[84 / 3 / ?]
Quoted By: >>13715607
no, don't check 'em, I'm talking about double battles
I know next to nothing about them, given that there are so few in-game. But last night I was playing singles on showdown when it hit me.
This is stupid. Singles are stupid.
In-game it's a switch-fest, unless you're overleveled. As far as the meta is concerned, hazards did a good job preventing this (with sneaky pebbles even going too far for someone), but they don't feel like pokèmon battles anymore to me.
Doubles seem a helluva fun, and strategies are not tied to a single pokèmon but to couplings, making them quite diverse. I think the single game would be far more bearable (or even actually challenging) if trainer battles were doubles by default as well (maybe wild ones could still be single to make training and catching easier).
ITT we give and rate opinions:
>on doubles as a standard format in single game
>on doubles strategies (keep it generic)
>on the actual possibility gamefreak would eventually pull this out
I know next to nothing about them, given that there are so few in-game. But last night I was playing singles on showdown when it hit me.
This is stupid. Singles are stupid.
In-game it's a switch-fest, unless you're overleveled. As far as the meta is concerned, hazards did a good job preventing this (with sneaky pebbles even going too far for someone), but they don't feel like pokèmon battles anymore to me.
Doubles seem a helluva fun, and strategies are not tied to a single pokèmon but to couplings, making them quite diverse. I think the single game would be far more bearable (or even actually challenging) if trainer battles were doubles by default as well (maybe wild ones could still be single to make training and catching easier).
ITT we give and rate opinions:
>on doubles as a standard format in single game
>on doubles strategies (keep it generic)
>on the actual possibility gamefreak would eventually pull this out