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)

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... :/


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.