Battle Modes

[Jayrodd]

To go along with our current Pixel Slam Jam, this week we'll be taking a look at unique battle styles and their role in games! The most well known and fleshed out are obviously Singles and Doubles so if possible let's stay away from those ones and look at some newer ones that have been implemented over the last few games.

• Discuss the pros and cons of unique battle styles and their role in various games
• Provide ways to enhance old modes with new mechanics or moves
• Brainstorm new battle styles you'd like to see in a fan or canon game

 

[Dragonite]

I used to do Triples all the time competitively in gens 5 and 6 (mainly because it was the only battle mode that allowed you to use your entire team of six in Random Matchup). As for fan games . . .

Discuss the pros and cons of unique battle styles and their role in various games

Unless your specific gimmick is special battle types, you're probably fine with the traditional single and double battles.In the canon games where extra battle types were scattered in on top of the regular battles they just felt like the dev team was saying "hey, guys, we know how to change up the standard battle formula!" and it'll just be even more so in fan games.

Provide ways to enhance old modes with new mechanics or moves

If you really want to piggyback off the Sky Battle concept, you should probably do a Sea Battle counterpart where you can only use Pokémon capable of learning Surf.

Brainstorm new battle styles you'd like to see in a fan or canon game

Hex Battles, which are like double or triple battles except you have your entire team on the field at the same time. Good luck actually running these on a Nintendo console.

 

[Radical Raptr]

I always like when there's a new battle mode to try, the only problem I have is there's all of 2 trainers who use it and you never get to have any fun with it.

The thing I love about new battle modes is that it lets you get a change of pace from the usual battles and allows you to make weird team combinations you can't normally do.
What would be cool is if there was some sort of mini-game tournament arena where you could enter in various game modes for prizes and items or possibly pokemon. If its not going to be a main focus of your game, it shouldn't be forced on the player, but at the same time you want to give players who are interested a way to get immersed in it. One of the biggest failings of the official games using rotation battles or triple battles, if that all of 3 characters use it and there's no place to see a wide variety of team set ups, if there were more ways to experience different and fun game modes then it would be much better than what we have now.

Inverse battle were probably the best battles they made, it's simple and basically the same as the original battles you're used to but with a mix up of types. It';s easy to pick up and doesn't change what we're used to and there's no real learning curve beyond what we already do.

An interesting battle mode, may be to make types and move be simplified? so if you have a dual type pokemon, they have 1 type, eg: pidgeotto is only flying type, and the moves they use are the same type as their typing so tackle would be a flying type move for pidgeotto.

 

[Hematite]

I admittedly didn't find Sky Battles or Inverse Battles very interesting - they both have their gimmicks, but you're not in a different kind of battle, just a battle with a very restrictive banlist for one or a battle with so gimmicky an effect that people have repeatedly proposed the concept should be made into a move or Ability for the other (I mean, people don't propose Double Room every day, because the logistics of turning that on and off would be a nightmare; by contrast, Inverse Battles are no more interesting than, say, Trick Room Battles).

It's also worth pointing out that both of these would work exactly the same as Double, Triple or Rotation Battles - you can't say a Double Battle Royal would be exactly the same, or a Triple Rotation Battle (... okay, even I'm lost now and I'm writing this XP), but a Rotation Sky Battle or an Inverse Triple Battle would make perfect sense. For that reason, I wouldn't really call them "battle styles" in the same way as the rest?

I kinda just think that things like Sky and Inverse Battles just aren't interesting enough to be more than a momentary distraction; they're hardly worth the effort of implementing, in my opinion, although you should obviously go for it if you actually enjoyed them. I'm just way more fascinated by how battle styles like Double, Triple, Rotation and Royal all actually seriously change the user input and have differences in the prevalent tactics for interesting strategic reasons (like Intimidate being awesome in Doubles and Triples but not nearly as relevant in Singles and Rotations, because of the number of Pokémon it targets) rather than artificial, surface-deep restrictions like "you can't use Pokémon that are affected by Ground or are standing on feet in their [models/sprites]."

There are only so many permutations of "number of Pokémon/number of Trainers" you can use, so I can see why it's difficult and I can see why we haven't gotten them every Generation. Honestly, most of the universally-applicable or obvious ideas are probably accounted for, so it's more likely that you'll need to find something that somehow relates to your game, your region, your culture or any other source of inspiration that already exists in your game, but those are the most interesting anyway! For example, Sun and Moon actually justified Battle Royals pretty well: there were four islands, so the royalty had four-way battles with the Tapu sometimes, so it eventually became a tradition in Alola to have four-way battles... this was completely glossed over, but it was still a lore-based for the existence of the format and kind of gave a look into how Game Freak must have approached it. If there's something small in your project that naturally leads into a battle format like that, I bet that would make your game unique, and you should totally go for it!!

---

 

[Tomix9tomix]

Hmmm, I never really liked the gimmick battle modes they added all that much, but I do have a few things to say...

Sky battles were a cool idea, it makes sense, only Pokemon that can fly can battle in the sky, although I think a water alternative makes much more sense, only Pokemon able to battle in the ocean can battle while surfing, so water type Pokemon and flying and maybe a few others if they make sense. The problem with this is that surfing is a pretty decent part of most Pokemon games so if you only have one surf Pokemon or a weak HM slave the route would be a pain. I feel it would work in S&M if the battles were optional, although it raises the question: Why are my Pokemon restricted in trainer battles on the water but not in wild encounters. So while it would make more sense in a game with HMs in would make the experience less enjoyable in my opinion. Wow, that kind of strayed off topic a bit.

Other than that I can't think of anything notable about new battle modes, they are semi-cool gimmicks that don't make too much of an impact on the game play.

 

[aiyinsi]

Well my favorite of the ones in the list is definitely rotation battle. It's just cool to have to gamble ... the only thing is that there are not really many trainers to battle in this mode in the game ...

So I spent way more time with inverse battles, which are also interesting.

But here's an general thought about the battle systems in Pokémon games:
I think a Pokémon game souldn't have too many different fighting styles in the main story. If there are more at leat one will probably be underused like. The neglected battle modes would most probably not be worth the implementation time. So the game maker should probably decide 1-3 battle styles that are used and use all of them through the whole game(except for mabe introducing one after one in the beginning).
But how about a game where the only battle style is rotation battle for example? Everybody is talking like the standard 1v1 with some 2v2 mixed in is set for a Pokémon game. But I don't think it should be. If you want to use different battle systems mabe think about this approach.

Now to the actual battle styles:

I feel like one fact is overlooked:
the battle style with the most votes is Inverse Battle, which isn't actually a new battle mode. It's the stadard 1v1 with a little change in the effectiveness mechanics. The second of that category is rotation battle. The rulechange here is that switching a Pokémon doesn't cost a round.

all others are just more limitations on which Pokémon you can use or the count of Pokémon changed.

My favorite ones were definitely of the first category. It is the Emerald Battle Frontier. The ways of fighting were mostly standard battles or slightly different versions of it. But the environment made it really fun. Like Battle Factory were you could switch one Pokémon of you own team for one Pokémon of the oponents team. Battle arena were every fight would end after 3 rounds. Battle Pike were you got to choose between 3 rooms whith one good, medium and one bad choise. Or battle palace were your Pokémon decided on the move to use ...

What I'm trying to say is that making things more fancy isn't better than just changing a little of battle mechanic feels a lot more refreshing to me than a whole new battle mode. It doesn't even have to be the battle that is changed ... a handicap given before the battle can do the trick, too.

 

[Pixel Profligate]

There is honestly only a small number of gimmicky battle modes I enjoy. Inverse battles were neat in idea, but I wouldn't want to just stumble upon a random trainer out in the field. Rotation battles didn't really feel "different" as they're ultimately just battles where your opponent switches Pokemon a lot. Triple Battles were kinda cool, but under utilized. Sky battles I never did because of how limiting they were. One battle style I did kinda really like, though, were horde battles.

Now, I know, those were almost only wild battles, but there were a few trainers (evil grunts, specifically) who used it. And, while it wasn't super developed, as you almost always went against 5 of the same Pokemon (except for battles against Seviper/Zangoose, where there would be one of the other in the bunch who would then fight the other 4 Pokemon since they're rivals), but I thought it really had potential. You know how breeders usually have 5 to 6 low level Pokemon? What if they had Horde battles instead, sending their whole team out at once? Or what if more things like the Seviper/Zangoose thing happened, where the Pokemon on the other side fight each other? Heck, you could have it so single encounters have a chance of calling in a horde, somewhat like Gen 7s "Call for help" thing, albeit less common.

As for new battle modes I'd want to see...I don't really have any. Most ideas feel too gimmicky and like they'd be an annoyance to come across while out exploring.

 

[Taq]

Discuss the pros and cons of unique battle styles and their role in various games:
I felt some can work and some cannot, Sky battles should have been treated better and we're pretty empty and forgettable.
and The current calling was was a bit empty (if they made it have a max of three that would've fixed it).
I felt triple battles are fun but I wish they brought it back, I think there are many ways it could've been used, I am still sad they removed it from SM (before you say it's too many models, it's the same number as the battle royale.
Same story for horde battles (imagine you have a final boss like that, it would be fun).

Provide ways to enhance old modes with new mechanics or moves:
Many skybattle more common, like if you are at a high point and your attacked by bird mons, also maybe have modified versions like one for under and above water (it was really weird in ORAS)
Bring triple back, if it's hard to handle, maybe remove the trainers for those battles, or just make it an option for every battle.
oh, finally an attack where when you use it during rotation battles you instantly rotate to another partner.

Brainstorm new battle styles you'd like to see in a fan or canon game:
I think something like a totem battle but it's three of your Pokémon versus one super boss, (It kinda sounds too much like Yokai watch though).
Also maybe a battle system that lets you train, maybe where you simulate a battle with a blank dummy that you can modify its type with and other info and when you attack it shows that number of damage it took to help study your opponent.

I guess that's it really,
Also @Hematite are triple battles in essentials?

 

[Hematite]

Taquilla, I don't believe so, unfortunately (and it's apparently really difficult to implement them/nobody has thus far; I dunno how veritable this is because I'm not nearly experienced enough to completely implement a new battle style, so I haven't tried it myself, but it seems to be true), to answer your question! Hence the "if I include Triple Battles," haha. I would love to, but it's way beyond my own skill level now. XP

 

[Maruno]

Having multiple battle styles is a good idea. It keeps things interesting, and different styles can allow for different strategies and let different Pokémon thrive.

What is notable is that all the battle styles other than singles are optional (as far as I'm aware). Even double battles will be skipped or become single battles if you only have one Pokémon. This too is a good thing, as you don't want to be assaulted by multiple ways of playing the game as you're playing.

Alternate battle styles are relatively simple to implement, because moves and abilities and whatnot still work the same. You may need to tweak the valid targets for some moves, or add in another mechanic (e.g. rotating battlers), but ultimately they're just variations on a theme.

Triple battles are quite cluttered - there's a lot going on in them, and having so much to do slows the battle down. There's also nothing about them to make them more interesting than "like doubles but even more so". Double battles get a pass for being the first alternate battle style. Battle Royals have the same number of battlers as double battles, which is fine, and it's also interesting because the number of Pokémon with/against you are uneven. Horde battles are more of this, but with a different flavour (the opponents are all against you and are generally weaker), plus it came before Battle Royals. I've never has a rotation battle, but they seem pretty odd, and could well end up being full of "wasn't very effective" which is boring.

Inverse battles and sky battles are quite lazy ideas, really. I'm not keen on them just because they make such simple modifications to damage calculation/allowed Pokémon lists respectively. I'd call them clauses rather than battle styles, since you could apply them (even both at once) to another battle style. Also, sky battles made the developers depict all flying Pokémon as flying, even ones like Salamence and Xatu which clearly look better when standing, which is another point against it. If the games had actually treated these clauses as clauses, and allowed mix-n-matches, that would have been better.

I'd like to see multi-battler styles fleshed out some more, e.g. with more combination moves. Pokémon could have a Synch stat to go alongside Attack/Speed/etc., which affects the power of combination moves they are a part of.

There's a fine line between suggesting improvements to alternate battle styles and just wanting to change how all battles work. For example, I considered mentioning Pokémon-based PP (rather than move-based PP) and Active Time Battles (faster Pokémon can attack more frequently, rather than "I move you move" tennis matches) before realising that they're kinda off-topic here.

A new battle style could be a series of 1v1 battles, with no switching. The winner is whoever wins the majority of those match-ups. I'm not sure it would be a great style, because it would prefer raw strength and resilience and remove any tactics involving switching, but it's a suggestion.

Thinking about it, good suggestions for alternate battle styles would focus on making something different, rather than restrict what you can do. All the existing battle styles do this (except the sky battle clause). I can't really think of any alternate battle styles that I'd be interested in (I'm ignoring clauses because I consider them to be off-topic).

Also @Hematite are triple battles in essentials?

Nope, and probably never will be. It's an amazing clutter and couldn't look good, plus it'd involve a major rewrite of a lot of code. I've said above that I don't find triple battles interesting, so it'd be a lot of work for (what I consider to be) no gain.

 

[Djaco75]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of different battle styles. I think it just makes the game more confusing and frustrating if you're someone who has minimal patience like me.

I do, however, like some styles of battling - especially the double battles introduced in Gen 3. I think they served a really good purpose for the game and really hoped they wouldn't be just a 1 generation feature back when I was playing Sapphire.

On a more negative note, I didn't like the introduction of partners that would battle you in different areas in Gens 4 - Eterna Forest. I feel like they were a bit pointless and very time consuming, especially if you just wanted to catch a Pokemon without spending 5 minutes knocking the other one out.

Again, I didn't really like triple battles and rotation battles. Especially rotation battles. It got to the point where I had to Google how a rotation battle worked because I couldn't figure out how the mechanics worked.

Overall, I do enjoy a bit of spice in experimenting with different battle styles, but I feel like it should be kept as a choice for the player whether they want to participate or not.