5th Gen 3 on 3 BATTLES!!!!

[Angelroid]

2 on 2 was great, But 3 on 3 is just insane. imo

 

[Yuoaman]

This idea is a little ridiculous, in my completely honest opinion. Pokemon began as a game where you pitted each of your little monsters against each of another person's little monsters, and having a whole army at your beck and call at one time sort of ruins the experience for me.

 

[Myles]

Some of you people need to play more RPGs. There are games where you have to control 4 characters at once, and you have more then 4 moves to choose from! And that was for the majority of the game, too!

That's what I was thinking as soon as I heard this. Just about every other JRPG out there is like this.

I'm having mixed feelings about this. I would probably prefer if they upgraded doubles battles more with more and made them a bit more prominent. But maybe they'll do that now, who knows.

 

[NeoZX]

The screen will be crowded with 6 pokemon. 2 on 2 was great, but 3 on 3 is a little overdoing it...
I think I'll send out Dialga, Palkia and Giratina all at once. But that's going to be overkill.
...Come to think of it, then there will be a new type of trainer, called "triplets", I guess...And maybe sisters...
...Imagine a double battle against a gym leaders and a Champion/E4 member, like the one in DPPt and HGSS, now becomes a triple battle against 2 gym leaders and a E4 member, or maybe 3 gym leaders...
I have to say, this new feature opens up a whole lot of new possibilities...

 

[Rakyu]

I have mixed feelings over the whole concept. With six Pokemon on the screen at any given time, I feel its going to get cluttered really quickly. Its also going to be really interesting seeing how this goes about tactically; I see counters to counters to counters being played, winding up in a lack of advantage for any of the players.

Despite that though, I do see a lot of interesting scenarios involving three trainers. Now you can beat the bad guys in droves rather than one at a time. Yayz for efficiency.

This idea is a little ridiculous, in my completely honest opinion. Pokemon began as a game where you pitted each of your little monsters against each of another person's little monsters, and having a whole army at your beck and call at one time sort of ruins the experience for me.

... and having a whole army at your beck and call at one time sort of ruins the experience for me.

... a whole army ...

Let's not give them ideas <.<

 

[Waffle-San]

I think some people are being a little rash here. I'm not quite sure what I think of 3 on 3 battles so far but in reality we know nothing about them. Double battles were implemented usually by battling 2 trainers, so it'd make sense for triple battles to be used when battling 3 trainers except in reality, how many times do you find yourselves in positions like that? A couple times maybe but other than that it's pretty rare. Unless they line 3 trainers up in a line and call them triplets which seems kind of rediculous to me.

When it comes to triple battles I don't think we know the full story yet, there's a lot of game mechanic possibilities here.

Also about the screen being too crowded thing, Ipeople need to stop thinking with their 4th generation minds and realise this is 5th gen. In the old screen it'd for sure be too crowded but the game's are adapting, depth has been added to the battle screens and the camera shifts, 3 on 3 shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Yuoaman]

I have mixed feelings over the whole concept. With six Pokemon on the screen at any given time, I feel its going to get cluttered really quickly. Its also going to be really interesting seeing how this goes about tactically; I see counters to counters to counters being played, winding up in a lack of advantage for any of the players.

Despite that though, I do see a lot of interesting scenarios involving three trainers. Now you can beat the bad guys in droves rather than one at a time. Yayz for efficiency.








Let's not give them ideas <.<

I'll totally give them all of the ideas that I want...

With an army though it would become more of an RTS, though.

 

[Tanaki]

3 on 3 sounds to me like a load of crap. I already dislike getting stuck in 2 on 2 battles, so this isn't much of an improvement for me. I like the classic 1 on 1 battles. The last thing I want to think about is the utter nightmare of how much text you would have to endure in some battles. Imagine if some pokemon had status, were holding items, affected by hail or sandstorm. I'm just thinking about a match with someone using 3 darkrais and the game saying that a pokemon is trapped in a nightmare 9 times. Do not want.

 

[Halcyon]

I hoped for that and never thought that would ever happened. And it did! :O :D

 

[Totaldile]

Surf+Earthquake=Very Quick Battles..... Maybe shooter is an avoid option? i hope so T-T

 

[Eurydice]

im not sure what i currently think about this. while it might be really awesome to fight with 3 pokemon it also might make it more annoying. i know some of the 2 on 2 battles are annoying. but it does sound pretty cool.

 

[インフェルノの津波]

I think 3 on 3 is one trainer versus one, maybe 3 at some point.

At least if they only have 3 Pokemon, you can get'em all in one shot.

Gawd guys. You sound like they said they're going to eat your toes for breakfast.

 

[Logiedan]

I'm not a really into 3 on 3 battles. 2 on 2 was enough for me, but i'd like to see new tactical team strategies with 3 on 3 battles. :3

 

[Mujahid]

It'll be fun and challenging at the same time...with 3 on 3 there will surely be some abilities like avoiding moves that hit all multiple pokemons(surf,earthquake,rock slide,blizzard etc.)..so it won't be that of a mess of quick battles...i'm looking forward to them

 

[Bluerang1]

Some please tell me the use/point of 3 on 3 battles.

6 on 6 would be cool though

 

[Lord Varion]

I dont like the idea
Double battle were good
But 3 on 3
-.- Thats pointless
Whats next Triplets as a trainer class

They'll never stop will they

 

[Essence]

Though I would find it fun, now that it's happening it doesn't sound very appealing. 3v3? Nty. Only 2 available switches, a clogged screen and SUPERRR long rounds :L

 

[Masterge77]

While a lot of you wanted Triple Battles, I did not, I was fine with Double Battles alone.......

 

[blue]

Each time we receive a new piece of information, these games get more intresting,
3 On 3 Battles! :D

 

[akaFilanachi]

I think this is a terrible idea. 2v2 was enough. With 3v3 the screen will be crowded, you would have only 1 switch per pokemon, and people would abuse the fact that they have 3 poke and triple attack 1 of the opponent's pokemon.