First it was Single...It transformed into doubles..

now it has evolved into triple battles.

http://www.serebii.net/blac...le.shtml

thats what seribii has on it.

Just in case it is three pokemon vs three pokemon not three trainers all fighting against each other.

so what are your thoughts on this new adddition?

I think it is cool but also disadvantageous.Eg if their pokemon uses earthquake and all three pokemon on your team get koed thats half your team gone.

EDIT:Read from here for new info.(its been out for a few weeks though)

Now in triple battles you have the ability to move pokemon to which position you want.Now check out this thingy i just randomly typed up.

This is which the pokemon in that position can attack.

Left = Left pokemon,Middle Pokemon
Middle = All
Right = Middle Pokemon,Right Pokemon

Now also added is that the midddle pokemon will do more damage then in the pokemon in the background.So if you can get a damage dealer with good defences then you can put him in the middle and have the other two supporting him/using status effects on the other team(includes spikes etc)

This makes it so a lot of strategy is required in these new games as you must think about what pokemon you will send out instead of throwing out random ones.

Thoughts?

Note: IA/Coach will add/correct any mistake i have made.

« Last edited by ShadowStriker64 on Aug 2nd 2010 »

Triple?

That's way to much. If one pokemon is superior over the other, the opponent could just attack that pokemon, same with Dubs, but didn't always guarantee a KO, but with Trip's, its possible.

Triple is stupid.

Man this is serious overkill...

I'm pretty excited for Triple Battles sure it has disadvantages but so did Doubles and I think it's going to take alot of skill to be really good at these.

Jeez Nintendo, why not go quintuple??

Or maybe just get the whole damn team in the one fight.

Aether13 said:

I'm pretty excited for Triple Battles sure it has disadvantages but so did Doubles and I think it's going to take alot of skill to be really good at these.

I was thinging the same thing about this.

I think it could be a little bit more challenging which is always fun.

I'm actually excited to see what Triple Battles have to offer, hopefully some new featues like combo moves & stuff. Plus, this will add another layer of strategy to the mix. I also wonder what Shooter could be.

My only fear about Triple Battles is that the may overdo 'em a little. I want them to be an occasional treat, not so common that every time you walk around a corner you find one.

coachcline said:

I'm actually excited to see what Triple Battles have to offer, hopefully some new featues like combo moves & stuff. Plus, this will add another layer of strategy to the mix. I also wonder what Shooter could be.

My only fear about Triple Battles is that the may overdo 'em a little. I want them to be an occasional treat, not so common that every time you walk around a corner you find one.

I don't think they will overkill with them because with the fact that there was only 6 or 7 double battles in HG/SS.

PhilXZ said:

Jeez Nintendo, why not go quintuple??

actually it would go quadruple.

also if we only have a few of them in B/W i want to see one as the last fight against your rival.

also coach they revealed shooter is when you get so mad at the game you pull out twin desert eagles and pwn everyone.naa but i imagine it would have something to do with shooting something...or someone

I have mixed feelings on triple battles.

Pros
-Unique Way of Battling
-Faster Battles
-A different option for battles

Cons
-Overkill
-Might lead to newer options of 4v4/5v5/6v6
-Seems like they're running out of ideas for new battle mechanics

Just in case it is three pokemon vs three pokemon not three trainers all fighting against each other.

This sounds much more interesting.

IA dont mention it going higher then 3vs3.I mean the battles wouldnt fit in a screen but i assume if they make a game onteh wii agian it could fit on that.

Nah, I don't think they'll go higher than 3x3, they know anything higher would just be ridiculous.

coach they went to 3vs3. I think we have different meaning of ridiculous then them.

I highly doubt they will go any higher because of this formula lol

Gen 1/2-Singles
Gen 3/4-Double
Gen 5/6-Triples

and also more then 3 would be a overkill.

yea imagine having a team of fire types(just pure ones)and they send out a water and it uses surf.Your screwed.This triple thing will shake up the metagame while it'll take skill to master it.

hatershateme said:

Triple?

That's way to much. If one pokemon is superior over the other, the opponent could just attack that pokemon, same with Dubs, but didn't always guarantee a KO, but with Trip's, its possible.

Triple is stupid.

I don't really get what the hell you're talking about. This is the same for singles, even. Obviously, a Magnezone is going to beat a Scizor. I really have no idea what you're actually getting at. No pokemon is going to be superior against all the opponent's three unless it's something stupid like a Groudon against three Rattatas.

Sounds interesting. lol, the VGC metagame is screwed.

ShadowStriker64 said:

yea imagine having a team of fire types(just pure ones)and they send out a water and it uses surf.Your screwed.This triple thing will shake up the metagame while it'll take skill to master it.

Not exactly lol, fire types are usually power/speed and a good majorty of them can learn a thunder or grass move so you wouldn't be exactly screwed.

I am personally excited about this latest development. Not to manny people play doubles as it is already so i don't think tripples will be played all that much either. However it certainly adds new asthetics to an already superior game. Can you talk about the actualy skills and development of choosing six Pokemon that can fit well if three are on the playing field. I for one am excited for this new venture they have put in the 5th Gen games. Definately looking forward to it.