• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

Reconstruction of Double Battles

A

Apex

˙pɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ buıuɹnʇ doʇs
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
579
Reaction score
0
Maybe they can reconstruct double battles in Generation V.

Including things like a Tag-Team Battle where if one Pokemon faints, you don't send out another one until the other faints.

Or maybe even merged attacks. For example mix Hydro Pump and Flamethrower. It creates boiling water and it's pretty much Hydro Pump (more damage) and it has a high chance to burn the foe.

Discuss.
 
One idea I've had since Emerald is that there should be three-way battles, battles held between three trainers with each sending out one pokemon at a time. Just like in double battles, you'd have to pick your target, but your two targets can also attack you or each other, so it's everyone for themself. To me, that would make more sense to do when two trainers see you at the same time instead of going into a double battle with them.
 
3-way Battles: 2 people would simply gang up on the weaker opponent, and then it defaults to a regular battle. So, not my cup of tea.

I personally like how they've handled double battles so far. It's a little hard to come up with something unique when I don't see any faults.
 
All I can think of is that they should go back to the 3rd Generation way when it comes to switching Pokémon after one faints, instead of holding switching until the turn is over. It just doesn't makes sense to remain idling when one Pokémon is out. If it was to keep constant action, it stops if the other Pokémon hit the Pokémon that just fell, or if both Pokémon fainted with one move, so yeah. Guess it was for balance, so one Pokémon wouldn't fall right after entering, but it just feels kind of awkward.

Other than that, I think double battles are just fine.
 
Alpha922 said:
Maybe they can reconstruct double battles in Generation V.

Including things like a Tag-Team Battle where if one Pokemon faints, you don't send out another one until the other faints.

Or maybe even merged attacks. For example mix Hydro Pump and Flamethrower. It creates boiling water and it's pretty much Hydro Pump (more damage) and it has a high chance to burn the foe.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

No that would be just dumb.

That would be too much work for something so useless. Merged attacks? Come on, the attacks that exist aren't powerful enough for you?!

Double battles are fine as they are, I just think there need to be more Pokemon abilities and/or attacks that can make a team of Pokemon work better in doubles.
 
Or just more double battles.
They should give the protagonist a companion for the 5th generation.
 
Well I had the idea for merged attacks, but they wouldn't be dual types or insane amount of damage.
 
Mattaru said:
Or just more double battles.
They should give the protagonist a companion for the 5th generation.
Click to expand...

Already (sort of) done, and how would they handle levelling up, etc? I don't reckon many people would like every battle being double.
 
I like the idea of a companion as well. Sort of like the ones in the fourth generation, but for longer periods of time. But they should only be usable in double battles. I didn't like double wild battles, honestly, and I liked how I had the choice to have a single trainer battle even with a companion.
 
Greentyphlosion said:
people would like every battle being double.
Click to expand...

Only if there was a small region where you can gather some sort of prizes like badges (except maybe 4 total maybe more) and it was called "No XP Land" where you don't gain experience while double battling, either that or create an item that when attached to just one of your Pokemon, both Pokemon of yours get the experience they would have gotten had it been a one on one (maybe call it a double egg or something).

I hate split experience points in double battles, one of the things I disliked about the Gamecube games. I mean in certain cases its okay but not when your trying to level up a Pokemon to a really high level.
 
I don't think that the Double Battle formula should be changed in anyway, but I would like it if they appeared more in the main games.

The stat trainers were brilliant for this purpose, but outside of the Battle Tower they only have one pokemon. It would be great to team up with people who have more like when teaming with Dawn/Lucas.

12 vs 12 (6 pokes per participant) would be a riot.
 
I'm not really aure on the effects of this idea, but what about having a factor of pokemon relations within the team? So say empoleon and gliscor had a high relation factor, then maybe they'd work better as a team, like maybe attack or sp atk or speed raised when they are together.

Raising the factor would probably come from time travelled together, or number of double battles together, or possibly other factors like pokeathlon type team minigames.
 
The concept of merged attacks does sound cool, but it's just a bit hard to convey it into the games themselves.
 
*Orion* said:
All I can think of is that they should go back to the 3rd Generation way when it comes to switching Pokémon after one faints, instead of holding switching until the turn is over. It just doesn't makes sense to remain idling when one Pokémon is out. If it was to keep constant action, it stops if the other Pokémon hit the Pokémon that just fell, or if both Pokémon fainted with one move, so yeah. Guess it was for balance, so one Pokémon wouldn't fall right after entering, but it just feels kind of awkward.

Other than that, I think double battles are just fine.
Click to expand...

This. I hate the "_______ used ______! But there was no target..." It's a waste of PP.
Also, three way battles sound interesting. It's hard to imagine how this would work on-screen. Slightly off topic, I think the way the battles are set out REALLY needs to change; it should be your Pokemon on one side of the screen, your opponent's on the other with their HP above their heads. It would allow for more interesting animations when it comes to attacks IMO.
 
Bttsstewart said:
This. I hate the "_______ used ______! But there was no target..." It's a waste of PP.
Click to expand...

While I can't say for sure and I might just be making this up, I think they implemented that for a similar reason why they allowed you to switch when two wobbuffet were battling each other (despite shadow tag). As someone said before would it be fair if you sent out your Aggron right when someone used a powerful earth power and knocked it out despite the fact you just sent it out. I think they did it to give players a fair chance to possibly turn things around.

Of course does it matter though, that message only occurs when there is no target, even if you wanted to hit Fearow for example, and you knocked Fearow out with your other Pokemon. Your move will switch to the other opponent's Pokemon if the opponent's other Pokemon is out at the same time as Fearow. (at least I'm pretty sure it works that way).
 
You'd think that your pokemon would have some sense just to not use the move if nothing is there.
 
I'm betting whatever the next addition to the battles besides more tuning and additions of new moves,abilities, and possibly revealing the IV's and EV's to make em truly important to everyone, is the refining of the double battle scene. Its very likely, and I want to agree on them adding a mixed move option. Not to boost the moves and have it 'POWER LEVEL 9000 ALL THE TIMES LULZ" but to have moves with a dual type function. Really gives a nice twist to things if you think about it. It would also help the single battle side as well, as then the typing system will have to work in double typed moves.
 
Please note: The thread is from 16 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom