The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Previous Generations (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=200)
-   -   5th Gen 3 on 3 BATTLES!!!! (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=223920)

tylerab01 June 27th, 2010 4:46 PM

3 on 3 BATTLES!!!!
 
According to Serebii 3 on 3 battles have been confirmed!! What do you think about it?

Tyrantrum June 27th, 2010 4:50 PM

I think it's freakin' amazing. :D I've wanted 3 on 3 battles since.... D/P, I think? idk... but this game is going to be amazing. I can't wait to hear more about it!

Volroc June 27th, 2010 4:50 PM

i tihnk its beyond FONTASTIC!!!!!

i already know im gonna make a triple battle team :D

linkinpark187 June 27th, 2010 5:08 PM

I think back to the old saying of "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd". I personally think that it's a horrible idea. So long as there isn't a bunch of 3 on 3 battles, I'll be OK with it. But I really don't think it's a good idea.

Brendonwii June 27th, 2010 5:19 PM

Its the worst idea ever!!!!
Why... why would they make it double battles are epic no more needed.
Whats next pokebrawls?

dieter57 June 27th, 2010 5:26 PM

sigh.....
two many pokemon....
although, my aggron, tyranitar, exploud trio will destroy all, it's just not the same.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire June 27th, 2010 5:28 PM

Wow there is lot's of whining on this...I like the idea :)

austin00081 June 27th, 2010 5:31 PM

They should have left it with 2 on 2. 3 on 3 is like, half of your team, where's the fun in that?

It's a bad feature, that i'm gonna try to avoid in the game, but im sure there will be mandatory 3 on 3 battles.

Storm_has_formed June 27th, 2010 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magmaruby and Aquasapphire (Post 5918244)
Wow there is lot's of whining on this...I like the idea :)

funny enough, i call it an opinion :)

Silhouette June 27th, 2010 5:36 PM

I have been waiting for triple battles for ages... probably since Ruby & Sapphire. Can't wait to see how they are played.

A Pixy June 27th, 2010 7:03 PM

If it keeps going, all of your team will be out at once.

That'd be kinda cool. o3o

cystar June 27th, 2010 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linkinpark187 (Post 5918197)
I think back to the old saying of "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd". I personally think that it's a horrible idea. So long as there isn't a bunch of 3 on 3 battles, I'll be OK with it. But I really don't think it's a good idea.

aggreed i think its horrible idea

PiPVoda June 27th, 2010 7:14 PM

A mixed reaction.

Upon hearing about it:

"OMFG!!!! Triple battles?!!! That's insane!!!............................................................................................oh wait, won't that mean a more crowded screen and less exp per pokemon? Neva mind! D: "

I can't wait to see it in action :D.

BeachBoy June 27th, 2010 7:56 PM

Update: I'd like to apologize, I locked this thinking it'd be fine in the general update thread, but let's be honest, this alone can offer so much to talk about. I'm not perfect, so I'm gonna reverse this call and leave this open, it's a big deal. Have fun.

*unlocks*

FreakyLocz14 June 27th, 2010 9:06 PM

This would make competitive battling a mess but it should be fun in game.

Niprop June 27th, 2010 9:19 PM

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!

Of course, with the size of Pokémon sprites, I could see where 2 Wailords and Kyogre could crowd the screen...


Another issue would be move reduction. Earthquake looses 25% power in double battles, and if it loses even more power in a triple battle, well, one of the best moves ever just turned worse then Dig.

fireyboy345 June 27th, 2010 9:24 PM

i like the idea of having blastoise, charizard, and venisaur out at the same time

Volroc June 27th, 2010 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5918773)
This would make competitive battling a mess but it should be fun in game.

i totally agree with that, i hope it isnt allowed in competitive tho...

Penutz June 27th, 2010 9:29 PM

It will be alright. But i dont want it to be a major part in the story. Perhaps a battle fronteir thing or something

Weber June 27th, 2010 9:54 PM

im very mixed on this one, mainly because i dont have a dsi xl, and 3v3 could be a pain in the butt that way, and also having to know just about everything about anything on pokemon will also be annoying, like abilities and what happens when there are more then one and if it will attack your pokemon and who is fastest and etc and so forth and so on, i think it would be fun though becuase i probably could end up leveling my whole party at once alot faster.

i think i will fail because im to used to red and blue, i dont know what these posion types are and steel and dark, as well as ground and rock and dragon, including bug i get confused because its hard to remember what is x2 and x4 and things get worse with STAB and trying to figure out what will be most effective, all in all i fail at pokemon now a days but i still play it because i like how it takes up my free time.

Angelroid June 27th, 2010 10:15 PM

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

Yuoaman June 27th, 2010 10:17 PM

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 June 27th, 2010 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niprop (Post 5918791)
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 June 27th, 2010 10:24 PM

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 June 27th, 2010 10:34 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuoaman (Post 5918896)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuoaman (Post 5918896)
... and having a whole army at your beck and call at one time sort of ruins the experience for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuoaman (Post 5918896)
... a whole army ...


Let's not give them ideas <.<

Waffle-San June 27th, 2010 10:47 PM

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 June 27th, 2010 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakyu (Post 5918929)
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 June 27th, 2010 11:27 PM

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 June 27th, 2010 11:28 PM

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

Totaldile June 27th, 2010 11:32 PM

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

Eurydice June 27th, 2010 11:35 PM

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 June 27th, 2010 11:47 PM

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 June 27th, 2010 11:48 PM

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 June 28th, 2010 12:14 AM

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 June 28th, 2010 1:51 AM

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

6 on 6 would be cool though

Lord Varion June 28th, 2010 1:56 AM

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 June 28th, 2010 2:20 AM

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 June 28th, 2010 3:27 AM

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

blue June 28th, 2010 3:36 AM

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

akaFilanachi June 28th, 2010 5:33 AM

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.

560cool. June 28th, 2010 5:59 AM

Hah, as I've been off PC, I only thought on this.
I WAS SURE ! :D HELL, it really exists ! ;)
OK, I can't wait. What about all three starters ? ~ Against other starters from another generation. Epic ~

sirDonovan June 28th, 2010 6:02 AM

I didn't believe it until I saw the screenshots and still kinda don't. But after thinking about it, i guess 3 on 3 battles won't be too bad. Like double battles, you'll probably get used to it fast and there will most likely be a way to avoid them. Or if they aren't in game, I think it'll just be a multiplayer option with possibly up to six trainers battling at once if they all used 2 pokemon.

Dr. Faustus June 28th, 2010 6:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakyu (Post 5918929)
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 <.<

Why does my brain generate pictures of a Pokemon Tactical RPG?


I think this 3v3 is ridiculous. One person can just bring three fast sweepers and gang up on one Pokemon.

PrinceBlackheart June 28th, 2010 6:20 AM

You are absolutly correct and i think thats cool but most of the new pokemon look weird and out of place though.I read it on bulbapedia.

Alberio June 28th, 2010 6:25 AM

Generation 6: Now with 30-on-30 battles, where you fight with a full PC box of pokemon!

Seriously though, I have mixed feelings. As long as it doesn't happen TOO often, I guess I can deal with it. Triple gym leader battle, anyone? But competitive battling will get even more complicated now...

Storm_has_formed June 28th, 2010 6:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Faustus (Post 5919632)
Why does my brain generate pictures of a Pokemon Tactical RPG?


I think this 3v3 is ridiculous. One person can just bring three fast sweepers and gang up on one Pokemon.

and that plan is perfect against three walls, isn't it... there is so many counter strategies that can stop this kind of planning. maybe in-game it will work, but that won't work on wifi

Edit: Myles explains it much better then me...

Myles June 28th, 2010 6:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Faustus (Post 5919632)
I think this 3v3 is ridiculous. One person can just bring three fast sweepers and gang up on one Pokemon.

Leaving you with two Pokemon not taking any damage at all. Also, if you can accurately predict who your opponent would attack (e.g. the slowest, least defensive, etc.), you can make it use Protect. Imagine a turn of not being attacked at all.

Besides, what are the chances of them having three Pokemon that: a) are sweepers b) are active c) are all even or super effective against one of your active Pokemon and d) not super effective to your other active Pokemon. If any of those are not true, all attacking that one Pokemon probably isn't a very good idea anyway.

And this is just off the top of my head. That strategy would have so many counters it's not even funny.

Charmageddon June 28th, 2010 7:23 AM

Godammit...

Sometimes less is more, GameFreak. This is just a little bit over the top. I'll wait until I actually play a 3-on-3 battle until I pass full judgement, but I am very apprehensive about it.

Nick June 28th, 2010 7:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linkinpark187 (Post 5918197)
I think back to the old saying of "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd". I personally think that it's a horrible idea. So long as there isn't a bunch of 3 on 3 battles, I'll be OK with it. But I really don't think it's a good idea.

Quoted for truth.

At first I was kind of excited to see a different forme of battling introduced, but really, after thinking about it a little more, the screen looks so crowded - and I don't like things being like that, even if it's out of my control. One thing I can see affecting this, though, is the radius when trainers can actually spot you and battle you. I remember there being three trainers all within a radius that would all spot you if you walked in the middle of them, but one trainer's radius was different to prevent the three from battling you at the same time, since that feature wasn't included in past games. So that's kind of interesting.

The idea of three on three battles just seems hectic to me, though. Overcrowded and hectic are the only two words I have that can really describe how I feel about it. And since Pokémon sprites are taking to life, it seems like it will be more confusing than anything. :(

mikey June 28th, 2010 7:29 AM

I also am not crazy about the idea of 3 on 3 battles. I think that battles will become overcrowded and hectic. Hopefully, there will not be that many 3 on 3 battles. I like to stick with 2 on 2.

akaFilanachi June 28th, 2010 7:37 AM

People will be using explosion like crazy with these 3v3 battles. If you don't have a ghost type or a highly defensive pokemon, there goes half of your team while they only lose 1 poke.
Seriously, what was Nintendo thinking when they decided to make 3v3?

Myles June 28th, 2010 7:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akaFilanachi (Post 5919781)
People will be using explosion like crazy with these 3v3 battles. If you don't have a ghost type or a highly defensive pokemon, there goes half of your team while they only lose 1 poke.
Seriously, what was Nintendo thinking when they decided to make 3v3?

The same would go for your opponent. They would have to be Ghost or defensive too. Since explosion hits multiple Pokemon, it would have reduced power too. All Ghost, Rock, Steel, protecting and defensive Pokemon resist it; you've probably got one. Explosion can't be taught to a lot of Pokemon and is a fair bit weaker with the reduced power on everyone, except for itself, which is still a OKO.

Sage Harpuia June 28th, 2010 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akaFilanachi (Post 5919781)
People will be using explosion like crazy with these 3v3 battles. If you don't have a ghost type or a highly defensive pokemon, there goes half of your team while they only lose 1 poke.
Seriously, what was Nintendo thinking when they decided to make 3v3?

Probably explosion will hit also your pokemon...so using explosion will be a double-edge move because will ko some pokemon of yours too.

lx_theo June 28th, 2010 8:15 AM

It'll be a good idea if its done only a little outside of a battle frontier type area

FreakyLocz14 June 28th, 2010 8:17 AM

Well to be honest I don't see competitive battling even picking up on this. They still never picked up on double battles fully. In the competitive battling community, double battles are a small, specialized niche of play.

akaFilanachi June 28th, 2010 8:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sage Harpuia (Post 5919833)
Probably explosion will hit also your pokemon...so using explosion will be a double-edge move because will ko some pokemon of yours too.

That's where protect/detect comes in. Have the other two protect while 1 goes boom. A good defensive, resisting pokemon could even just shrug it off and go ahead with it's turn without having to use protect.

Mujahid June 28th, 2010 8:27 AM

I still think that there will be some abilities that'll make the pokemon immune to moves that hit multiple pokemon or disable such moves...but then those pokemon will instantly become OU or even uber

BeachBoy June 28th, 2010 8:29 AM

I think ghosts will get a lot of love with the introduction of three-on-three. They loved doubles, triples seems to only propel their use further. (given the mechanics of explosion stay the same)

Eeohnex June 28th, 2010 8:44 AM

Not sure what to think about the three on three battles. From the screens and the video I have seen, the screen looks way to crowded and well, not sure if I'm going to like that. The battles are going to be more interesting but quicker at the same time. I guess, I'll have to wait and see what other game mechanics are going to be introduced with this new feature.

XxRogueTrainerxX June 28th, 2010 8:48 AM

Honestly, I'm unsure of what to think of 3-on-3 battles. At first, I thought it was a good idea, but several good points have been raised (most notably the Explosion one) that show the disadvantages. Seriously, what was Nintendo thinking?

DXrobots June 28th, 2010 9:01 AM

I think 3 V 3 is way to much to be happening on the screen. Theres gonna be so much surf spam its gonna be ridiculous. I seriously hope there aren't too many triple battles in the game and certainly hope they don't make a colloseum game with triple battles only.

XDLugia June 28th, 2010 9:04 AM

I see earthquake, surf, explosion, and other similar moves spammed in the near future.
I think this might help to get through battles faster, but it would be a very difficult to cover each pokes weakness.

BeachBoy June 28th, 2010 9:10 AM

Guys, remember, surf and EQ's damage will decrease though.
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 on 2 advice, smogon
There are certain attacks that, when used in a Double Battle, target multiple Pokémon. These can generally be divided into two types: Two-Target Attacks and Spread Attacks. Two-Target Attacks hit both opponents, while Spread Attacks hit both opponents and the user's partner. In Diamond and Pearl, whenever a move targets multiple Pokémon, its power is reduced to 75% of its normal strength. The disadvantage is that you won't hit either opponent with the full strength of the move. The advantage is that, resistances and weaknesses aside, you'll be dealing more damage overall.

So they might not be used oh so much if they're not going to do a lot against three.

Myles June 28th, 2010 9:14 AM

Purely speculation, but I think triple battles will be 50% power for those moves. Which, as I said above, would really weaken Explosion. Since the self KO certainly doesn't go 50%.

tvoza2 June 28th, 2010 10:18 AM

Three on three's sound like fun.
At least the game's are catching up to the anemie.
The shows done this since gen 1 for crying out loud.
Ash, Misty, Brock vs Team Rocket.

Azure-Supernova June 28th, 2010 10:34 AM

I did't care for the Double Battles, so I can already see my not caring for the Triple Battles. You can say I'm 'blinded by nostalgia' or whatever, but I like 1 on 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvoza2 (Post 5920219)
Three on three's sound like fun.
At least the game's are catching up to the anemie.
The shows done this since gen 1 for crying out loud.
Ash, Misty, Brock vs Team Rocket.

Hmmm, I've always felt the Game should be kept out of the Anime's universe... that crazy world where a Pikachu can take down an Onix with electric attacks...

HugSomebody June 28th, 2010 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchisou Yutohru (Post 5919742)
One thing I can see affecting this, though, is the radius when trainers can actually spot you and battle you. I remember there being three trainers all within a radius that would all spot you if you walked in the middle of them, but one trainer's radius was different to prevent the three from battling you at the same time, since that feature wasn't included in past games. So that's kind of interesting.

Perhaps that was some type of interesting foreshadowing intentionally put there. o.O And I also see it as improbable;what are the chances of running into three different trainers at the same time? It'd be neat if this feature was implemented in busy areas, because that would make more sense than randomly running into three different people simultaneously in a forest or something.

Besides that, I'm not sure how to approach this new feature. Maybe it's a little too much...they started with 1v1 battles which were fun, and then 2v2 to spice things up a little, but 3v3...What's next? All your Pokemon out at the same time? =x

redsaber5859 June 28th, 2010 10:52 AM

Pokemon rumble x10 is what's next,

Xtreme765 June 28th, 2010 11:47 AM

I expect much lag with the fact all 6 pokemon battling will be moving aroung (that was one of the old released details) I still wonder if any will be in game.

Jerme June 28th, 2010 11:55 AM

3-3 would be so annoying and time consuming. this better be fake, going overboard

Penumbra June 28th, 2010 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerme (Post 5920539)
3-3 would be so annoying and time consuming. this better be fake, going overboard

It's not fake.

I think it's a pretty nice idea. I mean, DP threw us into the physical/special split and we've learned to cope. Of course, some of our favourites got severely dented in the process, but along came many advantageous boosts. We shouldn't be so quick on the draw and shoot bullets at blurry targets. First, we should probably learn how it's going to play out. For all you know, there could be a whole different system when it comes to 3-3 battles. I mean, all we have to judge upon right now is a sole trailer/image. We haven't even seen it in action, people.

I think that the whining (or, 'opinions,' if you prefer, but if you do, they are rather prejudiced) should be minimized because we don't even know how this will play out. With double battles came new moves such as Helping Hand, and with triple battle will arise moves based on triples.

Nonetheless, I've always favoured battles featuring more than two pokemon at a time, as it causes the battlers to focus more on strategy than raw stats and movepools, which is why I've always wondered why single battles were so focused on. And of course, adding more pokemon into the fray will only increase the strategy play, which I see as beneficial. Also, yes the screen will be a bit more cluttered, but I foresee the health bars going horizontally, as stacked would just cover up the opponent.

Maybe you all don't like certain things happening (such as an earthquake nullification, as said earlier, I believe) but there will obviously be new features to compensate for losses.

Game Freak may be risky, but not stupid, after all.

Blueknight June 28th, 2010 12:34 PM

Wow. 3v3 is like insane. :D

I'm having mixed feelings over the subject. It can be fun to have 6 players battling at once (each sending out one Pokemon) and that could be fun to do a 3v3 player match.

But this may also have something to do with the shooter feature as well. It wasn't included in the regular 1v1 or 2v2 battles, so it may be for special 3v3 battles.

Air Pichu June 28th, 2010 12:49 PM

The idea was a bit weird to do triple battles, 2vs2 was enough. 3vs3 is half your team, and what about the screen? I don't like the idea, competitive play a definite nono but in gameplay it'd be fine with me.

Penumbra June 28th, 2010 1:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air Pichu (Post 5920733)
The idea was a bit weird to do triple battles, 2vs2 was enough. 3vs3 is half your team, and what about the screen? I don't like the idea, competitive play a definite nono but in gameplay it'd be fine with me.

Why not? I can understand your opinion of not liking it in general, but how would it be bad for strategic play? It would lead to better strategies with nicer combinations and team variation. In a single uber battle, a parasect for example would be pretty useless. But once you throw in two other pokemon that are there to help it? Then you have a beast.

It'll definitely bring out old pokemon from the past and thrust them into the future, that's for sure. Whether this whole idea folds or not, we will definitely see re-arranged tiers.

sirboulevard June 28th, 2010 2:00 PM

I'm sure the battles will be interesting for sure, but I barely adapted to 2 on 2 battles and three on three seems more like a move to make the battles more intense. No offense GameFreak, I already had a bad habit of throwing my Gameboy at the wall when I lost to the Elite 4, I have a feeling these battles will be the same... :/

Zackraa June 28th, 2010 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magmaruby and Aquasapphire (Post 5918244)
Wow there is lot's of whining on this...I like the idea :)

Agreed. I've been wanting 3 on 3 battles since pokemon started considering games back then like Final Fantasy already had 3 on 3 turn style rpg battles

bobandbill June 28th, 2010 5:34 PM

One of the things that I thought with this update was that it reminded me a heck of a lot of 'Telefang', especially with the 3 on 3 battles (Telefang being the 'fake Pokemon Diamond/Jade' games...if you don't know of them google away!). And for all the flaws Telefang had (cough) three on three battles in it was pretty fun enough.... and the system was much simpler too (for instance no hit-all-enemies attacks like Surf, leastways in the 1st one). IMO 3 on 3 with Pokemon could work out to be a pretty fun situation with a bunch of options to use - hard to judge though without trying it out though but I feel it has potential. And as mentioned many other games go beyond 3 on 3 battles as well with even more complexity than Pokemon does.

As for when it is used... we do not yet know how often 3 on 3 is used - maybe it'd be only a few times in the game? (Certainly you fight what'd likely be the rival in a 3 on 3 battle, or in a wifi battle alternatively). As for those who asked about what point 3 on 3 had... probably the same as 2 on 2 battles had point-wise. =p They're enjoyable IMO, and for many others too, so 3 on 3 may have its lure for lots of people as well - simply adds another aspect to playing the game I suppose.

Too early to properly judge imo, and even if it's bad I do have my doubts that it'd be used often either.

dieter57 June 28th, 2010 5:43 PM

i don't like 3 on 3 battles. period.

Storm_has_formed June 28th, 2010 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirboulevard (Post 5920975)
I'm sure the battles will be interesting for sure, but I barely adapted to 2 on 2 battles and three on three seems more like a move to make the battles more intense. No offense GameFreak, I already had a bad habit of throwing my Gameboy at the wall when I lost to the Elite 4, I have a feeling these battles will be the same... :/

:shocked: don't throw it! it doesn't feel anything, only you!!!

tangvor June 28th, 2010 6:12 PM

Okay the main thing is earthquake, surf, and other group attacks are now going to be EVEN WORSE!
nothing upsets me more than my empoleon using surf and doing half the damage it should to each of the pokemon!
Crowdedness not only with the sprites but also with the health bars!
I don't think most people realize how much room those things take up haha

Doxasikyrie June 28th, 2010 6:19 PM

This does seem a little over the top, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

last fighter 36 June 28th, 2010 6:52 PM

3 on 3 battles would be the awesomest thing :P

loliwin June 28th, 2010 6:54 PM

Its kinda like turn-based Marvel vs Capcom. :O

Robin Hood June 28th, 2010 7:02 PM

As long as theirs no Gym Leader that has to be fought using 3-on-3 to promote the feature like there was for Double Battles in RSE, then I'll be okay with it I think. Not terribly excited, but you could say I'm the middleman in this.

Le Creep! June 28th, 2010 7:07 PM

It would be nice. But, if you were to carry only about 2 Pokemon around (that's kinda rare) and engage a 3 on 3 battle, what would happen?

I know that's like the worst case scenario.

I think it's great! Can't wait to get the games!

Robin Hood June 28th, 2010 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Creep! (Post 5922161)
It would be nice. But, if you were to carry only about 2 Pokemon around (that's kinda rare) and engage a 3 on 3 battle, what would happen?

Same thing that happens in HG/SS if you only have one pokemon on your team and encounter a double-battler. They'll say somethin along the lines of "Oh, it wouldn't be fair since you only have [number] pokemon..." And you don't battle them.

Fli June 28th, 2010 7:23 PM

Hmmm... Well, I'm interested in how it will work, but I'm also kinda worried about the crowdedness and things in general. So I guess I'm mixed. I loved 2 on 2 and feel like I should love 3 on 3 too, but I've never really wanted 3 on 3 except the random "what would 3 on 3 be like" thoughts. I'll be patient and wait to see what they are really like, I guess.

MrsNorrington June 28th, 2010 9:32 PM

Wow, I think this is going to be an exciting new feature! Can't wait!

MistahDude June 28th, 2010 10:57 PM

it looks crowded but it would take a lot of strategy to be good at them.

Gymnotide June 28th, 2010 11:25 PM

I think it's going to be a bit... Stupid. You already have limited use of Earthquake / Surf, etc. in double battles, but when you bring a third member in, you basically have to rely on attacks that single out the foes or attack them all at once. If you choose to attack them all, then your attack's power would probably be reduced greatly (like how in double battles, hitting two foes at once means your attack strength is 75% of normal -- I'm expecting something along the lines of 50% or less for triples).

What it will go into then is what double battle ends up being a lot of the time -- you single out a foe and take them out ASAP using one-target moves, depending on your type advantages... Only in triple battles, you can cover every type possible since you have so many Pokemon out already, so only the fastest Pokemon can win, really.

Finally, the last thing I'm worrying about is that your party can be severely crippled by losing even one member... And in-game, if you're in a tight situation, you'll most likely lose a triple battle anyway.

Cherrim June 29th, 2010 6:49 AM

I'm not very excited about the 3v3. :/ I suppose it kind of seems like a logical upgrade from double battles but it seems... tacky? Lame? Unimaginative? D:

It just doesn't sit right, for some reason. Too obvious, maybe. *shrug*

Calvo819 June 29th, 2010 8:52 AM

i facepalmed when i saw 3 on 3


pokemon has started to become a lot stupider lately, im starting to feel bad ._.

Starway June 29th, 2010 9:57 AM

My friend told me it's turning in to Final Fantasy type of Fighting but I think it's a bit overboard if you ask me.

JustinDestruction June 29th, 2010 10:00 AM

When I saw this I just said. "Wow." I feel this is pretty overkill. 3 on 3? MADNESS.

Kirbychu June 29th, 2010 3:05 PM

I was hoping for 4-way battles; doubles battles are enough anyways.

Charizard★ June 29th, 2010 3:08 PM

Eh, its going to be similar to a double battle so I could care less. Just one more Pokemon to battle with.

fenyx4 June 29th, 2010 3:54 PM

Just found out about this feature... I'm interested to see how it plays out. It seems intriguing...but a bit 'cramped' during battle, if that's the correct term. I remember someone saying if this was introduced, it's showing half of your team right off the bat. Well, time will tell how awesome these battles are (personally, I'm a fan of 2-on-2 battles myself!) :D

Weatherman, Kiyoshi June 29th, 2010 5:34 PM

I like the idea, honestly.
It allows three Pokemon to be trained out once. :3

But, I'm worried about the screen. Hopefully the transparency of the health bars and more space utilization will be of use.

Tiax June 29th, 2010 9:46 PM

Ugh, that's a terrible idea. Who thought of that? ...

Kai Yamato June 29th, 2010 10:12 PM

Eh, not excited about the whole thing. Just like double battles, I think it's a pointless gimmick and a waste of time.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:42 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.