Would you like to see six vs. six battles?

We have triple battles, so what if they implemented six vs six? Sounds fun?

That would depend entirely on the formatting the 6 on 6 battles. If it were super rpg style like in the game BlueDragon - Xbox360 then yea it would be ok as I guess it wouldnt be tooooo chaotic. However......some people disagree.

No. I'm really not a fan of 3v3. I love double battles, but 3v3 is a bit much and rotation battles are hopelessly confusing.

I want to see the mode when 4 player have a double battle (2 players vs. 2 players) but each has a full party of 6, like what was available on Colosseum multiplayer.

Nope. I just like good 'ol fashioned 1 on 1.

I'm heavily against this, I'm happy with the system we have now cos it has always been successful.

Although Triple Battles and Rotation Battles were nice and added new strategy, I like the system the way it is now.

Nah. 3 on 3 is good enough, to me. I don't think we need 6 on 6, that'll be too many Pokemon out at one time...Well, actually your whole party, if you already got six pokes at that point. Not to mention, that it'll prolly would look really cluttered on the screen.

It sounds like fun, but it also sounds really long and tedious. Especially if we were to have to battle a conglomoeration of trainers with six party members. Perhaps if they were somewhat scarce they'd be more fun to battle, and even then they could have relatively hard teams to match their scarcity. While it's a good concept, and I'd definitely welcome more six on six battles, it'd be incredibly tedious to have to battle 4-5 trainers with six pokemon just to pass through a simple route.

It'd be too messy imo, and an awful lot to fit on the screen without inventing a new battle screen presentation for it.... which would be a bit of trouble given they've tried to stick to more or less the same thing already. I feel 3 vs 3 is as much as it's going to get.

I think that would be taking it a bit too far, it would be too chaotic.Though i would like to see a Triple Tag Battle.

Pokemon lose their HP too fast for this to take off. If they did a whole new revamp with their battle system(not going to happen), then 3v3+ formats might be possible.

No, not really.

2v2 is enough.

It would be too hectic for my brain to comprehend, plus, I would think it would take up the whole screen if there were large Pokemon.

No way, 3v3 is goos enough. It'll just clutter the whole screen.
But a tag team 3v3 would awesome tho.

I think I'd probably cry. So many move choices to run through, the battle would last way too long. And all you'd need is two level 100 Pokémon with Blizzard and Earthquake to win, basically. Or something to that effect. I guess 6v6 rotation battles wouldn't be a bad idea, but certainly not all on the same playing field in sextuple battles.

Oh gosh no. please no. 3v3 is enough. Although the idea of 6v6 rotation battles would be interesting and would definitely need some careful planning sounds interesting. It's far better than 6v6 with all twelve Pokemon on the screen at once haha.

I'd have to say no. It'd be waaay too messy and complicated, and there'd be too much to keep track of it. Even if it was in a typical RPG style format like in other games, it just wouldn't feel like actual Pokemon battles. I prefer single battles over pretty much everything, I can live with double battles since they're similar, and triple battles are just barely there, but if 6v6 battles were implemented, I'd really hate it. There's a chance that like the majority of your team could be wipe out with a single attack, and it'd just be too tedious imo. I don't think we should venture anywhere above 3v3, otherwise I will cry :(

As mentioned above, it'd be too cluttered for a 6-on-6 battle to take place, so I'm saying no to 6-on-6 battles. Plus, it kills the strategy of switching Pokemon to gain advantage.

6 on 6 would probably be the lolz with friends and maybe a few post game battles in game, but nothing serious. I mean, Earthquake and Surf both mean GG

AND BTW 500th POST

I really hope they don't add 6 vs. 6 battles in the future, as I felt that Triple Battles already cross the line a bit (I'm a little more lenient towards Rotation Battles, but feel that something like this would we better suited for a Battle Frontier like situation). Personally, I'm not even a fan of 2 vs. 2 battles, so I think that 6 vs. 6 battles would just get needlessly complicated and have very little appeal.

Double Battle are fine enough, thank. Triple battles were like that movie sequel of a good movie that is just plain awful because they copied the first one exactly, expecting that, if it was so successful, that a similar sequel would be. And well... that's just not that case. Six on Six would be like making a threequel o.o It serves no real purpose, it adds no real value to the game... It makes you think about strategy... A LITTLE... but in the story line yuo don't need a whole lotta that.