Should Double Battles Be the Norm in Pokémon?

[Ronnie]

Not just in VGC but in the solo campaign?

Double battles (and even triple) makes Pokémon feel more like a JRPG since those games always have around 3-4 party members on a field. Double battles bring a lot more strategy to the gameplay with ability synergy or attack synergy or both (Skill swap Slaking, Surf + Water Absorb, Rain Dance + Thunder). I think part of what makes Pokémon so easy is because it's almost always 1v1. It's like playing Final Fantasy X but you only have Tidus on the field so you can't strategize by having Yuna on support or Wakka targeting flying enemies.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Ronnie

[Armagon]

Nah. Double Battles are nice but Single Battles being the norm is fine.

The thing is Double Battles won't fix how easy the Single Player is. Most single battles in the main campaign tend to use the same genera moves; it's predictable honestly. Aside from a coupe battles, you can easily just power through most of the game.

[NinjaMonkey]

No, having all battles in both Pokémon Collosseum and Gale of Darkness be Double Battles was boring.

[-Cynthia-]

I find Double Battles less strategic competitively overall- it's more about skills/Protect/multiple target moves while Single Battles value switches and prediction more.

[Rex Glacies]

Like in Colosseum and XD? I dunno. It was fun in those games, but single battles are the trademark of Pokemon, and part (although minuscule as I only just thought about it) of what differentiates the series from other RPGs... I think. If we want a greater challenge, I think the enemy just has to have a greater A.I. and better Pokemon and moves.

However, I would agree that we should have more double battle opportunities in the games. As in, there should be more enemy twins, paired Ace Trainers, etc.

[Darros]

7 minutes ago, Rex Glacies said:

However, I would agree that we should have more double battle opportunities in the games. As in, there should be more enemy twins, paired Ace Trainers, etc.

This is what I think. I love double battles but let's not make them the norm. I like what Emerald did where if you caught the eye of two otherwise completely separate trainers they'd both battle you at the same time. I'd like more of that.

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, -Cynthia- said:

I find Double Battles less strategic competitively overall- it's more about skills/Protect/multiple target moves while Single Battles value switches and prediction more.

The same could be said for single battles though. In the single battles, all you're doing is switching out Pokémon to the advantageous type or that have immunities. In double battles, switching out is frowned upon so you have to work with what's on the field. If an opponent has an overpowering Pokémon, you can have a defensive Pokémon use Follow Me while the other partner tries to debuff it or damage its frail defenses. Of course in the solo campaign the AI itself isn't all that bright. If the programmers slap in more double battles with the AI using interesting synergy I imagine it'll be a fun experience. I basically want them to flesh out their Colosseum idea.

[-Cynthia-]

26 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

The same could be said for single battles though. In the single battles, all you're doing is switching out Pokémon to the advantageous type or that have immunities. In double battles, switching out is frowned upon so you have to work with what's on the field. If an opponent has an overpowering Pokémon, you can have a defensive Pokémon use Follow Me while the other partner tries to debuff it or damage its frail defenses. Of course in the solo campaign the AI itself isn't all that bright. If the programmers slap in more double battles with the AI using interesting synergy I imagine it'll be a fun experience. I basically want them to flesh out their Colosseum idea.

 

In competitive single battles you usually don't have a perfect switch in to every Pokemon the opponent has- there's usually some coverage/status moves they carry you have to predict around. This doesn't apply as much in game though I guess.

[Emerson]

As a person who plays a ton of VGC, I wouldn't mind at all. However, the lack of moves that make Double Battles enjoyable for the player in setting up strategies etc don't come very early into Pokemon games, so I think it'd end up being kind of stale.

On the other hand, I think having a post-game area where every battle is a double battle would be very interesting. Your options would be much more open at the point, meaning you could have fun messing with different combinations etc., and the trainers would have a much more expanded repertoire as well, meaning they would be more challenging to face.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I wouldn't mind it as a toggleable option when playing through the game. But wild pokemon battles would have to stay Single. Because wild pokemon being able to coordinate with each other as if commanded by a trainer really stretches the imagination. And Sun/Moon went and created a rule where it's "impossible to aim" your pokeball when there's more than one on the field.

I did play the gamecube pokemon games and the constant double battles were a joy. Though they did make some moves way more valuable, like Surf which did not hit your partner in Gen 3. If double battles were an option, then players could get some use out of moves that would otherwise be useless to them in PvE, like Heal Pulse, or any attack that hits both targets yet is slightly weaker. Because you wouldn't hang on to those moves just for the five or so double battles you'll encounter in the game.

[blah the Prussian]

No, and they shouldn't be the norm for single player either. They're much less strategically diverse, and require much less thinking on one's toes. Singles 6v6 will always be the best way to play Pokemon.

[henrymidfields]

At least for Trainer Battles and Gym Leaders in the latter half of the game, that'll be a good idea. Because lets face it, this is what GF and Nintendo has taken into account for power balances with individual Pokémon, with the assumption of competitive battling. It'll also be a good way of raising difficulty without having to rely on inflated levels.

Edited September 1, 2017 by henrymidfields

[Tamanoir]

10 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

I wouldn't mind it as a toggleable option when playing through the game. But wild pokemon battles would have to stay Single. Because wild pokemon being able to coordinate with each other as if commanded by a trainer really stretches the imagination. And Sun/Moon went and created a rule where it's "impossible to aim" your pokeball when there's more than one on the field.

I did play the gamecube pokemon games and the constant double battles were a joy. Though they did make some moves way more valuable, like Surf which did not hit your partner in Gen 3. If double battles were an option, then players could get some use out of moves that would otherwise be useless to them in PvE, like Heal Pulse, or any attack that hits both targets yet is slightly weaker. Because you wouldn't hang on to those moves just for the five or so double battles you'll encounter in the game.

That was already the case in Gen IV, no ? Maybe not the exact same formulation, but you could never catch Pokémon in double battles (or Hordes).

That was far from the only issue there, obviously uncontrollable partner).

But, generalizing what was made in Emerald would be cool. 2 trainers can double on you, but you can avoid them and do single. If ther's a strategically placed trainer that can battle with multiple partner, it would be better. Auto double battles for Gym Leader/Elite 4 Rematch would be cool as well.
The ennemy strategy of making Slaking invincible was pretty effective here.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

Then Colosseum and XD: Gale of Darkness (my favourite Pokemon game) are the games for you. But I think it's fine as is because of experience collecting; less division between Pokemon (e.g: 1 Pokemon gets 500 exp instead of 2 getting 250 exp each). Also Sun & Moon will be borderline unplayable if every battle was a double battle.

[Ronnie]

2 hours ago, I'm a Spheal said:

Then Colosseum and XD: Gale of Darkness (my favourite Pokemon game) are the games for you. But I think it's fine as is because of experience collecting; less division between Pokemon (e.g: 1 Pokemon gets 500 exp instead of 2 getting 250 exp each). Also Sun & Moon will be borderline unplayable if every battle was a double battle.

I freaking love Colosseum lol. They could always adjust the little things to benefit double battles. Such as equal experience or more double battle moves. And yeah Game Freak really needs to learn how to keep consistent frame rate for every battle type. At least historically speaking in Pokémon, double battles go by faster than singles 6v6.

[Shuuda]

I don't think making all battles double would necessarily be a good idea. However increasing the number of them would go a long way to making the game feel a bit more diverse. It's a bit odd that there's never been another double gym leader since Tate & Liza, or that there's never been a triple battle leader. Throwing a couple here and there would keep players on their toes, so long as all in moderation.

On the topic of making the solo game harder, I'd like to see them bring things more in line with how battles work in PvP. That mean removing the ability to use items from the bag during battle and the option to switch after fainting. These things give players a huge advantage over the NPCs that contributes to making everything easier.

[Ronnie]

16 hours ago, Shuuda said:

That mean removing  the option to switch after fainting. These things give players a huge advantage over the NPCs that contributes to making everything easier.

You can do that yourself in the options menu if you wish for more difficulty. Just set "Shift" to off.

[Shuuda]

3 hours ago, Ronnie said:

You can do that yourself in the options menu if you wish for more difficulty. Just set "Shift" to off.

Which is exactly what I do. I also willing avoid using in bag items. I just think it might be beneficial to the series to use "Set" mode as the default.