I'm not sure if my point/question is aimed more at competitive play or in-game story play but it is true for both really.

Since Gen III we've seen a fair few new battle styles added. Doubles, Triples, Rotation, Sky and Inverse. Do they see enough use? Not for me- from in game NPCs or competitively.

We started in RS with double battles that do see a few uses in-game with twins and young couples (etc) dotted around the game, but only making up a very small percentage of the npc trainers. In competitive play doubles is a lot more popular though, used in the VGCs and fairly common on Showdown.

But already things take a downturn. In BW we saw the invention of Triple and Rotation battles. Triples being simply an expanded version of double battles and rotation (one of my favourites) giving a whole new type of battle all together. However in the games they were introduced in, there were 4, maybe 5 triple/rotation battles that I can remember off the top of my head right now, and even then they were split between games half the time (looking at you, Heartbreaker). Even competitively they don't seem to get used very often compared to singles/doubles. The only place I see regular battles in these styles is the Battle Tower/Maison etc.

So what about Gen VI? We saw Sky battles and Inverse battles come to join the rout. Or maybe not.. There were a few sky battles in XY, but they've disappeared already by the time we've gotten to ORAS and can't be found competitively at all. Does the need for Flying types/Levitate Pokémon restrict the pool too much? What would be different if, for example, we had Sea or Underwater battles, that could only be used by Water Pokémon and anything that could use Surf (or Dive for underwater battles). After all when you're battling Relicanth or Freedivers underwater, aren't your lovely non-Water types drowning?

Inverse battles also game out in Gen VI. And there was one battle in the whole of XY. One. And again in ORAS, one. Inverse battles are amazing IMO, opening up chances for Pokémon that previously had too many weaknesses or hard counters and generally changing the way you think about the game. But one battle in game. And not a huge following online either.

So why do we think the majority of people play singles? Is it easier? More familiar? Is it 'pure' Pokémon or the 'original' way? I love the variety, and would love to see a game where the NPCs were say 40% single battles, 20% double, 20% triple and 20% rotation, get some real variety in the game and start to make people think about not just having one team to rule them all. You could also mix in inverse battles wherever you wanted too. Why aren't inverse triple battles or inverse rotation battles a thing? How could the other styles be brought more to the front competitively? Could a tournament where you have to use the same team for every style (or perhaps randomly chosen styles for each battle?) work?

Or is everything fine the way it is, and am I just mad for not being that bothered about single battles?