• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#101
GallantChaddymn posted...
You didn't answer my question. Why does whether or not the ability strictly benefit battle even matter? Its completely superfluous to the overal point of contention. Restricting it to battle comes off as an incredibly arbitrary.

I'm not saying it does: I thought that thread, IIRC, started as was going towards battle relevance, so I made an example with battle Ability, but, again, I've also responded already to the more general consideration, so you either just need to re-read what I posted or are intentionally being obtuse to keep the discussion diluted.

GallantChaddymn posted...
So handwaved?
Because this doesnt actually present any counterpoints.

This is the whole point of our difference in stance: your focus on the overall roster and belief that custom stuff is the only way to go to differentiate Vs my focus on in-games and how custom stuff is not the mandatory and only way of doing that; if you're still unclear about that at this point, which is what we're discussing all this time, I honestly don't know what to say to you.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Such as?

Pokémon that all have Big Pecks do not rely on it to stand out: their other differences, which do not require custom stuff, is what makes them different, especially in the context of the in-games. Stuff like Typing and different Stat distribution, for example.

GallantChaddymn posted...
What are they gonna do instead? Just power ceeep things summore?

That's actually what you seem to be suggesting. My agreement with them limiting the list of allowed stuff per meta is actually in direct opposition to keeping everything in and power-creeping to misguidedly keep things interesting.

GallantChaddymn posted...
And you havent substanciated why. You just keep saying you dont like it repeatedly. And you straight up admitted that example was bad earlier.

Addressed this before, and never said the example was bad as a whole, just that it didn't satisfy you for x and y reasons, but I've already explained this above, so, heh inb4 you magically come back to ignore that and say that I hand-waved stuff when responding to this.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Gym debacle

Holy s*** is this wrong: for the umpteenth time, I said that the issue is not even close to being a problem IMO, and so of course I don't think it's necessary to apply the "extreme" measures you're suggesting (well, perhaps less extreme in the matter of Gyms, but moreso in regards to special cases Pokémon); we simply disagree in how much the issue is an issue and how is it close to affect us, but I'm not saying that they shouldn't stray until we hit the wall, I'm saying they shouldn't necessarily stray for fear of hitting the wall by doing something different for the pure sake of change, instead of doing it because they're inspired of because it fits. Holy s*** do you have trouble understanding nuance (or voluntarily ignore it to keep a discussion going) and this kind of stuff, along with your usual drivel and assuming, is again honestly why this is not worth it, sadly.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Really wasnt.

I suggest working on your clarity.

So the topic titled "What are your personal hopes for Pokémon 2019?", people therefore listing their wishes and even my initial phrase in that post didn't clew you in? Holy s*** is this reaching for an argument.

GallantChaddymn posted...
handwaving arguments and putting words in my mouth/moving the goal post are not good ways of avoiding that.
But, again, this is what you're doing, lol. Honestly, at this point I should be used to this, even just by basing it on our previous interactions.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#102
GallantChaddymn posted...
No, the issue is you started responding to my poats before i properly finished responding to yours, sunshine.

You are assuming that i read all your responses in real tiem when im working my way down as you cut me off mid response repeatedly, scrambling your sense of how we are having this conversation to begin with.
Im not ignoring anything. You are just responding to past versions of me cuz ur too trigger happy lol.

Ah, so you simply needed more time. Don't worry, I'll let you keep up. I simply thought that clarifying what was already wrong or what we disagreed with was better than letting you go on that same thought-line when it was clear that I disagreed with the basis of it, but of course it's not like you listen to what I'm saying and don't make assumptions, anyway, so I guess me not ignoring your responses until I arbitrarily knew you were done was indeed an exercise in futility; again, though, this whole discussion,as usual, seems to be delving into that, so, once again, I should not be surprised.

And why the f*** would you assume that I assumed you read all my responses already.

GallantChaddymn posted...
I thought i explained why i disagree with this and why its a weak argument already.
You dont make things special by making tons of bland things to make it look cool by comparison. That additiude breeds stagnation and lack of creativityyyyyyy.....which is exactly what you want.

Sigh... i ask myself why i bother sometimes.

A special interrsting pokemon doesnt become less interesting just because 12 other comparably interesting and unique mon exist. You only get that if they share the same gimmick, which is the very point IM arguing against.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Wait so thinking a pokemon through with an ability and or move would result in it being too niche, but being an otherwise clone with slightly different stats and a situational move or too is just fine?

Yea, miss me with that s*** please.

And, other than your usual generalization, the nuance in this is in how exactly we disagree with this: Pokémon having the same roles does not automatically make them boring or less unique, because there's much more that goes into a Pokémon, as, for example, I've mentioned countless times already, the world-building aspect; while your stance seems to be "either custom thing or bust", which is incredibly myopic, IMO.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Move the goalpost more. No one said any such thing.

The argument i made was that the reason they could deviate with those was because the OGs were present to reprise the standard roles in their place.

GallantChaddymn posted...
What does imagination have to do with game balance? I gave my example of a case where not having Pidgey where you claimed it was not necesary was in fact necesary as a result of a simple type change to the regional bird.
The proof is in the pudding dude.

I said that putting in every other variation of the trope was not necessary, but, aside from that, what I'm saying is that it's not true: your Talonflame analysis does not mean that that was the only way Talonflame could have stood out, is what I'm saying: in the context of the franchise as a whole, people are not gonna remember that Talonflame was in the same game as Pidgey and that interaction; heck, people arguably already remember it more because of the different Typing than usual and because of Gale Wings (with the issues I've mentioned before).

Heck, confronting Pokémon like that to make them stand out more is actually what I'm arguing for, only that, in this case, you took it as in specifically related to their confrontation in-game, while I'm satisfied with it in the franchise as a whole and world-building-wise.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#103
GallantChaddymn posted...
And again, you are asserting that custom stuff is in of itself a balance issue which is false conflation.
Beak blast was far from a balance issue. Pokemon having more thought into them in this regard litterally has no direct correlation to balance.

No, I'm saying that there's the risk of doing that, especially if you have to keep coming up with a custom thing for every new Pokémon.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Typing/stats and availability do tho. Despite You Insisting Their The only Parameters needed. When there really is only so much you can do with them as the contraints that exist with what they can is far greater than u seem to grasp.

Again, you've been even more strict than I am when discussing Type balance in the in-games, so I again ask you to answer my question: Andrex_93 posted...
Do we already have a more defensively inclined early bird? One that is not /Normal or lulPelipper? Are we assuming Normal, Fire and Water are the only Types that would work without breaking the game?

Again, what we disagree with is in the details, and, due to your IMO more myopic or I guess "alarmist" view, you see this as more of an issue than I think it is because they've proven again and again that they can shake things up without upsetting the balance, along with the obvious possibility of the permutations still un-explored which would not affect balance and, heck, even the random example I threw in there.

GallantChaddymn posted...
No. Im asking you to give an example to substanciate a point. You dont need to completley design a game to give an example. Ive been doing it this entire conversation. If you are so confident in its ability to function, id hope you would actually be able to back it up with an example.
Because the lack of one again, makes it come off as a fleeting faith based assertion.

And who are you kidding, my summary on that last one was damn accurate and u know it.

See above.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#104
Ugh.. my replies to those got erased somehow. Ill have to repeat myself.

Andrex_93 posted...
it's quite simply here that you're being even stricter than I with even considering the possibility, and I think that's pretty much simply disingenuous because it favors your narrative.


...
...
...
This is litterally you saying :" I can't admit you are you are correct because then I'd have to admit i am wrong".
Like, holy s*** dude, its like the rest of your brain hasn't caught up with itself.
the reason it "favors my narrative" is because it does this thing called "making logical sense" since that's what my position is based on, not fleeting emotions like yours is.

I could easily say "I want next gen to have 20 Fire Types, they can make it work they'd pros" but who would take it seriously without some form of justification?

Andrex_93 posted...
re. I was simply saying how I don't necessarily think that them doing Golisopod

....Simply because you don't like it. There was no "obligation" to give Golisopod E-Exit, which isn't a real argument. It was put there intentionally by design, so different than any other example of mons with such types of abilities. Stressing this point doesn't support your position.

I don't particularly see the justification behind it when it doesn't seem to fit Guzma nor is it really needed for the line as a whole

Except it does tho? Guzma is a poser, just like Golisopod. He talks big and shows his guns, but he's still the insecure dude he's always been on the inside.

Surely that wasn't so hard to catch?

the positives don't outweigh the negatives, IMO.


..and the that doesn't really matter because it was quite clearly not the intent of the design,, so you slapping IMO here quite frankly doesn't matter.
You can't just say "imo" to avoid criticism, lol.

Andrex_93 posted...
thought-out pretty much must equate to special case, where I don't think that's the case; once again, your interpretation of my stance as a whole is reductive


My "interpretation" of your stance is created based on the info you gave me. If examples like toxapex are "going to far" what isn't really?
Because it is about as "special case", again, as Kingler was in gen 1.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#105
I feel like I'm gonna get another "I have to catch up, you're trigger happy for this", but since I feel this might be more contained, I'll respond to this immediately; I guess, if I see you keep responding, I'll let you catch up completely? Anyway

GallantChaddymn posted...
This is litterally you saying :" I can't admit you are you are correct because then I'd have to admit i am wrong".
Like, holy s*** dude, its like the rest of your brain hasn't caught up with itself.
the reason it "favors my narrative" is because it does this thing called "making logical sense" since that's what my position is based on, not fleeting emotions like yours is.

I could easily say "I want next gen to have 20 Fire Types, they can make it work they'd pros" but who would take it seriously without some form of justification?

At the same time, this is what it looks like you're doing, to me: "I can't admit that my difference in stance and the accusations I fling at you are based on something that isn't objectively quantifiable, so I'll just wave off your responses and saying you didn't substantiate and keep spewing the same drivel because you didn't say stuff I agree with".

Like, literally, dude, your stance is based on logic and mine is not when you have yet to prove the objectivity of what would essentially make your stance logical and mine emotional-driven? And you keep trying to spin and oversimplifying my stance to make it look like the opposite of yours and keep the discussion going even though it's clear that, aside from something that isn't objective, we simply disagree on the scale of the approach? If this isn't bias, I don't know what is.

GallantChaddymn posted...
....Simply because you don't like it. There was no "obligation" to give Golisopod E-Exit, which isn't a real argument. It was put there intentionally by design, so different than any other example of mons with such types of abilities. Stressing this point doesn't support your position.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Except it does tho? Guzma is a poser, just like Golisopod. He talks big and shows his guns, but he's still the insecure dude he's always been on the inside.

Surely that wasn't so hard to catch?

Lolno. I said how it's different than something like Magikarp and how, assuming this is what "more thought-out" means, again, something being "more thought-out" doesn't automatically make it better, in this case battle-wise. I also don't think it (alongside a few other things, like arguably its Water Typing) fits Golisopod particularly well, or that the theme couldn't have been different or delivered better.

I also don't think Guzma is delivered quite that way, not to the same degree, so having a Pokémon that only has that Ability, even in the HA slot, isn't necessarily fitting the whole way through. Of course, though, they're both posers and losers, that's for sure, but I don't think that what essentially is a mustache-twirling "I flee!" along with cowardliness is really what best encapsulates Guzma, which really only exited the scene in the UB world (talking just SM) more out of "this is way over my head and I don't care enough to get involved, so I'm out", rather than "I'm scared and useless! I'm gonna run!". Inb4 you try to spin this and say that I said Golisopod doesn't fit Guzma at all.

But, again, the whole point of the Golisopod thing was that, assuming that custom thing was an automatic consequence of "more thought", it doesn't necessarily make a better result, in the case of Golisopod battle-wise and arguably a bit theme-wise, too, at least related to the human that uses it as its ace, and, especially, it's not the only solution to create that effect.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#106
GallantChaddymn posted...
..and the that doesn't really matter because it was quite clearly not the intent of the design,, so you slapping IMO here quite frankly doesn't matter.
You can't just say "imo" to avoid criticism, lol.

Wait, not the intent of the design so they mistakenly made it a burden? And I've honestly went on countless times about the need for special cases to make this Vs not, so.

GallantChaddymn posted...
My "interpretation" of your stance is created based on the info you gave me. If examples like toxapex are "going to far" what isn't really?
Because it is about as "special case", again, as Kingler was in gen 1.

No? And I've clearly explained why above? So, again, why are you ignoring? If you disagree with my points, just say so and/or substantiate why. Kingler doesn't have inflated stats, but then again the whole point of mine was simply that not everyone needs to have, not that doing that in a few cases is inherently a mistake, even though that's not my preferred approach.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#107
Andrex_93 posted...
In case it wasn't clear enough, I disagreed with your stance before, in the same line of this, about Noctowl being the only other standing out one because of Pidgey still being in; but it still all comes back to what we find necessary for a Pokémon to "be good",


.....Which is just existing and haveimg come out b4 gen 6.

Andrex_93 posted...
I quite simply cannot believe any other permutation other than the ones they've applied before would upset the balance of the in-game, and I know you know this,


So its literally just an emotional faith based argument? You just "dont feel like it would " ?
Again, i put forth the reasons why it would. At that point, you either debunk my claims or take the L. Those are ypur options. None of this "i dont believe it ur a liar" nonsense.

Andrex_93 posted...
, in modern Pokémon, thought-out pretty much must equate to special case, where I don't think that's the case


You litterally argued the opposite earlier ehile ive been arguing just that. Enough with the backpedalling dude.

You spent several pages litterally arguing against pokemon needing to eblven be well thought out.

Andrex_93 posted...
You're, once again, generalizing: Toxapex has lopsided Stats which I don't think are needed to make a Pokémon work well enough, otherwise we go even more into the slippery-slope of power creep,


Since when was this even on the table? You were the one arguong that stat disparity was the way to go in the first place? And that kind of stat disparity isn't even unusual to begin with on a pokemon.
This was about "lol special case move/abilities". There is no generalisation here. You are just moving the goal post repeatedly.

Andrex_93 posted...

I'm just gonna ignore your projecting and/or assumptions, from now on, since it's clear that you're not willing to listen to anything that does not fit your idea of the person you're talking to and this devolves into even more diluting of the discussion


Ill take that as a concession of my point thanks, since youve basically stated u are unwilling to concede a point by virtue of not wanting to admit the other person is right in their assesment to the detriment of your own.

Andrex_93 posted...
You were the first to mention pay-off for ingenuity in utilizing the gimmick, I


I didnt mean a strict power payoff but one in the form of the satisfaction that comes from successfuy playing arpund it, as that is a payoff in of itself. I thought i made that clear already in my post discussing its ability in the first place.

Not at all: I'm saying that they don't need to be different,


And im saying that they should and gave my reasons ehy. You argued the opposite is valid and used an apeal to reality fallacy to justify that stance.

So why are ypu acting surprised that i disagree when your argument was bad?
Convince me that them being basically clones of eachother is fine and why it is instead of acting like its an evident please?
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#108
GallantChaddymn posted...
.....Which is just existing and haveimg come out b4 gen 6.

GallantChaddymn posted...
So its literally just an emotional faith based argument? You just "dont feel like it would " ?
Again, i put forth the reasons why it would. At that point, you either debunk my claims or take the L. Those are ypur options. None of this "i dont believe it ur a liar" nonsense.

Again, getting tired of your drivel. You've been doing the same thing I've been doing, at the very least: "these don't work because they're just clones, and I arbitrarily decided that the ones that did were the ones I remembered the most because Pidgey is also in their games and this fits my narrative". I went on countless times to explain why that level of contrast and special case making doesn't need to be the case, and how much you find clone/memorable, even assuming that's directly a bad thing (which is another side of the argument) is completely subjective, and yet you somehow keep spouting the same s*** that your view is somehow objective and mine is subjective, especially because you ignore any of my more "substantiated claims" and obviously you'll respond here with "there are none" or some s*** like that. Honestly, you pretty much bring up again one of the reasons yourself, so I don't feel the need to repeat it, now.

GallantChaddymn posted...
You litterally argued the opposite

Weird quoting and editing on your end, here, but I'm not backpedaling. I'm saying that there's no need to make that the only way to differentiate a Pokémon, and if this being my stance isn't yet clear to you after all of this, I honestly don't know what to say.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Since when was this even on the table? You were the one arguong that stat disparity was the way to go in the first place? And that kind of stat disparity isn't even unusual to begin with on a pokemon.
This was about "lol special case move/abilities". There is no generalisation here. You are just moving the goal post repeatedly.

Since the custom move you mentioned is arguably not relevant enough to Toxapex's carved out niche, at least for its main use, when you mentioned how that "straight-forward way" to make a Pokémon is the way to go, I went with the next best "individualizing" element, which are its bloated Defensive Stats, to say that I don't think is the case, instead. Bloated Stats might have not come up immediately in this specific discussion, but I really don't think me thinking this about them is a surprise, considering you seem to be quite fond of (selectively) bringing up past discussions.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Ill take that as a concession of my point thanks, since youve basically stated u are unwilling to concede a point by virtue of not wanting to admit the other person is right in their assesment to the detriment of your own.

See, this is what you're doing, from my perspective; how the f*** am I supposed to argue against someone that either doesn't read outright what I'm writing or simply dismisses my points because he doesn't agree with them, and then calls his opinion objective? That's as biased as one can get.

GallantChaddymn posted...
I didnt mean a strict power payoff but one in the form of the satisfaction that comes from successfuy playing arpund it, as that is a payoff in of itself. I thought i made that clear already in my post discussing its ability in the first place.

I understood perfectly. My point was that the positives don't outweigh the negatives, so that there's no need to make Pokémon a burden to use to make them "stand out", and especially that, for the umpteenth time, not every Pokémon needs to be approached that way.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#109
GallantChaddymn posted...
And im saying that they should and gave my reasons ehy. You argued the opposite is valid and used an apeal to reality fallacy to justify that stance.

So why are ypu acting surprised that i disagree when your argument was bad?
Convince me that them being basically clones of eachother is fine and why it is instead of acting like its an evident please?

And I'm saying that your vague "counter-point" is bad and arbitrary, because, the real world being an inspiration for the games, I really don't see what's so bad in them, you know, using the real world as inspiration for the games. I've went lengths to detail why I think that way, from needing to make every Pokémon a special case being a slippery-slope creatively, power-creep-wise, potentially uncohesive and not necessary to make creatures stand out (especially due to the subjective nature of this), to the more focused in-game approach compared to a franchise-range one, to the fact that your strange fixation and strictness about Types (keeping in mind that I'm also the one that usually has to say to people "no, an early-game Ice Type doesn't fit for how they do the games") does not make the possibilities of multiple permutations nonexistent by any means.. All things that I've already stated and that you either ignored, dismissed because you disagree with them or apparently are having a hard time connecting to the overall stance of mine?
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#110
Andrex_93 posted...
This non-sense is again a failed attempt at projecting bias onto me


....You litterally admitted it before we started.

Not discouraging creating designs and putting thought into them, again this is another spin of yours. I've re-stated for the umpteenth time my stance on the matter above, and, if I care to share it, I'll try and find a fakemon of mine which might apply, here, when I have more time. Edit: misread what you wrote, there, but low on space, so I guess, IIRC the threadline.. A specially defensive early-game Ground or Psychic bird?


...if your stance is "not all of them need to be and that you feel curent gens are too much" then yes, evidently, your position discourages it. That's kinda ehat the word means.

I'd argue Noctowl is already this in many ways without actually carrying the type and exibits the aformentione dissues in the same way.
In fact, i'd imagine it not bring a Psychic Type at all was probably prermptuve balance precaution on GFs part, especially given how broken it was thr Gen before and hoe Gen 3 goes out of its way to put a lot of counters to it, but i digress.

The main thing to keep in mind is that Pokemon is a game where your oppinant have the same options you do. This is important because along with Pokemon being balanced primarily around 1v2 scenarios, this heavily restricts what can be allowed early on.

If you had a straight up Psychic/Flying special attacking early bird, you have tonaccount for all the early trainers that have them now that the player has to fight, not just the player's access to it.

This results in less balanced early game battles for the player because the more balanced typing and stat spread of the pokemon isn't present.

Again, this is why every game that had an interesting early bird had a standard one or an oldie to go with it.
So that it can fulfil that role and allow the new one to do its thing.

Hoothoot, Wingull and Fletchling also all get stunted earlier in the game as a result in terms of typing and moveset because they would distrupt things too much at this point in the game otherwise.

Psychic bird if a physical attacker wouldn't work by virtue of shallow move pool options. It would basically be relegated to Psycho cut and maybe ZenHeadbutt, leaving it to be a normal/flying type for most of its life whether literally or practically

With ground/Flying besifes being too strong of a type combo early also stunts both Fire and Grass to hard while benefitting Water , skewing the type preference to hard in Water's favor for a pokemon that is gonna be prevalent trhouought the entire game.

Would have to, again, be relegated to its final stage to get the Ground/Typing.

Beyond that, it risks suffering from shallow movepool syndrome as well, as Ground moves lean towards too strong for early game.
The only real weak GroundMove is Mud-slap.

The typing i see having the least harm to do it with is Water (which has been done already) but even then you'd still need a normal/flying type to take up the bulk of encounters so that the FireType isn't stuck fighting water types the entire early to mid game.

Andrex_93 posted...
You know what, that'd be even more waste of space; just read what I said about the spin-off matter again.


I did. I dont see the point you are getting at here.

when, if anything, I think you're the biased one regarding Gen 5, but that's besides the point and I don't want to dilute the discussion even further


Only "bias" i have for Gen 5 is not giving it a pass by virtue of being the last 2D sprite based Gen, like some people.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?
  • Topic Archived