Are there any suspects in the foreseeable future?
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.Why are Snorlax, Shuckle, and guard split not viable in this format? Someone claims to have used them to reach 1600 on the ladder.
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.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?
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.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?