![]() |
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. |
Quote:
With an army though it would become more of an RTS, though. |
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.
|
I hoped for that and never thought that would ever happened. And it did! :O :D
|
Surf+Earthquake=Very Quick Battles..... Maybe shooter is an avoid option? i hope so T-T
|
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.
|
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. |
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
|
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
|
Some please tell me the use/point of 3 on 3 battles.
6 on 6 would be cool though |
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 |
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
|
While a lot of you wanted Triple Battles, I did not, I was fine with Double Battles alone.......
|
Each time we receive a new piece of information, these games get more intresting,
3 On 3 Battles! :D |
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.
|
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 ~ |
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.
|
Quote:
I think this 3v3 is ridiculous. One person can just bring three fast sweepers and gang up on one Pokemon. |
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.
|
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... |
Quote:
Edit: Myles explains it much better then me... |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. :( |
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.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:42 AM. |
![]()
© 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.