[quote name='N8theGr8' post='9429' date='Jan 18 2011, 08:32 PM']And for once in my life, I completely and thoroughly agree with Bullet.[/quote]
See, it's not so hard
[quote name='Will' post='9432' date='Jan 18 2011, 08:50 PM']Yeah, because leaders give a damn on what's considered "cheap."[/quote]
That's why we protest :3
[quote name='AZKnight' post='9433' date='Jan 18 2011, 09:52 PM']I just want to say that I do not have nearly as big of a beef with Doubles as I do with Triples. Even though it's still hard, I feel it's easier to adapt a team for a Doubles battle. Does not help that in Triples that the battle usually only lasts 2-4 turns. I also agree with Ame about how it probably feels more prominent because it keeps repeating because of the [s]insane[/s] [s]impossible[/s] [s]ludicrous[/s] hard difficulty. Can we make a compromise and if PO ever gets Rotation battles working, we use that instead of Triples? I feel Doubles does what it does best and that Rotation is the next variation of battles. Triples is just...bleh compared to those two.[/quote]
Rotation, from what I've seen, is as different to triples as triples is different to singles. I sitll wants them though ._. NAO