Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Single Battles or Double Battles? 2016-08-11 02:27:24 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Single Battles or Double Battles? 2016-08-11 02:27:24 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1398457064314.jpg (26KB, 305x233px) Image search:
[Google]
26KB, 305x233px
So /vp/ what do you think the better battling format is and why?
I'm a bigger fan of doubles here. My reasoning being that prediction still matters, but that your pokemon need to be far more flexible than singles. Moreover, type/move/ability combinations become a big factor. I will give singles credit with how important switching is and how some pokemon can perform niche roles that aren't as viable in doubles.
>>
Singles for life
>>
>>27694842
Doubles tho
>>
once all-6 V. all-6 comes out, that should be the standard. Caaaaan't wait.
>>
Sky battles :^)
>>
>>27694818
I want actual double battles where each side has twelve pokemon
>>
I like doubles also
a lot of that is that I don't like stall very much, gives me flashbacks to gen 2 when it was all skarmbliss and some snorlax
>>
>>27694818
I like Triples.
>>
Triples.
>>
Meganium team is gonna lose.
>>
Rotation Battles
>>
>>27694818
Singles has always been the best format. It should have been the official tournament format if GF wasn't so lazy to balance the goddamn game.
Doubles, specially VCG doubles is for fags that can't into strategy.
>>
I play singles most but like doubles more.
rotation is too easy to predict switches
triple was hype as fuck but i dont like the range limits
inverse is meh
>>
>>27694818
I like Doubles better. If there was an option to switch the ingame from singles to doubles that would be cool.
>>
>>27694818
Doubles make more pokemon usefull in casual play, many overpowered moves and abilities became just good. Needs a lot more tactic.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1