Inverse battles

Nothing of value was lost.

>>29568237
I agree. Having it as a battle option in the Battle Maison would have been great, too.

File: 1477879199821.png (102KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x281px

>>29568237
I mean they're a somewhat interesting idea. I vaguely remember before XY, either the leaks or GF were hyping up inverse battles before they turned out to be one guy you battle.

If we get them back, it would be nice to see more opportunities to do them, but I wouldn't be surprised if it stayed like XYORAS

>>29568237
Nah, they're pretty niche.

Not to mention the thing that tells you what moves are and aren't effective would make them totally pointless.

>>29568237
Yeah they were interesting, I just hope they find a valid excuse for lore that explains why they exist.

>>29568351
Not necessarily, the challenge would be in giving your Pokémon the right moves to counteract types you didn't have to worry about before.
Eg Golem is now weak to Fire, but does it have any Grass-type attacks to counter it?

I found them interesting, but GF makes the same mistakes over and over again when it comes to new battle styles. There's just not anywhere near enough chances to enjoy them.
Doubles was the only time where they actually made use of the new battle style, albeit sparingly. And it wasn't some avoidable niche bullshit stuffed away in a corner like Triples and Rotation, and now they keep pulling this once-per-day crap. It's like GF is afraid someone might have fun.

>>29568474
>There's just not anywhere near enough chances to enjoy them.

Yep, that's the crucial point to all of this. There are some legitimately good ideas, but those are badly included into the game

Inverse battle facility.

Wouldn't grass be the best type in inverse battle?

>>29570150
It's pretty good but the best type is Normal because it has perfect coverage just by itself since nothing resists it.