Is the battle system much different than playing blackjack with your own deck?
Imagine a world where someone can buy and trade towards a deck with 90% aces going up a person with 80% aces.
Imagine a world where someone can buy and trade towards a deck with 90% aces going up a person with 80% aces.
The exception is official Nintendo events, but most serious competitors at those will have a network of breeder friends to produce flawless Pokemon for them to use.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions about the competitive Pokemon scene, I was very into battling on simulator for a number of years and have a pretty good knowledge of the scene.
You can also freely substitute among your team of 6, though subbing replaces your attack for that turn. If you anticipate the opponent using an attack of a particular type, you can sub in something resistant to that attack.
In single-player/story mode, you never encounter an opponent at the maximum level, and the NPCs tend not to build type-diversified teams, so the player gets a huge advantage in most battles by just grinding a couple pokemon of the right type.
As far as the various pokemon vs another vs the simplicity of jkqa it seems to me something like a weighted adjacency matrix could handle the increased complexity even in a relatively simple ai (imagine two pokemon doing a graph traversal to opposite ends of a node graph, whichever gets there first wins).
Everyone counts cards so under extremely rare circumstances given card count X you can play as if the count is X+1 or X-1 thus mess with the minds of people who accurately believe the count to be X, possibly leading to an advantage, if, statistically, they're in a position where being one off in the count is worse for them than it is for you, or if you're in such a bad spot that it doesn't matter if you signal something false you're doomed anyway.
Most of the people claiming to shuffle track, are not. Still, you got three guys watching the dealer shuffle by hand, then two can troll the third by pretending and the third's all like "what did I miss?" maybe panic and do something dumb.
Its not as much fun as poker, no.
I agree theres no direct me vs you money transfer but plenty of "we're all gonna start with $500 and whoever has more at the end of the night is the winner".
Although I would agree with you in spirit, if you want to feel like you're playing poker, theres no point in simulating it poorly with blackjack unless theres extenuating circumstances (one of your buddies is nuts for the game, or thinks he's gods gift to the card counting art, etc)
You can add rules on top of a game all you want (e.g. we're all gonna start...) but that doesn't change the actual game that's being played.
Intermediate player (where its possible to mess with people) : I'm not good at this, whats the count now?
(edited to note: I think external card counting devices like a phone app are illegal everywhere, which does leave some of the fun in the game)
Experienced player : Everyone is effectively perfect at card counting making it boring again.
Something I don't like about blackjack as a game is casinos minimize the entertainment of the game by having like six decks that are shuffled constantly, how super boring why not just play slots or set your cash on fire and watch it burn. If you play it at home with one deck multiplayer and no shuffling foolishness its a moderately entertaining arithmetic game with multiple meta levels of "press your luck" although the house doesn't have guaranteed boring income under that format, which is why casinos won't play that way. Its a game that's too much fun not to be made boring, or something like that. Casinos could take sex and make it boring. Not a fan.