5th Gen 3 on 3 BATTLES!!!!

[560cool.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?