This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Post New Message
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.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Should GameFreak level Pokemon past 100?

User Info: Krazy_Kirby

Krazy_Kirby
6 days ago#41
boomstickbhg posted...
the only worse thing would be if someone was crazy enough to think they should add more moveslots.


but the anime does it!
i mean it was only shown once, but obviously all the pokemon in the anime never forgot their older moves.... they just don't use them
Kill From The Shadows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

User Info: Panda_San

Panda_San
6 days ago#42
Krazy_Kirby posted...
that didn't work for orange island dragonite

That Dragonite wasn’t EV trained.
Don't mess with me. I'm a 3x world heavyweight champion MMO fighter.

User Info: kamilohbk

kamilohbk
6 days ago#43
Krazy_Kirby posted...
that didn't work for orange island dragonite
hahahha
Nintendo Switch FC: SW - 1377 - 4544 - 1026 || https://i.imgur.com/XC2qiK0.png

User Info: metroidfan987

metroidfan987
6 days ago#44
Andrex_93 posted...
Singles
Whether they make less than 100 pokemon per gen, or more than 100 pokemon per gen, better balancing of both formats should very much be achievable, if GF takes at least two years to develop each release. But with the time crunch, they barely even cater to Doubles, as far as introducing new options goes. The few doubles-centric abilities that got introduced are good, but in most cases, only one mon can obtain each of those abilities. Which brings us back to the tendency of multiple players using the same teams. And if they don't want to use the new mons, they'll just fall back on whichever old staples are available, just as I mentioned before with SIngles players using the likes of Ferrothorn and Toxapex.

Andrex_93 posted...
Weather Wars, Megas, etc.
Weather Wars of Gen 5, as well as Gen 6 meta, were both like a tug of war. Gen 5 was about trying to gain weather dominance, Gen 6 had the back and forth of setting and removing entry hazards, with at least one or two priority moves almost always waiting in the wings. Although I sometimes complained about the state of that meta, I also devised my own way to deal with the most popular threats. I ended up using a mix of RU, UU, and OU pokemon on my main team. And I could reach maximum 1400s Showdown ladder ratings with that team. And that is one of the main problems of people who play on Showdown. They stress too much about their ladder rating.

You forgot about Sturdy, which was buffed back in Gen 5 to allow surviving any potential ohko. This buff could be beaten in a single turn with multi-hit attacks, but as far as OU goes, there were less than a handful of viable mons with multi-hit attacks. Also the Focus Sash item, which allows the holder to survive a ohko if at full HP, but the Sash gets consumed. Oh yeah, almost forgot about Shedinja and Wonder Guard. Without entry hazards, Shedinja would have seen more use.

Maybe Megas seemed "broken" in a non-competitive environment. But in a fully competitive Singles playing field, trust me, Megas were definitely not broken. Majority of megas made previously unviable pokemon viable, some being boosted to UU, and some being boosted to OU. But, with the exception of Mega Kanga, and maybe Mega Gengar, none of the Megas were boosted to "uber" level strength. Even Mega Kanga would not have been as broken if it did not have two priority moves. But now I need to discuss Dynamax for a bit. Although I despise Dynamax for being a mechanic that is painfully inferior to the combination of Mega Evolution and Z-Moves, I have to admit, Dynamax is a somewhat decent way to temporarily quicken the pace of singles. Something which neither Mega Evolution nor Z-Moves do, nor were they ever intended to. Which is precisely why Smogon did not ban Mega Evolution over the course of 2 generations, but they banned Dynamax before the DLC was even announced. See, Smogon mods will never admit it, and Smogon defenders will never accept it, but Smogon are conservative in their own ways. Now, in the area of stat boosting, compared to Mega Evo, D-Max only boosts HP. But, the D-Maxed pokemon getting 4 additional moves, despite being only for 3 turns, is what Smogon could not stand. It is not that Smogon cannot adapt to D-Max, it is that they do not want to. They want their high ladder matches to be switchfests/stallfests spanning dozens of turns, and they ban anything and everything that threatens that status quo (in their perspective).

And, I never stated that Megas were so powerful that they made normal pokemon more difficult to use. I said that the Mega Evolution mechanic had a larger influence on shaping the Gen 6 Singles meta, due to the fact that most of the Gen 6 mons were not designed to be competitively viable in any tier, official or unofficial. Seriously, as far as solid OU viability goes, I can count the number of "good" Kalos mons, on one hand.

Andrex_93 posted...
Movepools
Comparing Garchomp to Sunflora is not a good analogy at all, honestly. I know I did not elaborate enough before, so I will try to now. I don't expect GF to ever make official tiers the way Smogon does. But, if most pokemon have viable movepools and abilities to fill certain niches for Singles or Doubles, then it is safe to assume that different tiers of (properly made) stat spreads can be properly placed into each of Smogon's tiers. But again, in order for their to be enough pokemon to cater to both Singles and Doubles, 100+ pokemon per gen might be necessary, and as I said before, achieving this would require about 2 years of development with better qualified staff.

Andrex_93 posted...
"Common Sense"
No, not common sense. No one can have common sense about something that was never officially put into practice. And seeing as the devs cannot even be bothered to create a complete game at launch these days, their input has zero value to me at this point. As for Smogon, they cringed at the sight of a single pokemon getting to use 4 extra moves for only three turns. So I do not expect them to ever experiment with a six-moves-per-mon meta. So, we have GF on one side, who have reached the point where they can put out a bare-bones game and still profit, and we have Smogon on the other side, who are hellbent on maintaining their own status quo. Which means I may never see Singles or Doubles evolve in a significant way anytime soon.

Andrex_93 posted...
"Meme"
The fact that VGC has to do "Regional Dex" restrictions, is proof of how unbalanced even the VGC competitive meta is, as a whole. And I do know quite a bit of what I'm talking about. For both Gen 6 and 7, Battle Spot Singles were dominated by Landorus-T, Garchomp, and Rotom-Wash, among other top 10 which I cannot recall atm. Popularity of certain mons tends to bleed into other formats, and if VGC does not set specific restrictions, majority of teams will end up using at least the same 3-4 mons. So no, every gen boiling down to the same 20 pokemon on all teams, is not just a meme.
I fix computers and smartphones. Hit me up if you are in the St. Louis area.
https://electronics-emended.business.site/

User Info: Enutrof1

Enutrof1
6 days ago#45
metroidfan987 posted...
It is not that Smogon cannot adapt to D-Max, it is that they do not want to. They want their high ladder matches to be switchfests/stallfests spanning dozens of turns, and they ban anything and everything that threatens that status quo (in their perspective).

I won't disagree with your fundamental point, Smogon are very conservative when it comes to their idea of pokemon battles(Though I wouldn't call it the wrong idea, competitive 6v6 singles would probably tend towards switch heavy metas no matter who's overseeing them) and they definitely don't want to break their status quo for dynamaxing.
But I'm not sure it's so much from the perspective of abject refusal to change, but rather that with gen 8 erasing Z-Moves and Mega Evolutions while also portraying Dynamax in a very gimmicky fashion within the narrative it's more of an issue that going through the displeasure of breaking their status quo is not worth it when Dynamax will probably be gone as a mechanic in 2 years or so.
#EdelgardDidEverythingRight

User Info: mongopikis

mongopikis
6 days ago#46
Decapre posted...
But what about us Genwunners?
Why would genwunners be playing a non-genwun game though?

User Info: c0mpu73rguy

c0mpu73rguy
6 days ago#47
mongopikis posted...
Why would genwunners be playing a non-genwun game though?

To complain about it not being exactly like gen 1, obviously.
"It's always too soon until it's too late."
"When the disgusted depart, there remains only the disgusting ones"

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
6 days ago#48
metroidfan987 posted...
Whether they make less than 100 pokemon per gen [...] with SIngles players using the likes of Ferrothorn and Toxapex.
They can't keep introducing a ton of new options and completely disregard the old stuff: that's not how they handle things, and I don't see anything wrong with that; "new things" come from the interactions between new and old elements as well, and, so far, there has been no VGC meta where absolutely no new Pokémon, Moves and/or Abilities get used.

metroidfan987 posted...
Weather Wars of Gen 5, as well as Gen 6 meta, were both like a tug of war.
So the metas changed, which is what they want. And you adapted more or less accordingly; I really don't see the problem here, then. Again, there will almost always be prevalent strats in a meta, especially in a straightforward meta like Smogon Singles, which is also partially held back by legacy stuff.

metroidfan987 posted...
You forgot about Sturdy
I didn't? It just wasn't relevant to what we were talking about.

metroidfan987 posted...
Maybe Megas seemed "broken" in a non-competitive environment.
They absolutely were: again, especially in a format like Singles, where it's much easier to create a "hard-wall/counter" situation, which is what leads to so many switch-fests, having a Pokémon suddenly get such a power boost at 0 cost means situations could get snowball-y really quickly. Again, you keep citing Smogon and their formats to talk about balance, and that's fine if you're specifically talking about the balance of the Smogon formats, but that's not what I'm doing: I'm talking about the actual balance in the games and official competitive scene.

The fact that some "bad" Pokémon were given a boost in Smogon tier has 0 relevance, here: the belief that "weak mons should get stronger" is another casual-centric thought that isn't farsighted enough or knowledgeable enough to know that, again, competitive metas will always see a prevalence of the best options, in usage, and that's perfectly fine: weaker mons shouldn't be made stronger just by virtue of them being weaker (especially if they are for a reason or more) and it's impossible to balance a roster of 890 mons so that every single one is viable in the same way, and, again, they shouldn't even try to do that because perfect balance in unachievable and Pokémon is not just a competitive game, so different Pokémon have different roles that require them to be weaker.

The better options for Megas were so overpowering that not only did they made pretty much every one of those "weak Pokémon like Beedrill and Ampharos are better now!1!!" ones useless, but they blatantly overpowered every other good Pokémon, overcentralizing the meta; they were pretty much on par with Legendaries, which then got their own absurd boosts in the next meta, but that's another tangent.

metroidfan987 posted...
Smogon doesn't want to adapt bit
I'm not an expert on them, but I don't disagree at all; it's kind of what it looks like, from an outsider perspective. Which is honestly all the more reason to not use their system to discuss about balance.

metroidfan987 posted...
And, I never stated that Megas were so powerful that they made normal pokemon more difficult to use. I said that the Mega Evolution mechanic had a larger influence on shaping the Gen 6 Singles meta, due to the fact that most of the Gen 6 mons were not designed to be competitively viable in any tier, official or unofficial. Seriously, as far as solid OU viability goes, I can count the number of "good" Kalos mons, on one hand.
Aside from again how useless it is to cite Smogon tiers when discussing actual balance, again, I told you that's because they were introduced alongside Megas: both in VGC and the usage-based tiering of Smogon, of course normal mons with (this is oversimplifying to keep things short and because it would be an even bigger tangent and we're already off-topic as is) 490 BST (which were already bloated in Gen 6) would not be useful when monsters with 680 with absurd Stat distributions and Abilities were running around rampant. I would have loved to see a XY Regional Dex meta develop without Megas (I think Smogon tried it, but there weren't enough players to keep it going?).

metroidfan987 posted...
Comparing Garchomp to Sunflora is not a good analogy at all, honestly.
It absolutely is in the sense that, by making an extreme example, the message is direct and the person on the other side can absorb it and then re-adjust it in their head so that it doesn't seem so extreme. It's simplifying for the sake of delivering the message, and it's a clear-cut way of describing, in this case, why your proposition would only exacerbate problems, rather than do what you think it would do.

"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
6 days ago#49
metroidfan987 posted...
I know I did not elaborate enough before, so I will try to now. I don't expect GF to ever make official tiers the way Smogon does. But, if most pokemon have viable movepools and abilities to fill certain niches for Singles or Doubles, then it is safe to assume that different tiers of (properly made) stat spreads can be properly placed into each of Smogon's tiers. But again, in order for their to be enough pokemon to cater to both Singles and Doubles, 100+ pokemon per gen might be necessary, and as I said before, achieving this would require about 2 years of development with better qualified staff.
It seems like you’re fixated on every new meta getting new Pokémon for each role, which, again, I admire your ambition in wanting to focus on the new, but I don't believe that's mandatory or can be kept up forever for every single Generation; using the old stuff in combination with the new is a perfectly fine way to refresh the meta while avoiding excessively bloating development and the numbers in general; and I say this as someone who would love to get around 125 new mons per Gen, which would already make what you're saying more possible.

And they already develop the games for 3 years, so idk what you're on about with that "2 year development"; I would love for them to take their time, as opposed to how they do things now, but that has little to do with what we were originally talking about and would be an even bigger tangent.

metroidfan987 posted...
No, not common sense. No one can have common sense about something that was never officially put into practice. [...] Which means I may never see Singles or Doubles evolve in a significant way anytime soon.
Actually, for the technical definition of common sense (which is usually derogatory), that's pretty much what common sense is, but you get what I'm saying: even without having to crush one's head against the wall, one can see why it's dangerous; multiple elements have been brought up to explain to you why that would only make things worse or at least have the extremely high chance of screwing things up, unless we go for the extreme and fringe case of "coincidentially, every "weak" Pokémon gets new tools and the strong ones get deprived of some of their coverage even though the Moveslots are now 6", which would be an even bigger proof towards this being an horribly unbalanced idea.

And, again, you keep conflating different things: the devs are in a crunch, for sure, but this has no relevance to the very easy to see unbalance your idea would bring; and, for Smogon, see above.

metroidfan987 posted...
The fact that VGC has to do "Regional Dex" restrictions, is proof of how unbalanced even the VGC competitive meta is, as a whole [...] So no, every gen boiling down to the same 20 pokemon on all teams, is not just a meme.
You keep missing the point: Pokémon is not balanceable in the sense that every single Pokémon can be viable all the same at the same time; that's just an impossibility under any metric. It's perfectly normal that the top Pokémon get the most usage, considering not every player is and can be experimental, but the way to soften both of these facts is carefully crafting a meta via Regional Dex: this isn't a weakness, it's a blessing, because it intertwines with the in-game world-building and creates a flourishing competitive scene that keeps refreshing every year technically and every 3 years while not having to completely remake each Pokémon every time.

Pokémon is not balanceable in the sense that every mon can be viable at the same time, and Pokémon also have roles for the in-game, so, instead of trying to re-invent the wheel and failing, especially under such strict deadlines, the meta changes based on what's allowed, which is more or less carefully picked by the devs, especially going by how VGC 17 went and how VGC 20 is going; there are flaws with this system in the sense that, to keep things fresh, the two VGC years successive of a game's launch are pretty boring, by comparison, because they allow Legends, which are usually a crutch to in-game content for next releases, and I would handle that differently with various ban-lists for each year, but that's besides the point.

The main thing is that you conflate "Common Pokémon in the meta" with "The meta isn't balanced", which is a super common mistake among casuals/not competitive people, and I don't mean this as an offense, I swear.

Basically, you’re mistaking not all players being experimental (which is only natural, not all players are top players, people default to what they know and there will naturally be top picks, in a meta) with the metas themselves being unbalanced, which couldn’t be further from the truth (talking about Regional Dex metas specifically here, at the very least) unless you consider you warped view of “a meta is balanced only if, idk, 250 Pokémon have the exact same level of viability”? Or “there must be new Pokémon that cover each role without being outclassed every single Gen”?

Again, usability =/= viability: there are plenty of Pokémon which are viable in VGC 20 just like plenty more were viable in 17.
"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
(edited 6 days ago)

User Info: metroidfan987

metroidfan987
4 days ago#50
Enutrof1 posted...
going through the displeasure of breaking their status quo is not worth it when Dynamax will probably be gone as a mechanic in 2 years or so.
You make a fair point. But still, a point which would not have to be made, if Game Freak did not scrap Mega Evo and Z-Moves in favor of limited-time gimmicks. I'm not repulsed by D-Max for the same reasons as Smogon, I hate it because it is a complete waste of game data. The transformation does not even boost the relevant stats, only HP. So, to me, D-Max is nothing more than Z-Moves for 3 consecutive turns, with a transformation that hogs precious game data memory, and an HP boost that is not unlike Perfect Zygarde's HP boost.

Andrex_93 posted...
As much as I want to reply to all your points, that gets very time-consuming, so I'll try to stick to the "6-moveslot" thing. Now, since you are speaking about competitive only from the VGC/Doubles perspective, let's try to start from there. Doubles, by default, is already a much faster-paced meta compared to Singles, solely because there are 4 pokemon on the field, 2 on each side, compared to 2 on the field and one on each side. Now, so many people have the knee-jerk reaction of saying that 6 moves per pokemon will "break the meta", but no one can say how it will break the meta. And this is because, no one can express exactly how they want the meta to be. Given the fact that Doubles is already fast-paced, the argument that "broken pokemon would become even more broken", would most likely result in battles ending in even fewer turns, right? However, as I am trying to point out, all pokemon getting two more moves, means that stallers, supporters, and walls, will also get more options. Which means, VGC battles also have a chance of getting drawn out more than usual, right? So, the questions people really need to ask themselves is: Do they want shorter battles, longer battles, or a balance between the two? What do spectators want to see? Do they want to see short, straightforward battles, or do they want to see longer battles more rich with strategy and technique? What do VGC participants want and/or are willing to deal with? Do they really believe 6 moves per mon will break the format? Or do they not want to have more complex data to analyze? Now, I'm not a professional athlete, nor will I ever be a full-fledged competitive gamer, but I know that complex thought processes come with the territory of almost all competitive environments. And compared to say, football coaches having to analyze opponents' playbooks/playstyles, and competive Smash Bros players having to study dozens of potential matchups and memorize loads of approximate character frame data, memorizing 6-count pokemon movesets, along with predicting how players will react, is still a walk in the park compared to those competitive environments.
I fix computers and smartphones. Hit me up if you are in the St. Louis area.
https://electronics-emended.business.site/
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Should GameFreak level Pokemon past 100?
  • Post New Message

GameFAQs Answers