Current Events > Why Pokemon games never fully adopted 3v3 battles as the norm?

(+) Yeah! (+)

That, with more support and combination moves would have gone a long way to evolve the series

As someone who hasn't played in forever, what do 3v3 battles do that's more interesting?

Yeah, it's crazy how the games just dropped Triple Battles, Rotation Battles, and Inverse Battles. They were interesting, and I loved Rotation Battles.

Hell, none of them were even fully supported even in the games they appeared in, as the Battle Facilities didn't offer them (just Singles and Doubles).

Solar_Crimson posted...

Rotation Battles, and Inverse Battles.

My guess for rotation is that you must swap out pokemon during battle?? But no idea what an inverse battle could be lol.

MorbidFaithless posted...

My guess for rotation is that you must swap out pokemon during battle?? But no idea what an inverse battle could be lol.

Rotation you have three pokemon in at once, but only one battling. Each turn you have the option to rotate to one of the other two while selecting your attack. It adds another layer of prediction.

Inverse is where the type matchups are reversed. A not very effective attack because a super effective attack and vise versa

MorbidFaithless posted...

My guess for rotation is that you must swap out pokemon during battle?? But no idea what an inverse battle could be lol.

Inverse just flips the type chart, so, for example, Normal becomes super effective against Rock and resists Fighting.

I think the biggest problem is that no one played/s Triple Battles, Rotation Battles or Inverse Battles because they're weird and gimmicky. And 2v2 battles are already pretty great.

triple, inverse and Rotation battles could have been used in a pokemon colluesem spin off. Most pokemon games are 1v1 but the Gamecube games used gimmicks the entire game. These new battle types would have been perfect for this.

that shit sucked

Play Pokemon Masters EX aka Pokemon Master Sex >__>. It's literally all about 3v3 battles, but it's in real time >_>

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You mean like Colosseum and Gale of Darkness? >_>

I played a hack recently that had Inverse battles. I do think they should be a recurring battle type that they stick on one or two Trainers per game. I also thought Rotation Battles were interesting in Gen 5 and wouldn't mind seeing them again. I hated Triple Battles though. I never really liked Double Battles to begin with, and a Triple battle is just one of those but far worse.

The games are brain dead easy. The fanbase could not handle the strain of lengthening every battle three fold.

refmon posted...

The games are brain dead easy. The fanbase could not handle the strain of lengthening every battle three fold.

Triple Battles would, if anything, make battles shorter.

Triple battle were very chaotic and it's impossible to find a real balance for them, but it's fun.

The real reason they're gone is because the system just can't handle 6 pokemon at once. Even on a new 3DS double battles lag like crazy, even in gen 7. The horde trainer battle in oras with Mightyena's with intimidate nearly freezes the game.

Could they program better to make it work? Of course. Would they even consider it? Nope.

Performance/framerate

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Triple battle were very chaotic and it's impossible to find a real balance for them, but it's fun.

The real reason they're gone is because the system just can't handle 6 pokemon at once. Even on a new 3DS double battles lag like crazy, even in gen 7. The horde trainer battle in oras with Mightyena's with intimidate nearly freezes the game.

Could they program better to make it work? Of course. Would they even consider it? Nope.

TMOG posted...

Performance/framerate

Yeah, this is definitely also a factor. Pokemon games seem spectacularly poorly-coded and not at all optimized. The games would probably shit a brick. It would probably be like killing a Chansey in Gen 3.

aren't 3vs3 unbalanced? there's a ton of moves that can hit everyone on the field or hit/affect Pokemon on your team or theirs. Those moves will be centered around 3vs 3 and some might be more unbalanced than others.

I'm sure it's performance thing, but can't imagine competitive matches with them without banning some moves..

Arcanine2009 posted...

aren't 3vs3 unbalanced? there's a ton of moves that can hit everyone on the field or hit/affect Pokemon on your team or theirs. Those moves will be centered around 3vs 3 and some might be more unbalanced than others.

I'm sure it's performance thing, but can't imagine competitive matches with them without banning some moves..

A Pokemon's positioning affected what Pokemon they can attack. Specifically, Pokemon on the side cannot attack opponents on the far side of the opponent's team (though Flying-type moves can get around this), and you can actually shift Pokemon around during your turn if you need a Pokemon to be able to attack a specific one on the opponent's side.