5th Gen 3 on 3 BATTLES!!!!

[Agent Clank]

I think it looks awesome!
I've also been wanting a 3 on 3 battles.
I love 2 on 2 battles,so,I can't wait to battle 3 on 3.

 

[XEL]

I think back to the old saying of "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd". I personally think that it's a horrible idea.

This.

lol, Imagine people running around with 3 Darkrais on a team. You'd always be able to use one as insurance to keep the opponent asleep and just keep draining them, aha.

 

[Jerme]

This.

lol, Imagine people running around with 3 Darkrais on a team. You'd always be able to use one as insurance to keep the opponent asleep and just keep draining them, aha.

you killled it for me even more (dont worry, it was already dead). now that you say this there will be way more problems related to yours that people will call "noob tactics" that will be "banned" from the official fan battle rules or whatever it is

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I think triple battles sound cool :).

 

[Guillermo]

It'll be crap. Seriously, why did they think of this? Two was great. How many times do you see trainers battling with three Pokemon out on the field at once in the Anime or Manga? There'll be too many Pokemon on the screen and it'll take forever to bark out three orders, do the moves, then wait for your opponent to make their moves.

 

[Zet]

Two? That was trying to make it a little challenging, Three however.... sure it's an upgrade but it's still "so what? I just have to taken down another pokemon", but how would three on three battles be initiated by trainers? You just can't walk by three and make that "!" bubble appear over their heads at the same time.

 

[MistahDude]

It'll be crap. Seriously, why did they think of this? Two was great. How many times do you see trainers battling with three Pokemon out on the field at once in the Anime or Manga? There'll be too many Pokemon on the screen and it'll take forever to bark out three orders, do the moves, then wait for your opponent to make their moves.

Have you ever played other RPGs? Most of them are 3v3 or more. They are quick and challenging.

 

[Guillermo]

Have you ever played other RPGs? Most of them are 3v3 or more. They are quick and challenging.

lol, don't tell me you're actually comparing Pokemon to another RPG. They're nothing alike.

 

[Zet]

Have you ever played other RPGs? Most of them are 3v3 or more. They are quick and challenging.

RPG games require skill, Pokemon does not require skill.

 

[Luck]

Have you ever played other RPGs? Most of them are 3v3 or more. They are quick and challenging.

You can get by the game by having a pokemon that knows a move that just happens to be super-effective against the other pokemon. Last time I checked, RPGs require strategy, not just a simple rock-paper-scissors advantage.

 

[Guillermo]

You have obviously not stepped foot into competitive battling, where the more serious and "skillful" aspect of Pokemon is drawn out.

I see no exact reason for the hate, but eh, each to their own, I suppose. I used to feel uncomfortable with triple battles too, but I don't really care anymore.

Yes, Derkles, but people choose to get into competitive battling. It's another aspect you can do if you wish, it's not part of the actual plot. However, other RPG's require strategy from the start to finish.

 

[Zet]

You have obviously not stepped foot into competitive battling, where the more serious and "skillful" aspect of Pokemon is drawn out.

I see no exact reason for the hate, but eh, each to their own, I suppose. I used to feel uncomfortable with triple battles too, but I don't really care anymore.

Swampert = Counter & Mirror Coat

Bam and "skill" is gone. Also competitive battling is crap, I don't care if a pokemon is "uber", it's just a pokemon so exploit it's weakness. Another thing is those clauses, "oh nooooo, they used double team and now I can't hit them ;o; haaaaaaaxxxxx!!!!!"

So yeah, real "skills" in competitive battling.

 

[Zet]

Well that's true, and I apologize for my remark, I just a bit of a headache. But in response, I don't think people should try to make Pokemon more challenging.

 

[Guillermo]

I don't even know how we got into this discussion. Long story short, 3v3 will suck.

 

[Nikorasu]

Im not looking forward to having like no screen room left </3

Like linkinpark said, "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd". But meh, I guess i'll still enjoy it.

 

[SBaby]

You have obviously not stepped foot into competitive battling, where the more serious and "skillful" aspect of Pokemon is drawn out.

I see no exact reason for the hate, but eh, each to their own, I suppose. I used to feel uncomfortable with triple battles too, but I don't really care anymore.

Way too many gimmicks and strings attached to the competitive battling community for me to even bother. But I do like how you use airquotes for the word skillful. The uh, "skillful", aspects of Pokemon.

But my above comment still stands. Now Smogon and those tier people have to start from square one. It's glorious. And the sad thing is they will. I won't be able to enjoy this kind of thing again for a long time. So I am going to savor it.

Im not looking forward to having like no screen room left </3

Like linkinpark said, "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd". But meh, I guess i'll still enjoy it.

I remember days when console RPGs had four party members in battle and you could fight up to 9 or 10 enemies on screen at a time. Suikoden had 6 on 6 battles. So 3 on 3 doesn't sound too bad. Besides, the game goes to cinematic Shining Force-esque Mode whenever attacks go off (as stated by Serebii), so you're only stuck seeing the whole battlefield when selecting targets. Personally, I think it'll be nice to finally not have to take forever on every static Trainer Battle. Previous games had battles that were just slow as molasses. Double Battles made them a little faster, and now they should be even faster still since half your team is on the field at any time.

 

[Mana1]

One thing I hope about for triple (and double battles) is that we don't get attacked by 3 people at once!

What I mean is, ever since double battles have been introduced it's always been 1 (Us, the player) vs 2 people or 2 vs 2 when we have a guest.

Why can't we have a 3 Pokémon each match against just one trainer -.-

I don't want to feel like I'm being ganged up on again XD.

 

[revelp8]

One thing I hope about for triple (and double battles) is that we don't get attacked by 3 people at once!

What I mean is, ever since double battles have been introduced it's always been 1 (Us, the player) vs 2 people or 2 vs 2 when we have a guest.

Why can't we have a 3 Pokémon each match against just one trainer -.-

I don't want to feel like I'm being ganged up on again XD.

repressed memories much XD jkjk

I don't think anyone realizes that when each pokemon attack, they each get their own camera sequence. then the is camera pushed back so that the back sprites of the pokemon are fully shown. yet, with people going for the big guys, im not too completely sure that's going to be the case.

I just hope ATB isn't active in this game >.>'

 

[Blueknight]

Why does everyone hate this? I like the idea.

It shows that the pokemon on the ends can only attack the middle pokemon and the one straight in front of them. Only the middle pokemon can attack all 3 pokemon. So, if a pokemon on the side uses rock slide, it will only hurt 2 pokemon. The battle bars are thinner, so they don't take up as much space.
And it dosn't look crowded at all, it almost looks less crowded than double battles.

 

[Kiri Berry]

I'm not sure how I feel about 3 on 3 battles. I mean, I think it would be kool and everything, but wouldn't that mean less exp for each pokemon involved? Then again it could be so much fun I forget about that little detail.