6-on-6 Battles?

[Saturated Hue]

Gamefreak seems really keen on implementing all these team battles, don't they? To me, Double Battles were innovative and a breath of fresh air, but then they went on to create Triple Battles and Rotation Battles and it all seems just a tad too much. If Gamefreak didn't stop there and went on to create a full 6-on-6 battle, would that be a good thing? Why or why not? How should they execute this idea?

In hindsight, they kind of already implemented this idea in Pokemon Conquest, but I do not mean this in an SRPG/TRPG style; rather, in the Turn-Based system used in the main Pokemon series. Keep that in mind as you make your post, eh? ;)

 

[rayan.b]

if game freak are gonna have 6-on-6 battles they have to work their buts off and be creative cuz it might be the new heart of pokemon or the worst disaster that ever crossed pokemon
pokemon is all based on strategy, if they just throw 6 pokemon in the field vs another 6 pokemon its gonna lose that potential
yet if they add techniecs like the 3-on-3 and add place switching methods ( such as moves or abilities ) and create some pokemon, items, abilities, and moves that are especially good in 6-on-6 battles (and they have to make it much harder) its going to be more appealing for the hardcore gamers and people of older ages that stick with pokemon and they can make the champion a 6-on-6 battle to make the storyline game harder and take more time

i like cinnamon :)

if game freak are gonna have 6-on-6 battles they have to work their buts off and be creative cuz it might be the new heart of pokemon or the worst disaster that ever crossed pokemon
pokemon is all based on strategy, if the just throw 6 pokemon in the field vs another 6 pokemon its gonna lose that potential
yet if they add techniecs like the 3-on-3 and add place switching methods ( such as moves or abilities ) and create some pokemon items and moves that are especially good in 6-on-6 battles and they have to make it much harder its going to be more appealing for the hardcore gamers and people of older ages that stick with pokemon and they can make the champion a 6-on-6 battle to make the storyline game harder and take more time

 

[voicerocker]

No. Strategy goes completely out of the window here. One decent Earthquake could end the battle in an instant. Plus, moves like Dragon Tail and U-Turn would be useless. Double battles were great, and while Triple and Rotation battles were interesting, I did not find them better than Double battles. I hope Game Freak decides 3 vs. 3 is enough, especially considering most battles fought in-game are 1 on 1.

 

[bobandbill]

I don't think it'll ever go beyond 3-on-3 myself. 6-on-6 is way too much and presents other problems besides the obvious battling issues (for instance, how would you display 12 Pokemon at once? And if you don't, how will it work out without displaying all Pokemon and current bars at once and keeping the player informed for turn-based? You'd basically need to keep things small on a handheld console already, and that would require a difference in display to how it is already done.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

Only 6 on 6 I see as possible would be a full team rotation if they allow for free rotation and not simple right or left. That's also the only way I can see this happening.

 

[Katie the Friendly Ghost]

Triple battles were too much in my opinion. Therefore 6-on-6 would be utter chaos. I still think there'd be strategy involved, but different moves would have to be changed to accommodate the new battling style.

 

[Kanto_Johto]

A 6-on-6 rotation battle is the only way this could ever work, and even that's pushing it.

Personally I would not like to see this at all. Part of the beauty of facing an opponent on Pokemon is not knowing what Pokemon is coming next/what to expect strategy wise.

 

[Legobricks]

A rotation system would be too simplistic and wasteful. I think it could be done like with one's fleet in Infinite Space (a game, look it up if you care) — having the monsters arranged in a formation using a small grid, with evasion being increased (and possibly accuracy decreased) for monsters further back until those in front are removed. No changing positions allowed, save by a move like Ally Switch. Of course, unlike in Infinite Space, the monsters wouldn't all attack simultaneously per side. It comes close to being a TRPG battle system, but it's far more simplistic. I think this would be a stable way of staging a 6v6, and with moves dedicated to such a type of battle, it could become very involved and a significant event in competitive play. I doubt, however, that it would be popular at all with many players' preference for 1v1 battles, so it wouldn't be worth the effort for Game Freak to implement.

One decent Earthquake could end the battle in an instant.

Limit the area-of-effect such moves have, or make them do progressively less damage to targets away from the chosen epicentre, or both.
Obviously this would work differently to how Earthquake normally does, but it's a far better solution than simply banning the move in 6v6.

Plus, moves like Dragon Tail and U-Turn would be useless..

And Ally Switch is useless in 1v1 but that doesn't discredit its utility in its intended role. The basis of strategy is having various situational elements and using them to the best of one's advantage. Really, it goes without saying that you simply wouldn't bring something like U-turn to a 6v6. As per my Earthquake example above however, the move could be made to have a different but analoguous effect in 6v6.

 

[Pokemon Trainer UV]

A rotation system would be too simplistic and wasteful. I think it could be done like with one's fleet in Infinite Space (a game, look it up if you care) — having the monsters arranged in a formation using a small grid, with evasion being increased (and possibly accuracy decreased) for monsters further back until those in front are removed. No changing positions allowed, save by a move like Ally Switch. Of course, unlike in Infinite Space, the monsters wouldn't all attack simultaneously per side. It comes close to being a TRPG battle system, but it's far more simplistic. I think this would be a stable way of staging a 6v6, and with moves dedicated to such a type of battle, it could become very involved and a significant event in competitive play. I doubt, however, that it would be popular at all with many players' preference for 1v1 battles, so it wouldn't be worth the effort for Game Freak to implement.

Isn't that pretty much Pokemon Conquest?


Anyways, I think that Pokemon 6 on 6 would be waay too much. I think that triple battles were pushing it, but 6 on 6 would be total chaos.
The battle screen on the DS/DSi/3DS can barely handle the triple battles, imagine how chaotic would be 6!

 

[Legobricks]

Isn't that pretty much Pokemon Conquest?

I don't think so. I read the OP.
My idea is based on this system.

 

[Keyaki]

They should've stuck with Double Battles to begin with imo. But I don't think they'll ever try a stunt like that.

 

[Bourne-mouth]

3-on-3 is all what I could take. Even if that's my capacity, it's still a little too much cause there's 6 Pokemon in the battle, and I couldn't already manage it well, let alone 6-on-6. If there's 12 Pokemon in battle, it's going to be chaotic.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

I don't even like double battles all that much, let alone triple/rotation ones. If GF decided to go for 6-on-6, that'd be a biiiiiiig no-no in my book. Not that it's going to happen though: the screen would just become too chaotic and the level of 'strategy' required to be successful would just be completely different to anything else that has gone before. Ugh, just thinking about it makes me feel all weird.

 

[Twilight Sky]

Would it be going too far? Maybe. In my perspective, I feel it'll just be more difficult to concentrate and making your move based on the position on your Pokemon. In fact, I'm already having a bit of trouble with this with Triple Battles, a fair bit. @__@;

I honestly personally hope this doesn't happen, but meh /shrugs. I mean, the concept seems nice, but I just find it questionable how strategy can work in something like that....eh, I guess.