Unpopular opinions

[Roseguardin]

But in Gen V he was still UU. That's why I'm saying there was something else that screwed it up in Gen VI (which I was blaming on the Knock Off buff/Steel Debuff).

He was still UU because enough people used him despite him being utter crap, like seriously even Hitmontop was better. But this is getting derailed a bit now...

I don't like the idea of Gym Leaders or even a Pokemon League. The system is convoluted and should be done away with if GF ever wants the games to being to improve plotwise (which I know they don't particularly care about but). I'd say the Elite Four can still work on its own, as ultra-elite trainers who help govern the entire region. The idea of Gym Leaders and the forced linearity it creates seems rather lazy when there are so many other things you could have the main character be doing. If anything they should just have the Gym Leaders stay and just be the Mayor or whatever.

^Badly worded, I'm sure if anyone wants to discuss I'll be able to hash out my ideas better.

I partially agree with this, I do think the Gym system should be overhauled completely. The characters themselves range from fairly interesting (some of Unova's leaders, some of Sinnoh's) to boring (A lot of Kalos) but the idea that you should be able to prove yourself by mindlessly beating up a single type of Pokemon doesn't make much sense and I'm sure GF could do better. It would be really interesting if battling wasn't the sole aim or test that these leaders put you through, although in-game not much else besides Contests is really emphasized...

I'm not sure this is any better worded than brightobject's post at all lol.

 

[stage7_4]

But in Gen V he was still UU. That's why I'm saying there was something else that screwed it up in Gen VI (which I was blaming on the Knock Off buff/Steel Debuff).

From what I understand, Gen V Claydol was one of the dark side effects of having tiers based on usage. Sure he was used enough to be UU, but didn't really deserve to be there.

See issue 21 of the Smog, it went into more detail.

Edit: Ninja'd.

 

[Team Flare Lysandre]

Also, what do you mean with "balance"? A game where all monsters are equally strong would make a very boring RPG, and competitive players account for a rather minor part of the customer base. I really wouldn't want Game Freak to pander to us at the cost of the rest of their customers.

Yeah I mean where most are made to compete with each other on a fair level. Levels themselves already are enough to determine a monsters strength in the single player, and maybe good EV spreads. I don't think much would change in the single-player game at all, because that's not max stats and optimal movepools where Game Freak would be balancing things at.

Hence it's an unpopular opinion though.

What is borderline broken in one metagame might be banished to the lowest of the low tiers a couple games down the line.

That's not the kind of balance method I would like to see either.

 

[stage7_4]

Okay, first I'd take at look at this Extra Credits episode on "Perfect Imbalance." See here:

The short version is that a perfectly balanced game is either boring, has too large a gulf between elite and noob play (and no easy way to bridge the two), or you get to the point where even the most minor things are match deciders (there examples are click-time in Starcraft or just the "first move advantage" in Chess, Go, even Yu-Gi-Oh).

A Smogon positive example is Mega-Metagross, once deemed imbalanced but when left with enough time became healthy for the metagame.

 

[Team Flare Lysandre]

perfectly balanced game is either boring, has too large a gulf between elite and noob play (and no easy way to bridge the two), or you get to the point where even the most minor things are match deciders (there examples are click-time in Starcraft or just the "first move advantage" in Chess, Go, even Yu-Gi-Oh).

The last part already happens in Pokemon quite often, though it's usually RNG. (Getting that one flinch or full paralyze)

What I'd like to see is NU and PU Pokemon brought up to strength as viable within the most popular pool of Pokemon, they're not even a real option to be used in OU. I would like see the pool expanded beyond set tiers, where instead we have hundreds of options against each other that all can fill their certain niche, instead of having to separate them completely for them to do anything.

Ledian getting proper stats and possibly changing its ability isn't going to create a stale game.

I suppose the best argument against is that it becomes difficult to learn, instead of each tier of 80 or so match ups to learn, players would have to be ready to counter 500+ equally dangerous threats all in one large group.

A Smogon positive example is Mega-Metagross, once deemed imbalanced but when left with enough time became healthy for the metagame.

and what about Mega Kangaskhan, Mega Mawile, Mega Blaziken, threats Smogon decided can't be countered reliably in the OU metagame, so were bumped to Ubers, as defined by the Extra Credits video Pokemon is far from a "perfectly imbalanced" game, defined as a game where a slightly stronger option can still be reliably countered. League of Legends used as an example in that said video allows for the entire pool of champions to be used together, and almost all of them offer some kind of unique option to give an advantage, and doesn't have half the roster simply being unviable against each other.

 

[Pikachu315111]

But we must not forget Pokemon is also an RPG. Pokemon that have low stats are usually found early in the game and as you play through you encounter Pokemon with stronger stats. Pokemon not only has to balance its metagame but also its RPG, a difficult task and no doubt at some point the two will clash with one winning over the other (usually the RPG element).

While I'm on a fence of stat adjusting just for the sake of making a Pokemon better, I do think just in general some older Pokemon stats do need to be looked at and possibly adjusted so that it matches with modern day stat distribution.

However I'm in for giving them bigger/better movepools (and more/better Abilities). A Pokemon with low stats could possibly find its own niche given the right moves and Ability (not that useful outside of doing that one role, but if it can do that one role REALLY good it might be able get put on more special teams).

Also Mega Evolutions have been doing a mostly good job at making some Pokemon seen as "lesser" such as Beedrill and Pidgeot into contenders of sorts (they still need to compete with other considered "better" Mega Evolutions for that single Mega Evolution slot. but once again they do have certain niches that I'm sure one special team have room for).

 

[Team Flare Lysandre]

But we must not forget Pokemon is also an RPG. Pokemon that have low stats are usually found early in the game and as you play through you encounter Pokemon with stronger stats. Pokemon not only has to balance its metagame but also its RPG, a difficult task and no doubt at some point the two will clash with one winning over the other (usually the RPG element).

I think it's easy to work around by simply giving the Pokemon you want to have low stats bad IVs/EVs and or low levels, and high/perfect IVs good EV spreads for those you want to be a cut above the rest.

It's not like the main story of current Pokemon games is any kind of challenging anyway haha or even has a decent curve, especially since you can pretty much just take your starter and press its strongest attack to solo it almost entirely.

Though I suppose introducing difficulty into the single-player is another subject, some people prefer the casual experience the story offers which is fine, though wouldn't hurt to have some difficulty settings.

 

[Codraroll]

and what about Mega Kangaskhan, Mega Mawile, Mega Blaziken, threats Smogon decided can't be countered reliably in the OU metagame, so were bumped to Ubers, as defined by the Extra Credits video Pokemon is far from a "perfectly imbalanced" game, defined as a game where a slightly stronger option can still be reliably countered. League of Legends used as an example in that said video allows for the entire pool of champions to be used together, and almost all of them offer some kind of unique option to give an advantage, and doesn't have half the roster simply being unviable against each other.

Keep in mind, though, that the designers don't balance competitive Pokémon for Singles, but for Doubles. Neither of those three are banned from Nintendo's official formats, nor are they as broken as they are in Singles (a case could be made for Kangaskhan, though other Megas were seen all over the Worlds championship, some of them doing quite well). Even some of the banned Pokémon would probably not cause too much of a ruckus if introduced to that metagame (Phione, for instance). Smogon just happens to play the game slightly differently from what the designers are focusing on, and as such we have to adjust the metagame a little.

Also, pushing the currently worst Pokémon to the top of OU just means other Pokémon, the currently second worst, would drop to the bottom. As Pokémon were buffed, they would constantly outclass others, and there would always be a set of Pokémon so bad that nobody in their right mind would use them, because all other options are better. With so many Pokémon, outnumbering the amount of niches or uses out there, some Pokémon would be outclassed by some else, no matter what. Look at this lot of Pokémon, for instance. If all of them were given OU-level stats and moves, there would still be ones with tiny advantages over the others making the others a worse choice. And in impossible the case of one niche existing for every Pokémon, well, then we'd have a metagame of niches, where some niches simply wouldn't work at all (we're halfway there already - try having a look at the the best monotype Poison sweeper in Gen. V, or the best Ice-type wall at the moment). The barrel needs to have a bottom, you know. Currently, a BST of 400-500 is considered bad, and if you raised the BST of everything, then you just raise the bar for what is unacceptably bad.

And arguably, bad EVs/IVs wouldn't be a good way to balance 'mons for the story. I usually illustrate this with the ubiquitous early-game Bug Pokémon: They evolve quickly, become strong for a short portion of the game, and then their luster starts to ebb. Eventually, you will come across other Pokémon that are better than the Butterfree you're currently dragging around, which hasn't soloed a fight since a gym-and-a-half ago, and which falls to every attack the opponents throw at it. The Bug Pokémon are basically designed for you to box them in favour of something better. Beginning the game with weak Pokémon is the designers' way to make players rotate their teams, so that they won't stick with the first six Pokémon they happen to capture at the start of the game. If those first six could carry any dumb player to the league and beyond, there would be little reason to ever catch anything else.

The main difficulty factor of Pokémon as an RPG is arguably its complexity compared to what the target audience can comprehend. We might find the games laughably easy, but a six-year-old with no prior experience might consider the Gym Leaders of even XY super-hard. We've got the atypical advantage of always knowing which option to take when presented with a choice, which makes the game much easier for us than what is strictly intended. The games are made for people - kids - to learn them as they play, starting from a level of not even knowing what types are.

 

[Darth Manaphy]

The main difficulty factor of Pokémon as an RPG is arguably its complexity compared to what the target audience can comprehend. We might find the games laughably easy, but a six-year-old with no prior experience might consider the Gym Leaders of even XY super-hard. We've got the atypical advantage of always knowing which option to take when presented with a choice, which makes the game much easier for us than what is strictly intended. The games are made for people - kids - to learn them as they play, starting from a level of not even knowing what types are.

I actually want to take this and only this point and point how just how true it was. Brock was easy back in RBY because I started with Squirtle. I do remember that Misty was a pain because the Starmie was bulky enough to survive my Pikachu and KO it. And even Wartortle was struggling with it. I remember struggling a lot until around Sabrina or so. My biggest problem was actually Erica. I didn't know what I was doing and I thought Ground was strong against Grass (Rather than the reverse). I had an underleveled Diglett and as it turns out that did not work at all against grass types and I kept blacking out.

I was only 10 at the time, but I can see how there is problem with making the game too hard for kids. The only hard part for me now would be raising a balanced team and spending all of that time grinding away. That's not really hard - that's more about discipline.

I challenge others that think the game is so easy to do the same. Think about your first game and tell me that there wasn't at least some part that you struggled with.

 

[noobcubed]

Darth Manaphy I struggled at several points in Pokemon Red as a seven-year-old; but battling was never one of them. I struggled with the puzzles more than anything. For example I remember being stuck at Snorlax for absolutely ages - for some reason I thought giving him an Antidote would wake him up, but I never considered using the Poke Flute. As a consequence I had done a LOT of grinding and was massively overlevelled (I had a level eighty-something Blastoise by the Elite Four) and so the actual battling was easy for me.

I did get a good understanding of type match-ups (eg I knew to attack Lance's Dragonites with my Blastoise's Ice Beam, rather than Hydro Pump or Earthquake), though it doesn't help that the game lies to you and either tells you "it's super effective" or "it's not very effective" when a Pokemon's two types are respectively weak and resistant to a particular attack. I actually assumed gen I mechanics were like that until quite recently.

 

[Roseguardin]

I'm going to admit that I get stuck on games I've beaten before. It usually happens when I take off several months from Pokemon and I'm in the middle of a playthrough, so the end result is me waddling around in-game until my irl self stops being lazy and googles or actually thinks about the game. Still, as noobcubed said, the puzzles always tripped me up more than the battling.

 

[stage7_4]

I challenge others that think the game is so easy to do the same. Think about your first game and tell me that there wasn't at least some part that you struggled with.

There was a trainer at the end of rock tunnel with a Bellsprout that used wrap. There were no survivors. (For those who don't know/don't remember, Gen1 trap mechanics were crazy).

I think one thing to remember is that Gamefreak's priorities are roughly:
1. Sell Games
2. Provide the joy of collecting and exploring
3. Promote Socialization
4. Finally, battling.
(5. Raise awareness for accidents caused by riding bikes indoors. WHEN WILL THEY FIND A CURE?!)

Another thing we forget with Smogon and easy online simulators nowadays is that there wasn't an easy competitive format in-game for PVP matches on the likes of League of Legends or what have you. Up until Gen4 we were stuck with link cables and physical interaction, and I'd argue that even after the advent of online multiplayer it never got user friendly enough for a major audience until the Battle Spot for current Gen6. Before that battling your friends wasn't easy or as fun so Gamefreak didn't focus on it. Yeah they had some tournaments, but back in the day those were still a niche. So we created the sim's around Gen3ish to fill that gap, but Gamefreak has no part in simulators.

So if a developer after at least 3 generations of semi-neglect to the competitive crowd went back to try to perfectly balance 700+ characters (heck, even just 350ish fully evolved lines)? Are you nuts? Balance is hard to achieve just with 8 characters, much less 700+. And that's not getting into alternate formats (4v4 double, triple, rotation, 3v3 single, 6v6 single, 6v6 double, inverse, air, battle facilities...) It's a wonder that we have what little balance there is.

And you know what? Gamefreak really has been trying. Honest. The streamlined connectivity a ton on the 3ds (opinion varies on if it's on par yet or not...) and eased up on the more complex stat mechanics (EV's, breeding, IV's, hidden abilities...) to make competitive matches more accessible to more people. And as for taking NU pokemon and making them OU, what do you think the Mega's are? (well, half of them, the other half is popularity factor). And let's not forget the little stat adjustments a few pokemon got, the addition of fairy type, hidden ablities and move tutors, the weather nerf, gamefreak is always taking steps for balance.

Yeah, they aren't perfect. I personally feel that the gap between competitive and in-game is too large and never teaches players basic competitive concepts like match-ups, switching, creating/exploiting free turns, or even using substitute correctly. Almost all because the AI never switches out. But balancing games is very hard, and mostly proven through experimentation and trial rather than any magic formula. If you want to experience this yourself, take part in one of the Create-A-Pokemon projects, projects meant to introduce just ONE balanced but unique concept into the metagame. Even with a bunch of people working to just create one pokemon, there successful track record is pretty slim (we've got what, Voodoom actually did what they wanted it to? And even then not HOW they wanted it to do that?)

So yeah, Gamefreak. They ain't perfect, but they try.

Final thought: a definition. These are usage tiers, not "these are the bestest evr u guyz." So even taking a Ledian and giving it the stats to fight there just means another OU get's demoted. There can be only one 50ish! Maybe try playing a little NU or RU a bit. They're still as fun as the other tiers.

 

[Norne]

I just pray one day they would stop trying to take doubles as the balancing factor, singles might be slower but would evidence everything they did wrong with centralization and actually force them to think of what have they done than to try to keep a rule of cool centered balance in a clustered spam that doubles is.

 

[Darth Manaphy]

Darth Manaphy I struggled at several points in Pokemon Red as a seven-year-old; but battling was never one of them. I struggled with the puzzles more than anything. For example I remember being stuck at Snorlax for absolutely ages - for some reason I thought giving him an Antidote would wake him up, but I never considered using the Poke Flute. As a consequence I had done a LOT of grinding and was massively overlevelled (I had a level eighty-something Blastoise by the Elite Four) and so the actual battling was easy for me.

I did get a good understanding of type match-ups (eg I knew to attack Lance's Dragonites with my Blastoise's Ice Beam, rather than Hydro Pump or Earthquake), though it doesn't help that the game lies to you and either tells you "it's super effective" or "it's not very effective" when a Pokemon's two types are respectively weak and resistant to a particular attack. I actually assumed gen I mechanics were like that until quite recently.

Thinking about the latter thing you said, that might actually be the reason I thought Ground was SE versus Grass when you consider most grass types were Grass/Poison. I actually never had a problem with the puzzles aside from like one or two strength puzzles in RSE.

 

[stage7_4]

I just pray one day they would stop trying to take doubles as the balancing factor, singles might be slower but would evidence everything they did wrong with centralization and actually force them to think of what have they done than to try to keep a rule of cool centered balance in a clustered spam that doubles is.

True, but I understand why 4v4 and 6v6 Doubles became the face of Nintendo sanctioned competitive battling. 6v6 singles matches take forever at high level play, are about the only format where stall actually works (maybe rotation?). All things that may be fun to play but poor to advertise. Trying to tell a novice without any experience of it that stall can be fun? Better luck getting a toddler to eat his vegetables.

So you make the quickest format with the largest team size without sacrificing said speed the "face" to get people in the door. I may not approve of their choices but I think I understand their reasons.

 

[Codraroll]

Darth Manaphy I struggled at several points in Pokemon Red as a seven-year-old...

Hey, at least you had the games in your own language...

That being said, the Pokémon games are excellent for teaching kids English. A rather simple vocabulary, many of the new words are quite self-demonstrating (Burn? Oh, little flames! The word "burn" must have something do to with fire!), and you're never presented with more than a line or two of text at a time.

 

[Norne]

True, but I understand why 4v4 and 6v6 Doubles became the face of Nintendo sanctioned competitive battling. 6v6 singles matches take forever at high level play, are about the only format where stall actually works (maybe rotation?). All things that may be fun to play but poor to advertise. Trying to tell a novice without any experience of it that stall can be fun? Better luck getting a toddler to eat his vegetables.

So you make the quickest format with the largest team size without sacrificing said speed the "face" to get people in the door. I may not approve of their choices but I think I understand their reasons.

Well stall is fun to be honest, and I loved raisins, potatoes, peas, amaranth, broccoli and munched tomatoes whole at age 3 I have the pictures of my messy face on the kids chair to prove it, I guess the Mexican approach of eat it there is nothing else worked or my grandmother is just that fucking awesome of a cook, otherwise I was just plain weird.

But seriously what's wrong with stall, it's not like it's the worst playstyle to follow if you want to be successful given how booked singles is.

 

[Kurona]

Well stall is fun to be honest, and I loved raisins, potatoes, peas, amaranth, broccoli and munched tomatoes whole at age 3 I have the pictures of my messy face on the kids chair to prove it, I guess the Mexican approach of eat it there is nothing else worked or my grandmother is just that fucking awesome of a cook, otherwise I was just plain weird.

But seriously what's wrong with stall, it's not like it's the worst playstyle to follow if you want to be successful given how booked singles is.

The problem with stall from an esports perspective is that, well... the clue's in the name. Stall. You're slowly wittling down your opponent and recovering your HP yadda yadda yadda. Argue all you want about it being a skillful playstyle; I'd be inclined to agree... but it's not exactly exciting to watch and it takes a very long time. I guarantee you there's a ton more crowds who like the excitement and every-turn-matters style of offence to the slow, repetitive and arguably uneventful match of Stall, no matter how skillful or intelligent it is. It' just not exciting to watch.

 

[Norne]

The problem with stall from an esports perspective is that, we clue's in the name. Stall. You're slowly wittling down your opponent and recovering your HP yadda yadda yadda. Argue all you want about it being a skillful playstyle; I'd be inclined to agree... but it's not exactly exciting to watch and it takes a very long time. I guarantee you there's a ton more crowds who like the excitement and every-turn-matters style of offence to the slow, repetitive and arguably uneventful match of Stall, no matter how skillful or intelligent it is. It' just not exciting to watch.

What part of stall is repetitive? Preserving a core against skilled players forces nearly the same amount of switches on stall as it forces on offense especially if you are forced to use speedy pivots to prevent wallbreakers to shit on your main core. I consider momentum keeping in stall one of the riskiest things to be able to pull off in singles as you can't afford to sack and bring something fresh as much as offense.

 

[noobcubed]

Comparing competitive Pokemon to established e-sports is like comparing ludo to chess.

On stall: I enjoy using stall and I particularly enjoy playing against it. But judging by some of the visceral comments from Showdown opponents (although, oddly enough, only when I'm winning), I have acquired tastes.

 

[Pikachu315111]

Stall could be interesting to watch if only the other opponent is going all offensive on it making the match a shield vs. spear battle. Will the immovable shield wear down the spear or will the unstoppable spear pierce through the shield?

Visual Representation

(They're both going to have one heck of a headache tomorrow morning...)

The problem comes when both opponents are using stall. The battle slows down to a crawl as now both opponents are just trying to wait out the other. There may be an attack here and there but since both opponents are probably more relying on status conditions like poison and burn to whittle their opponent's down while keeping theirs healed it'll feel like it's more the opponent's are trying to bore each other to death.

Visual Representation

(Let me remind you their trainers "fainted" before their Pokemon did)

Also Stall against a team not running an all offense initiative will probably lead to the other opponent trying to find ways to power-up his Pokemon to take their shot while the Staller sticks to trying to wear them down. We once again come down to both trainers trying to do their own thing not really moving the battle along until either the opponent gets enough power to attack through the Stall or the Staller's strategy finally takes out one of their Pokemon... too bad the opponent has more Pokemon left.

Visual Representation

Sorry, got nothing for this one.
EDIT: Nevermind:

(Eventually one of them got to give...)

Yes, Stall is a viable strategy, but so is Camping in a FPS. And when being watched by an entire audience of people who are expecting to see action, seeing someone lean back and take their time makes for a boring display and it makes them feel like their time isn't being respected. Why should they wait for someone to slowly wear down the opponent when they could be doing anything else? To the one deploying and fighting against the stall they got to make sure it's being kept up/trying to counter it. But to everyone else, they might as well go to the bathroom, get a snack, and pull up funny anime gifs on their phones.

 

[Kurona]

What part of stall is repetitive? Preserving a core against skilled players forces nearly the same amount of switches on stall as it forces on offense especially if you are forced to use speedy pivots to prevent wallbreakers to shit on your main core. I consider momentum keeping in stall one of the riskiest things to be able to pull off in singles as you can't afford to sack and bring something fresh as much as offense.

yeah but it's still boring

 

[Norne]

yeah but it's still boring

Dunno man, HO vs HO ends up being boring to watch as its mostly speedtie win, double switching went wrong or you shouldn't have sacked that one that ends the match, it gets repetitive faster in my humble opinion when it comes to the win condition.

 

[Darth Manaphy]

Dunno man, HO vs HO ends up being boring to watch as its mostly speedtie win, double switching went wrong or you shouldn't have sacked that one that ends the match, it gets repetitive faster in my humble opinion when it comes to the win condition.

I think it's just more interesting to watch short boring battles than long boring battles.

 

[Norne]

I think it's just more interesting to watch short boring battles than long boring battles.

Replay wise I beg to differ as a old school Dota player, but in an "e sport" with kids conditioned to 15 second attention span due to tablets I guess HO would be the one to be better received.