want stabmons to stay from a personal standpoint, not sketchmons. the thing is, though, like someone said there are only like 40-60 active people involved vocally in oms. its so tight-knit and circlejerky. we have too much influence as individuals. here's a line from megazard:
Ultimately both ladders are coming down to what the community wants, not what might be best for outside people to get into
i partially disagree with this. in theory, yeah, it should be down to what the community wants. but on the other hand, we need a bigger community to agree on said meta. and how do we get a bigger community? a meta that attracts more people. An active, fun to play OM with room for lots of creativity will draw more people to the om community as a whole. how many om players are actually good at pokemon? look at yourself. if you are capable of getting ladder reqs in standard tiers you are at least good enough for the purposes of this statement, not that it is difficult. there are very few om players i genuinely consider good battlers, including most of my om friends. this isn't a bad thing, don't take it as an insult. like i said earlier in this post, we are all here to have fun and if you are having fun then keep doing whatever it is thats fun for you. lots of standard tier players are in the same boat. however, the issue stems with these mediocre players getting to make votes as influential as 10-20 standards players who are of equal skill to them in their respective metas. we /need/ more people to influence metas, and shrink down the power individuals have. 5-10 people giving opinions over whether or not to ban thundy then 1 guy giving the final say vs 50-100 people voting and a 60% majority resulting in a ban. which sounds better? even if those 5-10 people are more invested than the 50-100, it is still /extremely/ prone to bias due to the small sample size.

tldr:
  • I would support STABmons over Sketchmons if the playerbases were equal.
  • OMs need more people. It's as simple as that.
  • Next gen we can always bring STABmons back if Sketchmons fails. We need to give it a chance.
I'm not anti-STABmons, I can't stress that enough. I love it. I am really sad to be arguing against my favorite metagame but to me the correct course is obvious.
 
Last edited:

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
You're wrong. Why do you think this conversation even started? You hardly play so how can you say? It might not be fun for you but the amount of dedicated players is still sizeable.
Explain to me why most major om players don't play stabmons anymore if it's "balanced". Explain why we get literally no new players into stabmons each month. It STILL is fun to me, I just don't have time anymore between work and college; and I still play enough to know that this shit is not balanced. As long as battles are decided at team preview, this metagame isn't balanced.
 

EV

clap sound effect
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Explain to me why most major om players don't play stabmons anymore if it's "balanced". Explain why we get literally no new players into stabmons each month. It STILL is fun to me, I just don't have time anymore between work and college; and I still play enough to know that this shit is not balanced. As long as battles are decided at team preview, this metagame isn't balanced.
I don't think you're paying attention. Ellipse, word, Virginia != Virgin, betathunder, nyan cat, jeran, SNS, and baconbagon play pretty consistently and are what I would consider "major om players" (super sorry if I managed to leave someone else out of this list!). Lcass, klang, aesf, and some others I'm forgetting play more rarely but are still good enough to get back into the metagame as needed. Dragonite drake, shavedbear, the ruins of alpha, and g-luke are some newer (I think, g-luke might have been playing longer) players I've seen getting more involved. I even got my friend and OU player Reverb into it last month, not to mention the tour players who played in OMPL and still participate in tours (rip Lax).

Decided at team preview? That hasn't really been an issue since the days of Shell Smash/Belly Drum everything. Either get your facts straight or don't bother posting on the topic mate.
 
Chopin Alkaninoff I'd like Tier Shift to stay, at least as a challenge option if not rotation, however it's not going to exist for several months anyway because lower tiers don't exist at the start of a new generation. So, we're likely going to start with three in rotation. Whether or not Tier Shift will be added can be decided later. We'll see how it goes!

If you have a legitimate suggestion for a new ladder, feel free to make a case. Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss about STABmons; any arguments are not going to change its ladder activity.
I'm not gonna debate STABmons vs Sketchmons and how STABmons has to leave because of terrible activity. But I don't think it's justified to make STABmons leave while Tier Shift stay because Tier Shift has less then 1k plays in the past three months while STABmons manage to get around 2k, meaning it has more activity than Tier Shift. What I'm trying to say is, if STABmons leave because of terrible activity, then Tier Shift should leave (sorry Tier Shift fans) because it has even worse activity, both ladder wise and thread activity wise.

Edit: Also, I want to suggest for a new ladder, but I don't know the criteria of a meta that is qualified to be a ladder. That's why I have no idea what is supposed to be the ladder. So please mention what should be the criteria for a new ladder.
 
Last edited:

Rumplestiltskin

I will rain lels all over you and you will drown in them
This might be a little bit off the current topic but I'll just leave this here, feel free to think about this whenever.
I don't know if you leaders have considered it, but I suggest that 2v2 Doubles be on a rotational ladder at some point. OM's should represent doubles somewhere or in some way in my opinion, and 2v2 Doubles is a good way to get into doubles given the quick and simple battles.
I know the smogon thread hasn't been very active, but it has really picked up among PS! users, the popularity in the tournaments chat room being a prime example. And as for the smogon thread activity, it's probably the same reason why the 1v1 thread isn't very active. 2v2 Doubles attracts 1v1 players, and they haven't been known to be the users who use the forums.
 

Imperator Romanum

formerly Grains of Salt
This might be a little bit off the current topic but I'll just leave this here, feel free to think about this whenever.
I don't know if you leaders have considered it, but I suggest that 2v2 Doubles be on a rotational ladder at some point. OM's should represent doubles somewhere or in some way in my opinion, and 2v2 Doubles is a good way to get into doubles given the quick and simple battles.
I know the smogon thread hasn't been very active, but it has really picked up among PS! users, the popularity in the tournaments chat room being a prime example. And as for the smogon thread activity, it's probably the same reason why the 1v1 thread isn't very active. 2v2 Doubles attracts 1v1 players, and they haven't been known to be the users who use the forums.
I like 2v2 doubles a lot, but I don't know if it's really going to be... a permanent(rotation) ladder. We have multiple 2v2 formats, and 2v2 seems a bridge between 1v1 and VGC, it's not that popular. And to be specific here, it's probably got a lot of plays but is it really getting hundreds of thousands? Because that's usually what those quick formats should be getting.

You might think it fills a niche, but in reality it's not going to compete with either 1v1 or VGC. When your metagame is competing with all of the other Other metas and the official tournament format for pokemon you're going to have a hard time. Does it bridge the gap between standard and OMs better than BH? Sketchmons?
 

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

Top