Five-Player Pokémon

TheMaskedNitpicker

Triple Threat
is a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Stop me if this idea has already been discussed.

I was taking a walk today when I had an idea. Those of you who've played Magic: The Gathering may be familiar with the Five-Point Star game, where five players sit around a table and your goal is to defeat the two opponents sitting across from you. I'm wondering how this format would work out in Pokémon.

Obviously, GameFreak probably isn't about to include it as a mode, but with a simulator, such a game could be possible. My question to you is could it be enjoyable? I envision something like this:

• Each player has a team of six Pokémon of which three (maybe four) are chosen for the match. All players reveal the species of the Pokémon on their teams before each chooses the three they're going to use.
• Your goal is to defeat the two players opposite you. Once all of their Pokémon are KO'd, you win. If several players win simultaneously, there's a draw.
• Moves like Earthquake that hit multiple Pokémon including your ally in Doubles would hit all four of the other Pokémon and take the standard 25% power cut.
• Moves like Heat Wave that hit both opponents in Doubles would hit just the two Pokémon opposite you and take the standard 25% power cut.
• Any move that targets a random opponent (like Outrage) selects randomly between the two Pokémon opposite you.
• Acupressure could target your Pokémon or the Pokémon on either side of you. Helping Hand can target either 'ally'.
• Light Screen and Reflect would work on you and your allies, but would only reduce damage by 1/3, like Doubles. Multiple layers would not stack. Safeguard would also protect your allies.
• Each player can have private conversations with any of the other players in order to orchestrate attacks, etc.

Does this idea have merit? I'd like to hear from you. It could be that I've overlooked something and this couldn't work, so don't hold back on the criticism. Is it something you'd try, or is it too unbalanced in some way? Either way, what strategy would you use?
 
Hmm... its an interesting idea, but there are some major differences between Magic and Pokemon that would make it very hard to implement a sort of system. Magic is a game where teams slowly build up and make very tactical plans, where as in pokemon games tend to go much faster. You can't really create a defense in Pokemon either, where in magic you have spells and the ability to summon as many creatures as your deck/mana pool allows. Also, whoevers turn it is is determined by seating, where in pokemon its determined by the individual speed of the pokemon, which could get confusing if theres 10 pokemon on the field, turns would go for a long time.

Personally I just find pokemon too fragile for this kind of game to work. It would be packed with Bulky Scarfed pokemon trying to OHKO and take a hit before the opponent. There are just too many differences for it to work (you also wouldn't be able to immediatly attack an ally when your opponents are just defeated, you lose a lot of options, also, in magic, you choose who blocks attacks). It has merit, yes, but it would just be too hard to implement with little reward.
 
I should have specified that there would only be one Pokémon on the field per trainer, making a total of five Pokémon.

Still, you make many good points. It may very well be that the game would quickly become a race for Speed and Power, becoming dull very quickly.
 
There is a 4-person mode in PBR, think it even goes all the way back to the original Stadiums (though that was 1 on 1, and the owner controlled the attacks). Five... well, not sure how well five would go.

Strategy: Protect, try not to die.
 
Basically, you have two opponents who must be defeated, and two people hitting on you as well.

5playerpokemonJ322.png


1 has to take out 3 and 4
2 has to take out 4 and 5
3 has to take out 5 and 1
4 has to take out 1 and 2
5 has to take out 2 and 3

Let's say you are player 1. You could sit on defense, and hope player 5 takes out player 3 while 2 takes out 4. The obvious problems with that strategy are that the others might deploy the same strategy (resulting in :gasp: stall) or that they catch on and focus on the other player so that you do not win first (so 5 would attack 2 rather than 3, for example).

Actually, once one player has been knocked out, it becomes really hard to win if that wasn't a player you wanted to kill. Because now two people are going for fulfill their objective with one more overall kill.

Complicated but interesting stuff. I think I would stick to old fashioned 2v2 strategies to take out both of my opponents ASAP.
 
I think that some old-fashioned 2v2 strategies would work, but others might backfire. For instance, Explosion might take out your friends if you don't warn them. If you do warn them, they might try to stop you, or just warn the player that's your opponent but their ally. There may be layers of deception taking place, making the game a bit like Diplomacy (the board game).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top