[Question] Double Battle concerns

[MaxieZeus]

considering how much of Pokemon is designed around Double Battles, I wanted to design my game to have a lot of them as well. But I'm not sure of the details. The only double-battle centered games I've played are Colosseum and XD but they went hard into the doubles immediately, including giving you 2 pokemon right at the beginning. You can't really do standard "1 of 3 starters" this way unless you want to go the XY route and give them 2 different starters to pick from.

And then there's "how should wild battles be run" Should they also be doubles? Singles? Should I even include singles? If you end up with only 1 pokemon do you skip past all battles or do they all devolve into singles like how doubles work in normal games?

Should the game work like actual double-battles where you pick 4 out of your 6 to battle or always have access to 6? Should every trainer have a partner? or should single trainers do double-battles? if that's the case, should I just do away with all partner trainers? Or perhaps treat Partner trainers like Ace-Trainers. Double-battles that are slightly harder than normal doubles. with more diversity in types?

If I go with partners everywhere, then shouldn't you also have a human partner beside you the entire time? Should they follow you around in the overworld? If there's another character involved, should you be playing as destinct characters instead of random avatars? Collosseum had a human companion, but all the battles just had 1 trainer vs 1 trainer. no human partners in battle.

 

[silverlime]

considering how much of Pokemon is designed around Double Battles, I wanted to design my game to have a lot of them as well. But I'm not sure of the details. The only double-battle centered games I've played are Colosseum and XD but they went hard into the doubles immediately, including giving you 2 pokemon right at the beginning. You can't really do standard "1 of 3 starters" this way unless you want to go the XY route and give them 2 different starters to pick from.

And then there's "how should wild battles be run" Should they also be doubles? Singles? Should I even include singles? If you end up with only 1 pokemon do you skip past all battles or do they all devolve into singles like how doubles work in normal games?

Should the game work like actual double-battles where you pick 4 out of your 6 to battle or always have access to 6? Should every trainer have a partner? or should single trainers do double-battles? if that's the case, should I just do away with all partner trainers? Or perhaps treat Partner trainers like Ace-Trainers. Double-battles that are slightly harder than normal doubles. with more diversity in types?

If I go with partners everywhere, then shouldn't you also have a human partner beside you the entire time? Should they follow you around in the overworld? If there's another character involved, should you be playing as destinct characters instead of random avatars? Collosseum had a human companion, but all the battles just had 1 trainer vs 1 trainer. no human partners in battle.

I think this would be an interesting idea. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to give the player 2 starters at the beginning of the game because there will be opportunities to catch new Pokemon, though this would be an interesting idea in my opinion. You could also include an NPC to battle alongside the player in the beginning so that they don't have to worry about having 1 Pokemon at first.

For a lot of these questions you asked, it's ultimately up to you what you decide. Try playing around with different options and see which ones are the best. However, I can still give a recommendation for some of them. Wild battles can be run as doubles, but keep in mind that this would make the process of catching Pokemon more tedious because you can't catch a Pokemon unless there's only 1 left in battle. To fix this, maybe you could make it so the player can now choose which Pokemon to catch in a double wild battle so that you don't have to knock 1 out first? I believe if you only have 1 Pokemon, double battles against 1 trainer will change to single battles automatically, but double battles against 2 trainers will be skipped.

I think it's better to let the player use their full team, though again, this is up to you in the end. Whether trainers have a partner is also sort of a personal preference.

I wouldn't recommend having a partner trainer for the player throughout the entire game because you are then forced to adapt more to the playstyle of the partner instead of battling with your own style. However, it's never a bad idea to have segments where the player teams up with a partner, especially in a game centered around double battles.

 

[MaxieZeus]

The partner trainer idea was just to give a second avatar for you the player to control. the Partner wouldn't have any AI. it just doesn't make any sense if everyone is 2 people and you are just 1 person. it feels like they are ganging up on you then.

I like the idea that Partners can be skipped if you have 1 pokemon, but single trainers will always engage you, but have both types of trainers use Double-battles. could do the same with Wild pokemon, where you'll only get 1 encounter if you have 1 pokemon, but 2 if you have more than 1.

And yeah, i hated havign to beat 1 pokemon in order to catch the other. gonna remove that mechanic