• Another scrumptious episode of Bulbacast has been uploaded to YouTube. Watch it here. I hope you don't feel desserted after watching this one.
  • Hello all! The forum staff have introduced a new rule set. We've reduced the number of rules, made trick language easier to understand, and have hopefully simplified the rules to make understanding them easier. Please have a read over the new forum rules here.
  • Fun & Games is searching for new mods! Did I catch your attention? Head on over here!

Shunned or just Ignored? How ?

hungns35

New Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Everyone always seems to play the traditional 1vs1 instead of 2vs2. Usually everyone I see has the common misconception that "2vs2 is all about Exploding, Earthquaking, and Flying/Levitate" While I'll admit EQ and Explosion are indeed kinda broken in 2vs2, there still are ways to overcome that so that shouldn't be the only reason.

Who else supports the idea of trying to start up the 2vs2 metagame again?
 

Matleo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
3,615
Reaction score
568
If abilities like Bulletproof, Forewarn, Telepathy would protect too from them... Ghost types are immune to explosion. Using semiinvulnerable moves helps too.

Double battles 2vs2 would be better if some pokemon could fuse or if moves could combine. I loved Lunastone and Solrocks gym in gen 3 and meowstics gen 6 gym 7. More of that would be cool. Or gyms with a double battle and two single battles after that. Or start with singles and end in a double.

Damp should protect from bug move Powder (should react to fire, electric and poison, beam moves) explosion, Sonic boom, Aftermath and half damage from blast moves.

Magnet rise, if telekinesis would work similar? Maybe some abilities like shield dust , shed skin should protect from explosions and eartquakes/magnitudes?

How would people react if a pokemon could really multiply or transform into two pokemon or summon a partner and extra oponent for a double battle? Something better then battle bond Kangashan
 
Last edited:

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
4,551
Reaction score
952
Pokemon Colosseum and XD used double battle formats by default, and it was ... I wouldn't say amazing, but it was definitely good as a change of pace from the main entries.

I also remember that Emerald specifically repositioned NPC trainers along routes to encourage you to fight them in tag battles. Tag battles still happen from time to time but they are NOWHERE near as common as in Emerald.
 

Oricorio

Cool Cat
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
9,885
Reaction score
1,542
I've tried Doubles OU a couple of times and it's definitely interesting. I'd say the main difference is that 1v1 battles are about momentum, while 2v2 is about positioning. In doubles, you have to consider when to protect, when to weaken the opponent, when to put support mons into play etc while in singles all you have to worry about is having an advantage over your opponent in the next turn. Doubles are usually over in around ten turns, while singles can go on for quite a while. I still prefer playing singles myself, but I respect the skill that goes into playing doubles.
 

BigBadButterfree

the Destroyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,600
I love doubles. I wish the main series had more opportunities to experiment during the story.

I'm also sad triples didn't become more of a thing. I know they were gimmicky but I enjoyed it.

Also, I wish there was a competitive scene for multi. I'd be much more willing to get into it if I could team up with my friend. And it also slightly changes how you deal with the double format because each trainer just gets their 2/3 Pokemon on their side, as opposed to having access to all 6 everywhere.
 
Top