Unpopular opinions

[Worldie]

So to move on from people literally advocating for the death penalty for monetization practices in a video game, here's a more mild take.
Battle Spot Singles should take up more of a place in what people think of as "Competitive Pokémon" rather than just 6v6 singles and VGC. Not only is it one of the main ways people on cartridge can engage in competitive without having to go to some external forum, but it is also one of the main formats Gamefreak seems to balance for.

From what I know, BSS is actually really popular in Japan.
It never really picked up outside that though. Maybe Smogon's existance (ironically) has to do with it since it's much easier to just plug and play smogon singles than actually train your own stuff in game (even with how easy it has become today) for a format that anyway doesn't have a proper public tournament.

Balance wise I have 0 idea how GF can fix shit feasibly, as much as I whine about power creep

Here's the thing: there's no balance issues.

People continue with this (pointless) assumption that all of the 1500 pokemon+forms must be viable.
No, that'd be an absolute shitshow and not possible in any real world.
And even if it was, you'd have 1500 exactly identical Pokemon and you'd just be playing checkers.

Any time a competitive game with a large amount of playable entities exists, there will *always* be a restricted % of top dogs, with a slightly bigger but still small % of "not top dogs but viable if you're really good at them or know what you're doing".
This applies to Pokemon. It applies to Mobas. It applies to fighting games. It even applies to card games where realistically there's only a handful of viable archetypes (if even) in a given moment and the rest is just rogue decks or matchup fishing.

There's a reason it's called "META": Most Effective Tactic Available. Because if you're playing a competitive game, and you're playing to win and not just for the sake of playing, then you will not use Pikachu, you will use Miraidon.

As a bonus, people really fail to understand *what* Gamefreaks is balancing as far as VGC goes.
They *know* certain mechanics are overpowered. They know they're killing defensive play. That's the whole point.
Have you ever watched a VGC stream? Most importantly, read the chat? If you haven't, amongst the various hacking ragebait, racist comments and genwunning, you will notice that people tend to be more active/interested in games with big swings and quick turns, than in slow positional games where players are playing extremely well but not much is happening due to constant swapping / flinching / protect playing.
The viewerbase of Pokemon tournaments is mainly younger people or people with no clue of how competitive actually works. They are much more interested in high risk momentum plays than in slow methodical approaches. There is a reason people hate Dondozo teams, and it's not cause they're op, it's cause they slow down the game.
It reminded me a lot of whenever i watch League of Legends tournaments, where people go full RESIDENTSLEEPER mode any time the teams are playing carefully without fighting and just farming and preparing for late game (which, note, is the *correct* play, not take pointless risks), because BOOOH WE WANT KILLS.

Also, sidenote, Dexit was inevitable. There was going to come a point where the amount of effort to port models to a new console was not justificable anymore, even before hitting potential space issues. You are delusional if you think it was never going to happen.
It was a mistake to keep portability to begin with.
You can say "booo i want my pokemon in Scarlet/Violet I care for them", but how many of you *actually* brought all of their pokemon forward every generation? I know some of you do (I did fwiw, every pokemon i caught on the DS and remotely cared for is either in my Violet cart or sitting in Home), but it's such a minor thing that it's both irrelevant and purposely trying to find a reason to be mad. Basically a very internet thing to do that actually is not relevant in the slightest because the large majority of the playerbase doesn't care (which again, is made of kids - young adults who play the game *once* to beat the story and then put it away without doing any postgame nor competitive gameplay and often without even finishing the Pokedex).

TLDR of this rant:
You all underestimate GameFreaks and Nintendo. The numbers show they know what they're doing, and they're doing it right.
Games' sales are skyrocketing. Scarlet/Violet actually surpassed gen 1 sales in Japan, something that was considered unthinkable.
VGC partecipation AND viewership is increasing. Even fucking Pokemon Go tournaments of all things have decently high viewership at this point.
Unfortunately, you do not obtain a degree in capitalism on reddit.

(and no, don't try to think I remotely like Nintendo, I dislike them as much as the next person, but regardless I cannot deny they know how to spin the capitalism wheel)

 

[Hugin]

I'm taking the piss on the Stunfisk reddit meme

Balance wise I have 0 idea how GF can fix shit feasibly, as much as I whine about power creep

Actual unpopular opinion: Dexit didn't go far enough. If you want a balanced metagame, the only way it happens is if GF cuts 80%+ of the pokedex, develops rules and guidelines for how mons should be designed, then rebalances the remaining 200 mons+100 newcomers to fit those guidelines. This would be a massive undertaking that involves everything from evolution levels and methods, movepools(and which moves exist period), abilities, stats, literally every element of the mons. And it would piss everyone off to such a degree that they'll never do it. It would also involve comparable amounts of work every time GF reintroduces old mons, though presumably designing new ones would be easier with actual guidelines for how to do it.

And it still wouldn't be balanced, at least not in the sense of "all final evolutions except legendaries are equally viable". But it could keep Gholdengo and Kingambit from showing up in a game used to TTar and Dragapult and expecting everyone to be cool with that.

 

[Yung Dramps]

Actual unpopular opinion: Dexit didn't go far enough. If you want a balanced metagame, the only way it happens is if GF cuts 80%+ of the pokedex, develops rules and guidelines for how mons should be designed, then rebalances the remaining 200 mons+100 newcomers to fit those guidelines. This would be a massive undertaking that involves everything from evolution levels and methods, movepools(and which moves exist period), abilities, stats, literally every element of the mons. And it would piss everyone off to such a degree that they'll never do it. It would also involve comparable amounts of work every time GF reintroduces old mons, though presumably designing new ones would be easier with actual guidelines for how to do it.

And it still wouldn't be balanced, at least not in the sense of "all final evolutions except legendaries are equally viable". But it could keep Gholdengo and Kingambit from showing up in a game used to TTar and Dragapult and expecting everyone to be cool with that.

I think a scorched-earth comprehensive overhaul like you're describing is going too far but as I've said previously I would totally endorse a broader shrinking of rosters for a purpose adjacent to this. Making every Pokemon competitively viable at the highest levels is never happening but every addition to a given regional dex should feel usable and have a unique function: Put in multiple Pokemon with the same major trait and one of them is bound to be the best in most situations, but the worst shouldn't be strictly obsoleted by the best one (Floatzel VS Basculegion is a good example of this principle, as well as all 3 Steel/Flyings having distinct playstyles and niches both competitively and casually). Again, I don't think you need some gigantic reworking of everything, however I also previously acknowledged that even this would hit a snag off the Pokedex shrinking part

 

[pika pal]

Here's my contention with Dexit: Gamefreak clearly doesn't have any method to what gets picked, considering several mons, throwaway or otherwise, are now 4 Switch games in without being possible to get out of Home once they're in it. Inevitably several Pokemon are popular and ALWAYS will be in, but I'd appreciate if they could at least get a mon in if it hasn't been in like 2-previous ones by that point.

Dexit also brings to mind what I can only call "gimmick creep" where so many Pokemon have something to be "unique" that is a pain in the ass when they keep doing them and have to support mechanically (and should have curbed before Dexit even became a thing): see Furfrou, Alcremie, Oricorio, Minior, Deerling, Flabebe line, Gourgeist, Terapagos, etc.

These also become glaring with things like Terapagos, Ogerpon, and to a lesser extent Zacian/Zamazenta/Eternatus when their gimmick ends.

 

[BIG ASHLEY]

This is literally the exact reason why the politics thread was closed please don't ruin this thread too

can't believe joe biden caused dexit smh this is why i didn't vote for him

 

[Basedwell]

From what I know, BSS is actually really popular in Japan.
It never really picked up outside that though. Maybe Smogon's existance (ironically) has to do with it since it's much easier to just plug and play smogon singles than actually train your own stuff in game (even with how easy it has become today) for a format that anyway doesn't have a proper public tournament.


Here's the thing: there's no balance issues.

People continue with this (pointless) assumption that all of the 1500 pokemon+forms must be viable.
No, that'd be an absolute shitshow and not possible in any real world.
And even if it was, you'd have 1500 exactly identical Pokemon and you'd just be playing checkers.

Any time a competitive game with a large amount of playable entities exists, there will *always* be a restricted % of top dogs, with a slightly bigger but still small % of "not top dogs but viable if you're really good at them or know what you're doing".
This applies to Pokemon. It applies to Mobas. It applies to fighting games. It even applies to card games where realistically there's only a handful of viable archetypes (if even) in a given moment and the rest is just rogue decks or matchup fishing.

There's a reason it's called "META": Most Effective Tactic Available. Because if you're playing a competitive game, and you're playing to win and not just for the sake of playing, then you will not use Pikachu, you will use Miraidon.

You’re right, but that doesn’t mean they can’t mess with the proportion. If you take out certain Pokemon with Broken abilities or moves, that could increase the proportion of viable Pokemon. When I watch a tournament and every team is basically the same, as I have for VGC the last few years, it makes the game less interesting. There isn’t a good way to do this, but watching the format as it does now kinda irks me. Because it feels so uncreative. Now I know Cybertron shows some great teams that are unorthodox, but I don’t see those at the highest level.

Frankly, I don’t think Pokemon has had its potential scraped into in the same was it has with chess because its harder to do. But eventually through the game’s strongest players, and potentially computer developments, we’ll get there.

You could also do tiers like we do on Smogon, but obviously that would be a massive disaster lol.

As a bonus, people really fail to understand *what* Gamefreaks is balancing as far as VGC goes.
They *know* certain mechanics are overpowered. They know they're killing defensive play. That's the whole point.
Have you ever watched a VGC stream? Most importantly, read the chat? If you haven't, amongst the various hacking ragebait, racist comments and genwunning, you will notice that people tend to be more active/interested in games with big swings and quick turns, than in slow positional games where players are playing extremely well but not much is happening due to constant swapping / flinching / protect playing.
The viewerbase of Pokemon tournaments is mainly younger people or people with no clue of how competitive actually works. They are much more interested in high risk momentum plays than in slow methodical approaches. There is a reason people hate Dondozo teams, and it's not cause they're op, it's cause they slow down the game.
It reminded me a lot of whenever i watch League of Legends tournaments, where people go full RESIDENTSLEEPER mode any time the teams are playing carefully without fighting and just farming and preparing for late game (which, note, is the *correct* play, not take pointless risks), because BOOOH WE WANT KILLS.

Everyone loves offense. But that doesn’t mean you should shift the games so that offense is too powerful. The NFL has made the games easier for offenses, but it’s not like they’re gonna force the defense to use 10 people. And ironically, through systems that are out of their control, defense is actually back in a major way in the league.

Then again, the NBA has in my mind utterly ruined the game, and yet they’re making more money than ever. And like you said, viewership is rising. It feels like entertainment is getting into a larger and larger bubble as a whole, and I wonder what the future holds.

ESPN has dumbed down their content to an unbelievable degree too. It’s what the algorithm and experts think is best. But that doesn’t mean they should have.

Also, sidenote, Dexit was inevitable. There was going to come a point where the amount of effort to port models to a new console was not justificable anymore, even before hitting potential space issues. You are delusional if you think it was never going to happen.
It was a mistake to keep portability to begin with.
You can say "booo i want my pokemon in Scarlet/Violet I care for them", but how many of you *actually* brought all of their pokemon forward every generation? I know some of you do (I did fwiw, every pokemon i caught on the DS and remotely cared for is either in my Violet cart or sitting in Home), but it's such a minor thing that it's both irrelevant and purposely trying to find a reason to be mad. Basically a very internet thing to do that actually is not relevant in the slightest because the large majority of the playerbase doesn't care (which again, is made of kids - young adults who play the game *once* to beat the story and then put it away without doing any postgame nor competitive gameplay and often without even finishing the Pokedex).

TLDR of this rant:
You all underestimate GameFreaks and Nintendo. The numbers show they know what they're doing, and they're doing it right.
Games' sales are skyrocketing. Scarlet/Violet actually surpassed gen 1 sales in Japan, something that was considered unthinkable.
VGC partecipation AND viewership is increasing. Even fucking Pokemon Go tournaments of all things have decently high viewership at this point.
Unfortunately, you do not obtain a degree in capitalism on reddit.

(and no, don't try to think I remotely like Nintendo, I dislike them as much as the next person, but regardless I cannot deny they know how to spin the capitalism wheel)

 

[Genuine_Angus_B33F]

I guess my unpopular opinion is that Game Freak has actually done a pretty fantastic job of balancing and designing modern pokemon gameplay wise. Considering the inherent limitations related to keeping mechanics consistent across both PvP and a single player RPG, not being able to make substantial retcons to existing game elements, trying to keep these game elements' properties in balance across both single and double battle rulesets, and wanting to add flashy bright buttons as a way to add something new to the game from a layman's perspective, Gen 9 especially is a rousing success. There is no way to design for all of these constraints without compromise, and I think they've done well on choosing those compromises across the board.

 

[Samtendo09]

I guess my unpopular opinion is that Game Freak has actually done a pretty fantastic job of balancing and designing modern pokemon gameplay wise. Considering the inherent limitations related to keeping mechanics consistent across both PvP and a single player RPG, not being able to make substantial retcons to existing game elements, trying to keep these game elements' properties in balance across both single and double battle rulesets, and wanting to add flashy bright buttons as a way to add something new to the game from a layman's perspective, Gen 9 especially is a rousing success. There is no way to design for all of these constraints without compromise, and I think they've done well on choosing those compromises across the board.

Do you mean modern Pokémon as in the games, or the modern generation Pokémon (critters) themselves?

I’m not really convinced given that several of the new Pokémon (particularly some of the more viable Paradox Pokémon) are outright unfun to fight against, as well as it left an after effect of making many older Pokémon even more obsolete than they already are. It did help that some Gen 9 Pokémon are mediocre, if workable, but the bad Pokémon from prior generations aren’t buffed to be usable in-game outside of the few lucky ones.

From what I know, BSS is actually really popular in Japan.
It never really picked up outside that though. Maybe Smogon's existance (ironically) has to do with it since it's much easier to just plug and play smogon singles than actually train your own stuff in game (even with how easy it has become today) for a format that anyway doesn't have a proper public tournament.


Here's the thing: there's no balance issues.

People continue with this (pointless) assumption that all of the 1500 pokemon+forms must be viable.
No, that'd be an absolute shitshow and not possible in any real world.
And even if it was, you'd have 1500 exactly identical Pokemon and you'd just be playing checkers.

Any time a competitive game with a large amount of playable entities exists, there will *always* be a restricted % of top dogs, with a slightly bigger but still small % of "not top dogs but viable if you're really good at them or know what you're doing".
This applies to Pokemon. It applies to Mobas. It applies to fighting games. It even applies to card games where realistically there's only a handful of viable archetypes (if even) in a given moment and the rest is just rogue decks or matchup fishing.

There's a reason it's called "META": Most Effective Tactic Available. Because if you're playing a competitive game, and you're playing to win and not just for the sake of playing, then you will not use Pikachu, you will use Miraidon.

As a bonus, people really fail to understand *what* Gamefreaks is balancing as far as VGC goes.
They *know* certain mechanics are overpowered. They know they're killing defensive play. That's the whole point.
Have you ever watched a VGC stream? Most importantly, read the chat? If you haven't, amongst the various hacking ragebait, racist comments and genwunning, you will notice that people tend to be more active/interested in games with big swings and quick turns, than in slow positional games where players are playing extremely well but not much is happening due to constant swapping / flinching / protect playing.
The viewerbase of Pokemon tournaments is mainly younger people or people with no clue of how competitive actually works. They are much more interested in high risk momentum plays than in slow methodical approaches. There is a reason people hate Dondozo teams, and it's not cause they're op, it's cause they slow down the game.
It reminded me a lot of whenever i watch League of Legends tournaments, where people go full RESIDENTSLEEPER mode any time the teams are playing carefully without fighting and just farming and preparing for late game (which, note, is the *correct* play, not take pointless risks), because BOOOH WE WANT KILLS.

Also, sidenote, Dexit was inevitable. There was going to come a point where the amount of effort to port models to a new console was not justificable anymore, even before hitting potential space issues. You are delusional if you think it was never going to happen.
It was a mistake to keep portability to begin with.
You can say "booo i want my pokemon in Scarlet/Violet I care for them", but how many of you *actually* brought all of their pokemon forward every generation? I know some of you do (I did fwiw, every pokemon i caught on the DS and remotely cared for is either in my Violet cart or sitting in Home), but it's such a minor thing that it's both irrelevant and purposely trying to find a reason to be mad. Basically a very internet thing to do that actually is not relevant in the slightest because the large majority of the playerbase doesn't care (which again, is made of kids - young adults who play the game *once* to beat the story and then put it away without doing any postgame nor competitive gameplay and often without even finishing the Pokedex).

TLDR of this rant:
You all underestimate GameFreaks and Nintendo. The numbers show they know what they're doing, and they're doing it right.
Games' sales are skyrocketing. Scarlet/Violet actually surpassed gen 1 sales in Japan, something that was considered unthinkable.
VGC partecipation AND viewership is increasing. Even fucking Pokemon Go tournaments of all things have decently high viewership at this point.
Unfortunately, you do not obtain a degree in capitalism on reddit.

(and no, don't try to think I remotely like Nintendo, I dislike them as much as the next person, but regardless I cannot deny they know how to spin the capitalism wheel)

Effective in capitalism? Sure.

Not every Pokémon needing to be viable in competitive? Fair, given the number.

Dexit being inevitable? Absolutely.

But I beg you one question: Are some of the top tiers in recent generations immensively unfun to fight against?

For me, they really are. Making offense more viable is fine and all, but to go as far as making battle ending in far fewer turns than before can make the matches going way too fast with too few countermeasures.

50/50 is awful to fight against, as shown with Kingambit and Raging Bolt. Spammable 120 BP spread is awful to fight against, as shown with Terapagos and Calyrex’s Rider forms. A Pokémon that hit hard, fast and can survive one side with an easily spammable STAB can get on one’s nerve, as shown with Flutter Mane. Rain is also lot more painful to deal with with Archaludon entering the scene.

If spectacle and match speed are vastly prioritized over enjoyment, that is a problem that will eventually come to haunt VGC. Meta Knight almost singlehandedly killed Brawl competitive scene, Bayonetta did in Smash 4, and other hated top tier does it in other less popular competitve scenes. So it’s not a stretch to think that one day, the excessive power creep has gone so bad that VGC matches aren’t interesting to watch anymore.

 

[Adeleine]

If spectacle and match speed are vastly prioritized over enjoyment, that is a problem that will eventually come to haunt VGC. Meta Knight almost singlehandedly killed Brawl competitive scene, Bayonetta did in Smash 4, and other hated top tier does it in other less popular competitve scenes. So it’s not a stretch to think that one day, the excessive power creep has gone so bad that VGC matches aren’t interesting to watch anymore.

I don't have a dog (Pokemon?) in this horse (Pokemon?) race, but this doesn't really apply to Smash. Brawl in general, and Meta Knight included, were the opposite of spectacle and match speed, which is a big reason that scene (at least unmodded) got killed. Bayo is closer to this, but she didn't kill the scene. Really the things that kills Smash scenes is "the new game got released". The most alive old Smash scene is by far the one with highest match speed, and at the very least up there for spectacle too, which is probably non-coincidental.

 

[Bakugames]

yeah smash is probably the worst thing to reference, considering melee is praised for its match speed and brawl was mocked for being slow, clunky and having sooo much fucking stalling because of mk. Bayo annoyed people but honestly i think she came in too late to kill the scene, it was dying mostly because everyone knew ult (smash 5 at the time) was coming soon lol

also its just hard to compare because pokemon is a turn based rpg which means even if we get 5000000000 speed stats, each pokemon does their own thing at their own turn. super fast paced fighting games will suffer because theyre hard to read and to follow, which is not a pokemon issue at all

 

[Sonikku A]

Gen 9 VGC is definitely strained with the "pay to win" DLC mons + importing LA mons + Paradoxes + Fucking Prankster Tailwind. Remove that, the worst mon is Gholdengo and Dodonzo, though admittedly neither can sweep well

 

[Basedwell]

Lol my favorite competitive scene is ADV so that’s the pace I like. Everything after there goes too fast for me. Like the games feel like they often go back and forth and are very unforgiving of slight misplays due to power level.

With VGC, playing Spring/Summer 2023 on Showdown, I got really annoyed by Amoongus and the Bear that could hit through Protect. Also the move Freeze Dry lol.

I started with some off meta teams I made myself that involved Perish Trapping, before using some CybertronVGC teams. I obv had better luck with those, but I struggled to stay with the tier when it was constantly adding Pokemon, and quit playing when the DLC came out because I could not afford it.

I bought the DLC last October, but haven’t had the motivation/energy to play it. I had L:A but zero motivation to finish it either. Thus, no VGC for Basedwell lol. I should get back into it eventually

 

[Worldie]

But I beg you one question: Are some of the top tiers in recent generations immensively unfun to fight against?

For me, they really are. Making offense more viable is fine and all, but to go as far as making battle ending in far fewer turns than before can make the matches going way too fast with too few countermeasures.

50/50 is awful to fight against, as shown with Kingambit and Raging Bolt. Spammable 120 BP spread is awful to fight against, as shown with Terapagos and Calyrex’s Rider forms. A Pokémon that hit hard, fast and can survive one side with an easily spammable STAB can get on one’s nerve, as shown with Flutter Mane. Rain is also lot more painful to deal with with Archaludon entering the scene.

If spectacle and match speed are vastly prioritized over enjoyment, that is a problem that will eventually come to haunt VGC. Meta Knight almost singlehandedly killed Brawl competitive scene, Bayonetta did in Smash 4, and other hated top tier does it in other less popular competitve scenes. So it’s not a stretch to think that one day, the excessive power creep has gone so bad that VGC matches aren’t interesting to watch anymore.

See this is criticism I can get behind.

I'll point, I don't think VGC is *balanced* in the true sense of the term.
GF is 100% "balancing" around spectacle and fast paced games, because they know that's what people want to watch. Obviously, there is also a limit to how much *players* are willing to play it.
The thing is, I don't think the "120 BP spread moves" or "excessively easy to set up gigabulky mons" are the problem they have, far from it.
Something that you'd notice is that there's no actual overwhelming presence, there's no CHALK this gen, while there's definitely some top dogs amongst the restricted (which is to be expected in a singles restricted meta tbh), there is a decent spread amongst 4-5 of them with usually 4 or 5 taking about ~80% of the picks, leading to a centralizing meta that still isn't just "the same 6 pokemon in all top teams" and at least gives you a somewhat narrow amount of stuff to cover for.
The non-restricted surprisingly have a pretty solid balance in distribution, even otherwise-bullshit mons like Sneaseler, Incineroar or Urshifu don't usually break a 35% presence since each fit on different archetype and the top 5 restricteds (usually so far, Terapagos, Miraidon, Calyrex(both of them) and Zamazenta) all fit in different archetypes.

There is one thing I however think that if it keeps up *will* bite this design phylosophy in the back, and it's RNG.

Pokemon games have always had RNG in them, almost every attack has infamous 10-30% effects, crits exist, damage ranges exist, and abilities that have % to trigger exist.
RNG isnt inherently bad when it's limited. Bo3 generally makes sure the better player still wins (albeith honestly they should move to Bo5 at this point), but with how fast paced the meta has become, all it takes is a single "unlucky roll" to flip a match.
Sure comebacks are fun to watch and scenic but... how does it feel to lose to a 10%, or to bank all your winning chances on a 25% chance to triple protect? Or miss 3 90% in a row, cause we know Will o Wisp is actually 10% accurate.

I mentioned earlier "VGC streams chat". When "crits happen" or similar things, a lot of people do complain about "skilled game". While a lot of times this is just people being dumb... is it really? I've watched almost every single streamed VGC event this year, and honestly, there were far FAR too many matches, including top 8 or even finals, where it just boiled down to who got lucky.
The random effects, as well as crits ignoring de/buffs, mainly exist as a way to prevent stall and defensive strategies from being overwhelming, but when the game becomes this fast and this explosive, they turn too many games into lotteries. And yes, Sneaseler isn't helping it. *Most* of the time, Dire Claw hasn't really won a match off a status roll, usually the target still dies before even getting a turn, or the status isn't relevant at all. But the simple fact it exists on a pokemon that is on its own very common contributes turning a lot of matches into "just get lucky four head".

THAT is really gigabad for the game. THAT is the criticism to the balance approach GF has I can agree with.
It's not the powerhouses, it's not the fast paced meta, it's the fact that those are mutually exclusive with RNG.
Powercreep is fine. Playing lottery in a competitive environment where there's prizes and actual money behind is terrible and I agree WILL damage the game long term if they don't calm down with it.

 

[Sonikku A]

glances at Gen 4's OU

Y'know, I'm not a fan of the speed wars this Gen. Imagine if GF nerfed Prankster so it only works on direct volatile status for priority

So Tailwind, an ally assisting move, won't be affected. Makes more sense flavor wise as well cuz, it's not a Prank if it's not inflicting bad things on the opponent

Otherwise catering to VGC audience for spectacle is a concern. Heel turn crits are exciting to see, terrible to actually experience

 

[ant4456]

I gotta be honest, Dexit kinda worked out very well for me. It made me complete Pokedexes for the first time in my life (SWSH dex, IoA dex, CT dex, PLA dex, SV dex, DLC1 dex, not DLC2 dex yet) and if that was just for regional and not feeling like "oh I have all of the mons in the game", I kinda probably wouldn't have done it.

I also prefer the more limited approach in options and I like that it adds more to each game. I am also a fan of SV's change to the models and I appreciate that a lower scope lets that be more viable.

When Dexit happened, I was really mad, even was one of the many people who made like a BBND Twitter account, then a week later I kinda just accepted it. And from then on, I was mad for a while, but tbh Dexit has not made my experience worse at all, and in fact it kinda made it better.

 

[Hugin]

Pokemon games have always had RNG in them, almost every attack has infamous 10-30% effects, crits exist, damage ranges exist, and abilities that have % to trigger exist.
RNG isnt inherently bad when it's limited. Bo3 generally makes sure the better player still wins (albeith honestly they should move to Bo5 at this point), but with how fast paced the meta has become, all it takes is a single "unlucky roll" to flip a match.
Sure comebacks are fun to watch and scenic but... how does it feel to lose to a 10%, or to bank all your winning chances on a 25% chance to triple protect? Or miss 3 90% in a row, cause we know Will o Wisp is actually 10% accurate.

I definitely can see removing 10% chances/90% accuracy/crits without at least one boost/ as a good thing in competitive. Like, if you miss Fire Blast, well, you gambled and lost. Or if you para off of Discharge, you gambled and won. If you get frozen by Ice Beam, the game screwed you, gg no re.

There's a place for RNG, don't get me wrong. And in playthroughs, or casual competitive, it makes sense. But in tournaments, a random crit or miss when the player was picking the safest possible option is just annoying. Jirachi flinch is a legit strategy, but a flying type missing Air Slash is sad.

 

[Samtendo09]

See this is criticism I can get behind.

I'll point, I don't think VGC is *balanced* in the true sense of the term.
GF is 100% "balancing" around spectacle and fast paced games, because they know that's what people want to watch. Obviously, there is also a limit to how much *players* are willing to play it.
The thing is, I don't think the "120 BP spread moves" or "excessively easy to set up gigabulky mons" are the problem they have, far from it.
Something that you'd notice is that there's no actual overwhelming presence, there's no CHALK this gen, while there's definitely some top dogs amongst the restricted (which is to be expected in a singles restricted meta tbh), there is a decent spread amongst 4-5 of them with usually 4 or 5 taking about ~80% of the picks, leading to a centralizing meta that still isn't just "the same 6 pokemon in all top teams" and at least gives you a somewhat narrow amount of stuff to cover for.
The non-restricted surprisingly have a pretty solid balance in distribution, even otherwise-bullshit mons like Sneaseler, Incineroar or Urshifu don't usually break a 35% presence since each fit on different archetype and the top 5 restricteds (usually so far, Terapagos, Miraidon, Calyrex(both of them) and Zamazenta) all fit in different archetypes.

There is one thing I however think that if it keeps up *will* bite this design phylosophy in the back, and it's RNG.

Pokemon games have always had RNG in them, almost every attack has infamous 10-30% effects, crits exist, damage ranges exist, and abilities that have % to trigger exist.
RNG isnt inherently bad when it's limited. Bo3 generally makes sure the better player still wins (albeith honestly they should move to Bo5 at this point), but with how fast paced the meta has become, all it takes is a single "unlucky roll" to flip a match.
Sure comebacks are fun to watch and scenic but... how does it feel to lose to a 10%, or to bank all your winning chances on a 25% chance to triple protect? Or miss 3 90% in a row, cause we know Will o Wisp is actually 10% accurate.

I mentioned earlier "VGC streams chat". When "crits happen" or similar things, a lot of people do complain about "skilled game". While a lot of times this is just people being dumb... is it really? I've watched almost every single streamed VGC event this year, and honestly, there were far FAR too many matches, including top 8 or even finals, where it just boiled down to who got lucky.
The random effects, as well as crits ignoring de/buffs, mainly exist as a way to prevent stall and defensive strategies from being overwhelming, but when the game becomes this fast and this explosive, they turn too many games into lotteries. And yes, Sneaseler isn't helping it. *Most* of the time, Dire Claw hasn't really won a match off a status roll, usually the target still dies before even getting a turn, or the status isn't relevant at all. But the simple fact it exists on a pokemon that is on its own very common contributes turning a lot of matches into "just get lucky four head".

THAT is really gigabad for the game. THAT is the criticism to the balance approach GF has I can agree with.
It's not the powerhouses, it's not the fast paced meta, it's the fact that those are mutually exclusive with RNG.
Powercreep is fine. Playing lottery in a competitive environment where there's prizes and actual money behind is terrible and I agree WILL damage the game long term if they don't calm down with it.

Yes, it is a good thing Gen 8 and 9 didn’t reached CHALK level of infamy. Time will tell if history repeat though. A blessing, even.

I agree even more to make RNG less impactful, especially with how strong statuses like Paralysis, Sleep and especially Freeze can be.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

I was a vocal dexit critic. However going back to the basics of the Gen 1 and 2 games recently has reminded me that having a limited dex is actually fun.

We forget that Gen 3 soft locked virtually most of the original Pokemon until firered/leaf green came along too.

Then to be fair, unless you were like me and kept every console, cartridge, disc and wires, you had soft locks on hundreds of Pokemon between gens 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 with only Pokemon Bank and a whole load of variable irritating mini games making it nigh on impossible to move a huge selection on.

Pokemon Home has killed the need for a game based Pokédex: it is our living Pokédex and actual Pokédex. And frankly it’s perfect. Infinitely updatable, holds all the Pokemon you need, and gives you the ability to search/organise to your hearts content.

All I want in a new Pokemon mainline game going forward is 100-150 new mons and at least 100-150 of the old mons available in the first tranche for a decent sized Pokédex challenge and a chance at making a team up of just new pokemon.

I’m more than content with updates giving larger or additional Pokédex challenges as per SV which I think frankly did it very well.

 

[Basedwell]

I definitely can see removing 10% chances/90% accuracy/crits without at least one boost/ as a good thing in competitive. Like, if you miss Fire Blast, well, you gambled and lost. Or if you para off of Discharge, you gambled and won. If you get frozen by Ice Beam, the game screwed you, gg no re.

There's a place for RNG, don't get me wrong. And in playthroughs, or casual competitive, it makes sense. But in tournaments, a random crit or miss when the player was picking the safest possible option is just annoying. Jirachi flinch is a legit strategy, but a flying type missing Air Slash is sad.

This is wayyyy too far. You can’t just arbitrarily remove certain luck based parts of a game that is at its core based on probability.

There’s a ceiling on skill level in the game because it’s basically a souped up prisoners dilemma: you are constantly gambling on what your opponent does. Now, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t take skill. But an inexperienced opponent can sometimes “outplay” an experienced one by making unconventional moves.

You don’t see this in chess because you don’t move at the same time.

Crits are an important part of the game. They stop defensive walls and add in variation, which is fun. They already neutered crits once.

Some types of moves are inaccurate or have more drawbacks: flying and rock are two of those types. Taking away those drawbacks just makes everything play more similarly. And some moves have disadvantages built in for a reason.

And why in Gods name is everywhere, Jirachi flinches somehow above question. Like yeah, a 50 percent chance you’re confused, that’s bad. A lower of accuracy in certain weather, that’s bad.

But somehow a 60 percent chance you can’t move, increased to 70 percent if you’re paralyzed (and you certainly won’t be outspeeding then) is legitimate. Just because good players like the strategy doesn’t make it any more legitimate or less luck reliant, or frankly, uncompetitive than anything else.


Like explain to me how a No Guard Machamp is any worse than Paralyze/Para Jirachi





There’s no such thing as “safe plays” that you deserve to be rewarded for, inaccurate moves are such for a reason and similarly for moves with side effects. The game is meant to be fun, you’re not playing chess here, and winning says a lot less about you, which is why the games best players win less in comparison to the Chess Greats.

If you don’t wanna miss air slash, use aerial ace. Problem solved!!

 

[Ironmage]

The RNG on status chance feels inevitable because status is binary: either it is applied on a given attack or it isn't. So the only way for Discharge to be a middle ground as a damage/status tradeoff between Thunder Wave and Thunderbolt is for it to sometimes paralyze and other times not paralyze. You could put Wave back to 100% accuracy and remove Bolt's paralysis chance, but Discharge stays where it is.

From a playstyle perspective, the main way I mitigate RNG is by focusing on passive damage. I don't gamble on the opponent getting fully paralyzed or multiple sleep turns because they're poisoned or burned instead, while losing a turn myself is less notable in a 40-turn game where I'm doing damage regardless than a 10-turn slugfest. Crits hurt, but I can at least respect them working as intended by limiting exactly what I'm trying to do. This strategy isn't set up to work in VGC, but if RNG is the big problem maybe it should be.

 

[Hugin]

This is wayyyy too far. You can’t just arbitrarily remove certain luck based parts of a game that is at its core based on probability.

There’s a ceiling on skill level in the game because it’s basically a souped up prisoners dilemma: you are constantly gambling on what your opponent does. Now, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t take skill. But an inexperienced opponent can sometimes “outplay” an experienced one by making unconventional moves.

You don’t see this in chess because you don’t move at the same time.

Crits are an important part of the game. They stop defensive walls and add in variation, which is fun. They already neutered crits once.

Some types of moves are inaccurate or have more drawbacks: flying and rock are two of those types. Taking away those drawbacks just makes everything play more similarly. And some moves have disadvantages built in for a reason.

And why in Gods name is everywhere, Jirachi flinches somehow above question. Like yeah, a 50 percent chance you’re confused, that’s bad. A lower of accuracy in certain weather, that’s bad.

But somehow a 60 percent chance you can’t move, increased to 70 percent if you’re paralyzed (and you certainly won’t be outspeeding then) is legitimate. Just because good players like the strategy doesn’t make it any more legitimate or less luck reliant, or frankly, uncompetitive than anything else.


Like explain to me how a No Guard Machamp is any worse than Paralyze/Para Jirachi





There’s no such thing as “safe plays” that you deserve to be rewarded for, inaccurate moves are such for a reason and similarly for moves with side effects. The game is meant to be fun, you’re not playing chess here, and winning says a lot less about you, which is why the games best players win less in comparison to the Chess Greats.

If you don’t wanna miss air slash, use aerial ace. Problem solved!!

What I'm specifically targeting is chances of 10% or less, especially ones that aren't part of a decision by any player. Jirachi is fine(as is Machamp), because when you're at 50% or above of hax, it's not hax, it's the likely outcome, and building a mon or a team to take advantage of that is just good play. Someone puts TBolt on their Gengar for coverage, it gets the Para, that's not good play by the Gengar player, that's the RNG deciding to screw their oppt. Whereas if they put Discharge on a mon, that's sacrificing power for a greater chance to para, which is a tradeoff and if the RNG decides to support it, I think that's a good thing. That's also why I think Fire Blast is fair, the person has chosen to trade 15% accuracy for 20 base power, that's a decision they are making.

Crits, 10% status hax, 5% miss chances? No one is choosing those. The closest thing to an interesting decision is which god you pray to when your oppt clicks Ice Beam in a game you've clearly won.

 

[SandVeil10]

The RNG on status chance feels inevitable because status is binary: either it is applied on a given attack or it isn't. So the only way for Discharge to be a middle ground as a damage/status tradeoff between Thunder Wave and Thunderbolt is for it to sometimes paralyze and other times not paralyze. You could put Wave back to 100% accuracy and remove Bolt's paralysis chance, but Discharge stays where it is.

From a playstyle perspective, the main way I mitigate RNG is by focusing on passive damage. I don't gamble on the opponent getting fully paralyzed or multiple sleep turns because they're poisoned or burned instead, while losing a turn myself is less notable in a 40-turn game where I'm doing damage regardless than a 10-turn slugfest. Crits hurt, but I can at least respect them working as intended by limiting exactly what I'm trying to do. This strategy isn't set up to work in VGC, but if RNG is the big problem maybe it should be.

I agree with what you're saying about making up for bad RNG through style of play, and not letting fishing for good RNG become a major part of one's strategy. And like you said, these effects work in an inherently binary way, which can't be helped.
I just can't help but think that despite this solution, stuff like crits and cumulated effects can still throw big wrenches into game plans at no real cost or investment for whoever benefits from them, and it feels pretty bad when those moments occur. Especially in metas that are faster-paced like SV OU, where containing offensive threats can already be difficult, and in which it feels as though a single good or bad turn (sometimes as a result of RNG) can be incredibly pivotal for the game's result.

Part of me kind of wishes some aspects of cumulated effects could be reworked. For instance, in the case of damage-dealing moves with a chance to inflict a non-volatile status condition, maybe said status could only last for three turns as opposed to requiring Lum Berry/Heal Bell/Aromatherapy etc, to get rid of it.
It wouldn't remove the occasional tough luck, and dedicated status moves would be unchanged, but at least you'd have the possibility of weathering the storm for a few turns and being back to normal after that, whereas your opponent would benefit from considerably altering your game plan for a limited time.

Another example is how flinch can heavily reward fast mons by avoiding damage/status for a turn, despite their superior speed already being a key advantage in and of itself. Moves with a flinch chance don't have the highest BP out there far from it, but potentially getting 2, maybe 3, even 4 attacks in before getting any pushback from your opponent is a really unhealthy dynamic to me.
If it could be reworked into maybe reducing the damage dealt by your slower target during that turn, the momentum gained from Flinch (or whichever name would suit that reworked version better) wouldn't be as substantial.

Hope this isn't too rant-ish. But all in all, I would like to see cumulated effects feel less impactful, so that despite their inevitable nature, their general consequences wouldn't be as problematic.

 

[ant4456]

Temtem solved RNG for status effects like 5 years ago. Literally just copy Temtem

 

[Worldie]

Temtem solved RNG for status effects like 5 years ago. Literally just sue Temtem

Fixed it for you

 

[Basedwell]

I’m playing Moon rn, not heeding the advice I was given in Questions thread… i did it because my students really hyped that Generation up, and I saw a lot of ppl list it as their favorite in the current favorite game thread… But I’m rlly not feeling it.

1. The black screen: after doing almost anything, exiting from a section of the menu, changing areas, wild Pokemon battles, trainer battles, my screen on my 3ds goes black for a few seconds.

I understand this may be due to hardware limitations on my 3ds but it’s frustrating because it slows the game down, and the game was made for 3ds. It should be able to work well on the platform.

This slows the game down, and in a game where I wanna spend time grinding and catching, it makes it boring. I turn off animations and maximize text speed for a reason.

2. Camera Angles: it would be nice to see where I’m going and not have my angle be like i have crooked posture and am staring at the ground. Some of these routes and cities look nice, but I feel like I constantly miss things and struggle to get my bearings.

3. Cutscenes: this isn’t unpopular. It’s like they go from a vacation to a foreign country (the old games) to a trip to Disneyworld or other amusement park (this game). A guided experience, with no autonomy.

Ppl say Black/White suffers from this too, but the story takes much less time to happen. Collectively every single interruption there takes less time than it took to get my Pokemon lol

4. Story: I stg every single game after Black2/White2 makes the characters such uhhhh, children. The story of Pokemon is always formulaic sure, but it’s one thing when less time is invested into it.

Now they always seem to have you saved by an important legendary at the beginning, someone’s taking care of a weak Pokemon, and there’s always some Make-a-wish kid who needs extra love and learn to support themselves (ie the Little Brother in the DLC or Sc/Vi)

4. The SOS system. They cut down on random trainer battles here, they are infrequent and feel more explicitly unnecessary. So, as I’m playing without xp share, and wanna find all the Pokemon in the area, I’m definitely trying to spend some time catching wild Pokemon.

The SOS system clearly has some advantages and some cool consequences, the problem is that it punishes weak Pokemon: if they’re struggling to kill a wild Pokemon, the wild Pokemon will have time to call for help, and then you will have to fight two wild Pokemon.

It punishes catching Pokemon because lowering its xp makes it take longer to catch.

Unless you can OHKO it, OR the Pokemon in question has enough xp it’s worth killing multiple as quickly as possible, it’s simply too time consuming to be worth it. And in a given patch of grass, that can obviously be hard to find, as your leading Pokemon may have a good matchup against some but not all.

Oh, and if you wanna take advantages of the cool parts of SOS battles involving chaining, there’s a bunch of coin flips involved in that so it will be extra time consuming and require more convoluted strategies.

5. Kanto. I never really understood why ppl had such a big problem with Kanto. Ofc they’re gonna let Charizard have fun with the new mechanics, it’s Charizard!! And ofc they’re gonna make remakes of their most iconic gen more frequently.

But Alola loooves Kanto. They talk about that place like Americans think foreigners talk about America. I wanna make a joke about them having a shrine to some mid Kanto Pokemon but they often do shout them out in one way or another…


Idk. There’s a lot I do like about the games. I actually love how they look, I love the regional forms and despite my complaints, I’m curious where the story goes from here.


I don’t like how the Pokemon looked on the Switch but the models here are actually really good and make collecting Pokemon fun again. I just beat the 2nd totem Pokemon and the battles were challenging. My rematch with the first Trial Captain also ruled.

The story is actually interesting so far to a degree, and I love how the enemy team is [redacted]s (not a bad word but I may get in trouble for saying it on here and I don’t wanna get banned)

Edit: I kinda fw talking Rotom functioning as an anime side character but I wanna see the map pls. And have a real map. Also they are sick for that Crabrawler placement. The guy is literal ass embodied and they’re making u think he’ll be a star