Link Battles VS In Game Trainer Battles

[Pokemon_Veteran]

Have you ever wondered why in a link battle the game doesn't give you the option of switching after you KO one of you opponent's Pokemon compared to a battling an in game opponent? Well I finally came up with the most logical reason why, it is programmatically impossible to efficiently implement that option during a link battle. That is one major difference between a link battle and in game trainer battle.

Well, here we can discuss your preferences on battle styles, differences between battle styles, battle mechanics, or try to prove me wrong on what I stated earlier in this post.

[Gentleman]

Well I finally came up with the most logical reason why, it is programmatically impossible to efficiently implement that option during a link battle. That is one major difference between a link battle and in game trainer battle.

Um... what is that reason, exactly?

Anyhow, the in-game system isn't there in link battles and all that mostly because it's just plain unbalanced. The system is heavily weighted in favor of the player, so as to make the game easier (it's aimed at kids, y'know). Obviously, being able to tell exactly what Pokemon your opponent will send out next and being able to send out a counter-Pokemon on the dot is simply unfair.

It means the person who KO's the first Pokemon gets even more momentum, as they're then prepared to deal with whatever the opponent sends out. It makes the battle more one-sided, generally, and even if it goes both ways, it still hands an advantage to the person who gets it first or at the right time that could easily decide the match.

Even if the system were implemented so that you could just switch out after KO'ing a Pokemon, and not know what your opponent is sending out next, it still gives the person who got the KO more room to maneuver. Say I send out something like Dugtrio and knock out their Magnezone. Then I switch Dugtrio out for something that'd be much more capable of dealing with whatever they might send out than Dugtrio. It eliminates the concept of revenge-killing, and that's not really a good thing. Not to mention that it means the person whose Pokemon was KO'd is unable to send out a Pokemon that can allow them to regain part of their momentum, as they don't know what Pokemon the Attacker would send out next.

So... yeah, balance reasons.

[natie]

I have to fully agree with Gentleman here. It's not hard to implement that, but GameFreak just doesn't do it because it would make the game extremely unfair.

[Unpredictable-Strategist]

I agree with Gentleman and think the battle system should stay that way, but the way the switching works in a link battle seems unauthentic. It would make sense, even though it would be unbalanced, to be able to switch pokemon whenever the opponent sends out a new one. If you hear the opponent yell out "GO, Salamence!", you're going to know what they're sending out, giving you that moment to choose a new pokemon.

[Sonic527]

Look at it this way, if what your saying was like in game for example lets use Champion Blue/Green and he knocked out your Charizard with a Blastoise. You choose raichu in order to get the Blastoise out of the way but what's this? As raichu comes out, Blastoise is immedietly pulled out and replaced with Rhydon.... Now your at an even greater disadvantage.

The reason the battle system works this way is so that both trainers have a fair chance rather then just one.

[Typhlosion Trainer]

Like everyone else, I agree with Gentleman. It would be unfair if you knew what your opponent is about to choose in a link battle.

[Eternal_Blaze]

Pokemon Veteran, is you're tired of easy battles there's a way to change it. In the Options you select Set instead of Shift. This way you won't get a hint of what you're opponent is about to send until it's out. It's a good way to practice your linked battles and it makes the game a li'l harder.

[Pokemon_Veteran]

You might be overlooking one detail, recoil moves like Explosion, Selfdestruct, Takedown, and other such moves can cause both Pokemon to faint. Unless our universe gets some kind of freaky new dimension, you both can't give that information simultaneously, since it is unknown to the game.
However, if you apply a rule that tags the move user's trainer to not have that opportunity, it is possible, but I am right in saying that you can't give information that hasn't happened as it has already happened to act on, it simply remains unknown to the computer and can't be acted upon.

[Gentleman]

You might be overlooking one detail, recoil moves like Explosion, Selfdestruct, Takedown, and other such moves can cause both Pokemon to faint. Unless our universe gets some kind of freaky new dimension, you both can't give that information simultaneously, since it is unknown to the game.

I frankly don't believe that there's any programming limitation in that scenario that'd prevent them from implementing such a system if they really, really wanted to.

They could, for instance, simply declare the person who used Explosion to be the person who got the KO, or vice versa. They could easily declare it randomly.

The person whose Pokemon is decided as the first to be KO'd then, would be prompted to choose a Pokemon to send out, and then the person whose Pokemon is deemed to have been KO'd second would then be told the first person's choice and then be prompted to send out their own Pokemon.

Unless I'm misreading you somehow.

I maintain that the primary reason they don't implement it is simply because it wouldn't be fair, and could easily tip the game in certain directions based simply on who got the first KO.

[Indragon]

You might be overlooking one detail, recoil moves like Explosion, Selfdestruct, Takedown, and other such moves can cause both Pokemon to faint. Unless our universe gets some kind of freaky new dimension, you both can't give that information simultaneously, since it is unknown to the game.
However, if you apply a rule that tags the move user's trainer to not have that opportunity, it is possible, but I am right in saying that you can't give information that hasn't happened as it has already happened to act on, it simply remains unknown to the computer and can't be acted upon.

As Gentleman said, there isn't a programming limitation. I assume you know what they do when there's a double KO in an in-game battle due to Explosion or somesuch? The game just asks which Pokemon you'd like to send out, without any knowledge of the opponents. That's exactly what'll happen - both will have to blindly send in a Pokemon.

[deathseer]

An interesting idea would be to do away with "switching into attacks"

I always found it rather odd that when you switch into another Pokemon, the attack that you commanded hits the Pokemon that enters. If anything, if you choose to switch out, the attack that was ordered misses instead.

I know that sounds kind of like the anime, but its a concept they should have had done in Gen 1. Its kind of lame that when switching out, you have to consider the attack thats going to hit you once the Pokemon enters.

A scenario could be like this:

Player sent out Torterra

Player sent out Buizel

Torterra used Frenzy Plant!

Player's Buizel is recalled

Torterra's Frenzy Plant missed!

Player sent out Staraptor!

See. In a scenario like that, you wouldn't have to worry about switching into a Frenzy Plant with Staraptor. Because even if you resist it, you still take unnecessary damage. So the game should at least allow you to switch out into a Pokemon without the threat of it getting KO'ed as soon as it enters.

[Indragon]

^That's not a good idea. Do you realise how much switching can be abused to give free switches to Pokemon if that happened? The current switching system is much more balanced and sensible and obviously adds so much more strategy into the game.

[deathseer]

Most competitive environments are formed by "abusing" techniques. People always find ways to make the most out of any situation given to them.

And it doesn't have to be permanent. It could be just an option that you can turn on or off. And it doesn't have to be used in Link battles. It could be used just in the In-Game Battles.

Just because something seems to easily abused, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Its entire up to each individual to say what they think qualifies as cheap or anything of the sort. And I for one as an individual think that would be a nice idea. To be able to freely switch into a Pokemon whenever you see fit.

The battle still comes down to skill. Doesn't matter how many times you switch out. Also, there could be a rule where a Constant switch ( switching without declaring any attacks at all ) could be illegal.

There are tons of ways to improve the game, and I'm up for any new and innovative idea.

[Indragon]

Most competitive environments are formed by "abusing" techniques. People always find ways to make the most out of any situation given to them.

And that's why broken situations like free switches should be avoided, to minimise the abuse.

And it doesn't have to be permanent. It could be just an option that you can turn on or off. And it doesn't have to be used in Link battles. It could be used just in the In-Game Battles.

OK, I guess an in-game option for that isn't too bad, but why not use the SHIFT option anyway?

Just because something seems to easily abused, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Its entire up to each individual to say what they think qualifies as cheap or anything of the sort. And I for one as an individual think that would be a nice idea. To be able to freely switch into a Pokemon whenever you see fit.

Well, fine, that's your opinion but mine is that that's a ridiculous idea, where one can just keep switching in and out without any risk, that'd make battles less fun and less strategic. Also, logically, it makes sense that while you're recalling your Pokemon, your opponent's getting geared up to attack, and hit's your switch-in once its arrived. (Note that the switch always goes first)

The battle still comes down to skill. Doesn't matter how many times you switch out.

No it won't. There's skill in safely getting a Pokemon in with correct prediction/play, there's skill in maneuvering the situation so that you can get an advantageous switch, but when its flat-out given that you're safe if you want to switch in, it all becomes a lot more drab. Set up entry hazards and spam Roar/Whirlwind would dominate, which becomes boring.

Also, there could be a rule where a Constant switch ( switching without declaring any attacks at all ) could be illegal.

I didn't get this constant switch part, could you explain?

But anyway, why restrain switching just so you can have free switches? Rather have the ability to choose any command than to make new rules just to overcome unenjoyable situations, which'd still result in the battle gameplay being subpar.

There are tons of ways to improve the game, and I'm up for any new and innovative idea.

Personally, I feel this idea detracts from the game.

[deathseer]

Constant switches, as in repeatedly switching without declaring any attacks. You just switch out without doing anything. Its basically PP stalling without Pressure.

It may seem like a bad idea, but it could grow on you. Its same as giving the move priority over the switch. The attack misses, and the Pokemon safely get out. I'm not saying this can't be abused. But it would put a stop to phazing (Roar, Whirlwind). Since thee move misses, you decide what Pokemon comes out.

And Pokemon can't keep using the same things over and over again. Eventually people will get bored of the same formula. I know they couldn't care less about what people like in the game and are mostly concerned with making money, but they could at least try harder.

As much as I love Pokemon, I'm not sure how long I can do the whole "Get 8 badges, Beat the Elite 4, and Finish the Battle Frontier" formula . Eventually, they are going to have to come up with some new concepts. not just slapping on new moves and abilities, but innovate the way we play the game.

Maybe voice recognition battles (Calling out commands instead of just pressing buttons all day). I know how much work that would take and how inefficient it could be, but at least its something different.

Or In battle evolution. Instead of waiting for a battle to end to evolve your Pokemon, it happens in the midst of battle. It adds more excitement to the battle now that your Pokemon has gotten stronger.

I'm not saying they should reinvent the wheel, but something different than what we have been doing for the past 15 years would be nice.

[Indragon]

I completely agree with you about them having to improve the formula, but anyway...

Constant switches, as in repeatedly switching without declaring any attacks. You just switch out without doing anything. Its basically PP stalling without Pressure.

Ah, thought it was that. Anyway, still prefer the current system - this seems a tad restricting and quite boring. meh, just think the one now gets everything right.

Maybe voice recognition battles (Calling out commands instead of just pressing buttons all day). I know how much work that would take and how inefficient it could be, but at least its something different.

I used to think this would be a fun idea, until I heard a person mentioning how awkward it'd be when you're playing on your DS in public places, or buses/planes, etc. and you were constantly talking into your DS. Add to that it'd get irritating real fast if you had to constantly focus on the game and keep talking while doing something boring like level grinding. Plus, it might be quite inaccurate and attack recognition or such.

Hm..could be included in the OPTIONS tab.

[tom-tom]

Link-Battles/WiFi battles are competitive and have strategy behind them, so why would the game let you switch out when you know your opponets Pokemon?

[Kindrindra]

It makes perfect sense that when you switch, the new pokemon gets hit. The opponent pokemon get's ready to use it's attack, you switch pokemon, and they hit the new pokemon the second they come out.


Also, that basic formula IS pokemon. If you want something different, that's why they made spin-offs.

[Pokemon_Veteran]

As Gentleman said, there isn't a programming limitation. I assume you know what they do when there's a double KO in an in-game battle due to Explosion or somesuch? The game just asks which Pokemon you'd like to send out, without any knowledge of the opponents. That's exactly what'll happen - both will have to blindly send in a Pokemon

If your battling another person and you apply a double KO, the game requires 2 inputs, instead of the 1 input required when an in-game battle occurs. Perhaps some pseudocode may help explain this better.

var pkmnCPU
var pkmnP1
var PartyArrayCPU[6]
var PartyArrayP1[6]
var selInput
var buf
var iPkmnCPU
. . .

exec faint() pkmnCPU
exec faint() pkmnP1
move PartyArrayCPU[iPkmn] to buf
move buf to pkmnCPU
readOUT: "Trainer {CPU} is about to send out {pkmnCPU}, will you switch Pokemon?"
readIN: selInput
move PartyArrayP1[selInput] to buf
move pkmnP1 to PartyArrayP1[selInput]
move buf to pkmnP1
exec sendout() pkmnCPU
exec sendout() pkmnP1
. . .

The above pseudocode is rough illustration of how an in-game battle probably works. You may notice there is need for only 1 input. Now onto where I mean it is impossible

var PartyArrayP1[6]
var PartyArrayP2[6]
var pkmnP1
var pkmnP2
var selInput1
var selInput2
var buf
. . .
exec faint() pkmnP1
exec faint() pkmnP2
//Start Problem
readOUT "P2 is about send in {pkmnP2}, will you switch Pokemon?"
readIN selInput1
move pkmnP1 to buf
move PartyArrayP1[selInput1] to pkmnP1
move buf to PartyArrayP1[selInput1]
readOUT "P1 is about send in {pkmnP1}, will you switch Pokemon?"
readIN selInput2
move pkmnP2 to buf
move PartyArrayP2[selInput2] to pkmnP2
move buf to PartyArrayP2[selInput2]
//End Problem
exec sendout() pkmnP1
exec sendout() pkmnP2

If you read the above pseudocode carefully, you'll see that information read out to player 1 has yet to happen and doesn't exist. In this situation, only one player can know what the other will send out as this information can't exist at Point A and Point B at the same time.

This is what I mean by programmatically impossible.

[Gentleman]

If your battling another person and you apply a double KO, the game requires 2 inputs, instead of the 1 input required when an in-game battle occurs. Perhaps some pseudocode may help explain this better.

I'm not technically proficient enough to fully understand everything pseudocoded, there, but I think I get the gist of it.

Your position, as I see it, is that in cases where two Pokemon are KO'd on the same term, you'd run into a scenario something like this (in a nutshell):

-One player must hold up a warning sign of their action before the other can make a move.
-If the other player hasn't held up a warning sign, you can't make a move (and therefore hold up your warning sign).
-Both players can't be holding up a warning sign at the same time.

Basically, both players are waiting to see what the other person will be sending out next before they send their Pokemon out, but then, if Player 1 is waiting for Player 2, and Player 2 is waiting for Player 1...

Am I right?

What you're failing to take into account, however, is that if Gamefreak really wanted to get this system into link-battles, they could easily fix it in two ways, both of which have already been mentioned:

-Somehow determine which person got the KO. This can be done randomly, by choosing the person who used the Knockout move (but was then subsequently KO'd by recoil or Sandstorm or the backlash of Explosion), etc. Things'd then proceed normally, with the person whose Pokemon was determined to be KO'd first (Player 2) choosing a Pokemon without being told what Player 1 is choosing. Player 1 is then told what Player 2 chose, and things go on their merry way.

-Don't determine who got the KO, and instead tell neither player what the other is sending out, as would happen now. As I understand it from Indragon's statement, this is what the game would do normally.

In both cases, the issue of both players waiting on the other to tell them what they're sending out doesn't come up, which I believe is your reason as to why it's not put in link battles. As it appears, this reason is not a factor.

I repeat that the primary reason this system is not implemented in link battles because it is simply not fair to a given player. The "programmatically impossible" reason you put forward, as far as I can understand, is no obstacle. The real obstacle to putting this in would be the idea saying, "Hey, do we really want to give people who get the first KO even more of an advantage? Give them enough of a running start that they could win the battle, maybe?"