[X] My Assistant

[Charming Evil Sp...]

Pictures aren't that good, but we now have 3 vs 3 battles. We all knew it was coming eventually.

[Night Spectre]

They look a bit spaced out, don't they? 8D; They be fallin off the stage! NOOooooOOoes!

[methuselah alche...]

Hehe this is gonna be epic. When it was a rumor, my friend and I were getting all excited and saying which trios we wanted to battle. Dogs VS Birds, Different Starter sets, etc. Now that it's official, more planning~!!

[Kazyx]

*mumbles*

Personally, I'm not looking forward to 3 vs 3 battles. Think about the official double battle with tate and Liza for a moment, shall we?
Unprepared, they were a nightmare in Emerald. I was stuck for quite some time due to lack of patience with constant training. I don't even remember how I beat them, now. Mind you, I was doing a "First caught and use" thing, so I had some pretty average Pokemon. :/

But still. Gen III introduced the double battle, which made team planning THAT much more important. I always made sure to have two Pokemon that worked well together at the start of my line-up when I heard about Double Battles, and then did the same in Gen IV.

With Triple battles, team plotting will be even more important, and more party adjustments must be made to accommodate for the triple battles to come in the future.
Also think about this:

Due to the Triple battle being introduced, they will make use of this as often as possible. This will mean a possible Triple Battle Gym Leader battle. Hopefully it's for a pretty simple typed gym, if they do stick with types for the gyms.

Sure, it'll make friendly battles a bit more interesting and hopefully less predictable, but the in-game battles will be more irritating, in my opinion. More in-game trainer battles may have 6 Pokemon: Two for each trainer. Which means if underplanned, you could be beaten by the CPU, which is never something one wishes to mention.

So, in short, I'm not liking it, but that doesn't mean you need to have the same view. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

[Serend]

^ this.

I remembered when I first battled Tate & Liza I got demolished. There will be more strategies, which will be more confusing.

[Lyrical]

(Same as the two above)

Liza and Tate were hard. And finding out good combinations for triple battles will take a while, especially for making moves that hit everyone more effective. Also you have to keep this in mind: You're sending half of your team out to fight; what happens when you get hit with an attack that kills those three and your others are no match? At least with double battles you would only be down a third of your team. Triple battles I must admit, are pretty cool in theory, but in reality, they could turn into a nightmare.

[Radoka Kaname]

yay finally... and liza and tate... are you joking, they're the easiest gym leaders ever, but the first game i played with double battles was XD so i was really forced to practice it... i wonder when there will be 6 vs. 6 battles

[Kazyx]

Well, you started with XD, which pitted you constantly in double battles. In RSE, Double Battles were few and far between, which, in turn, caught one off guard, such as myself when I played against Tate and Liza the first time in Ruby. They caught me off guard, and it took a try or two, since most of my team was underleveled, but I came victorious.

My problem I think in Emerald is I tried to make everyone of equal level, and there just wasn't enough trainers to do that with, plus Tate and Liza had more Pokemon, and I think they were a couple levels higher than in Ruby and Sapphire.

But yes, as Royolis said, triple battles are risky, as one wrong move and half your team could be gone in a snap. That is, presuming, you have 6 Pokemon. What if you have 4? Then you're down to 1. It seems very dangerous the further you look into it.

Being an old-school Pokemon fan, from back in RBY when I was in Grade 2 perhaps, at the latest, double battles are not my thing, nor do I imagine triple battles. They will over-complicate the game, as I have a hard enough time focusing on both of my teammates when I do double battles, for I might hit them with Surf or EQ.

[Dazmi]

To be honest, I like this idea so far. Coming from a guy who loved double battles, it looks like fun.
I just hope that it works out. I don't want triple battles to turn out to be a big mess.

This post has been edited by JohnRichard1991: Jul 5 2010, 04:58 AM

[Mephistopheles]

I have always loved 2v2 battles <3
So I think this is nice idea.

[Shiny Zangoose]

I <3 double battle so triple battles will be even better. I just love battling with 2 pokemon already so I'll just love battling with three.

[IceBlaziken]

It sound so cool
This feature let you go with lots of different variation of 3 pokemon from your party

[Reddu]

I'm OK with the triple battles coming. But if the foe has three pokemon with Intimidate, that will mess up your physical attackers.
Still though, this will be kind of cool.
Also; Three pokemon with water absorb in your party; Use surf over and over again.

[Dunceking]

To be honest, I loved the 2 vs 2 battles in Sapphire, with the interview thing and all, but I'm not looking forward for 3 vs 3 battles.
2 vs 2 battles made you think just enough to use which pokemon and which moves, but I think 3 vs 3 is pushing this a little too far...
Plus with Gravity, Tailwind, and all those mumbo jumbo party stuff nowadays, 3 vs 3 is going to be a pain in the butt for me...
But it's my opinion, and nothing else. Since there seems to be a lot of people who's going to like 3 vs 3 battles.

[TydinRyn]

2v2 Battles were an amazing concept I think. It added a nice change instead of just regular battles. Made you think on your toes.

3v3 Battles... They look iffy. I've always liked 2v2 Battles, but why does this seem... Excessive?

And as stated above, imagine facing three Intimidators? Owch.

[Count Bleck]

Wow, If you thought earthquake was going to be abused before.... OH GOD :gasp:

I can see it now. GArchomp Earthquakes while someone levitates and another protects. Surf hitting 5 POKEMON! The possibility of destroying an ENTIRE TEAM in 2 MOVES!!!! THIS IS INSANE


*ahem* may the appocalpsye begin.

[Wildivlax]

That picture looks fake. I mean, the 3 pokemon are the entire back, when official pictures from CoroCoro showed the back sprite of a Pokabu and it only had the back of the head and a little bit of the back. Then, the platforms are too close, leaving a whole bunch of extra room in the lower-left hand corner. Plus, the pokemon don't even have shadows! And 2 of them are half-way off the platform! That pic is fake.

[Elito]

Am I the only here who notices, but you're the one (yes, Top Ranger Logan) who goes from thread to thread saying the pics are fake.

I mean, c'mon, not everything is fake. This is real, it was shown in the video.

Anyways, 3 vs. 3 battles are going to be cool.
And see how you guys already thought up some strategies? 3 pokemon with Intimidate... why not you use that strategy? Or the Garchomp who Earthquakes strategy, or Surf strategy...There is really a lot of options which can help you merge victorious, only thing you need to do, is practice.

[Arkinine]

No, you aren't the only one who noticed.

I think triple battles are unneeded, but it will be super fun!

[Jadesprite]

Double battles are awesome, as they require a greater deal of strategy than a regular single battle.

Triple battling though... I dunno. Not only does it seem rather unnecessary, it may become too overly complicated :/