View attachment 716842
I'm curious now, what recipe book did this come from?
(for context, I'm not saying it's a weak set, in fact it did its job well by stopping cold plenty of people's runs, but I dunno, playing with Double Team feels...dirty)
Seeing that Thousand Waves and Thousand Arrows existed in the coding of Gen VI(But were unobtainable), and Zygarde having the blank slate of a move known as Land's Wrath with the same Power, Accuracy, and PP as them makes me personally believe it would've gotten the Kyurem treatment of version exclusive forms(The nature of said forms however I can't even guess). Depending on the form, Land's Wrath becomes one of the Thousand Moves. I'm guessing Thousand Waves in the X version and Thousand Arrows in Y mostly so that way the latter can hit Yveltal in the invevitable story-based battle(I mean it was given an ability designed to counteract the ones of Xerneas and Yveltal).
Good point! Adding on to this, the typical casual player would often be underlevelled in earlier games, but from Gen 5 onwards mechanics were introduced to make sure you'd keep up. Evasiveness strats and status spam might have been a little more common in Gens 3-4, but I think what makes them stick out in those games is that battles take longer, so you have to land more hits to get through them.I do think in-game these days, due to power creep, the AI suffers more because the human player is going to choose 3-4 strong attacking moves, while the AI learnset will be worse, not able to take advantage of support moves well, and not able to switch around the attacks. These things have always been issues but now that the human players have more tools available to them through Power Creep it’s worse.
I'm pretty sure that it's because Evasion can never wall a player. It sucks and is annoying, but an enemy who clicks Double Team 6 times in a row isn't attacking you, so with enough save-and-resets, eventually the player will win. If you're building for children, that probably feels more reasonable than Rain Dance Kingdra etc.gamefreak (and the xd/colosseum devs i guess) only knows two ways to make pokemon be hard and its "four big moves and pray its good" or "evasion accuracy cheese fuck your entire life and kill yourself"
I'm pretty sure that it's because Evasion can never wall a player. It sucks and is annoying, but an enemy who clicks Double Team 6 times in a row isn't attacking you, so with enough save-and-resets, eventually the player will win. If you're building for children, that probably feels more reasonable than Rain Dance Kingdra etc.
(Note, I do not agree with this design philosophy. Major battles should either teach or test the player, Evasion spam generally does neither.)
Would it be a hot take for me to say like 80% of the non-boss trainers just shouldn't even be around in the games? (and replaced with higher quality and tougher battles, though not boss level obviously)double posting but its for a different topic
people always talk about doubles, and implementing doubles in the main campaign of pokemon. Now, personally I enjoy singles battles too and i would prefer a more hybrid type of game, but lets ignore that and talk about just doubles
So my preference for this is very much only doubles in main fights (rivals, gyms etc) > doubles for all fights. I think the main problem with doubles is that for any fight that isnt important, it gets reaaaaally annoying to constantly do double fights with the common fodder trainers. theyre fun once or twice but i think the "doubles is faster" stuff stops being true the lower the quality of a trainer is. when the answer is just to spam a move, youd rather have a simple click move > action than click move > choose target > click move > choose target loop.
but the best part of doubles is that i think monotype gyms really benefits from being a doubles battle. for single monotype to not get destroyed by a counter, you need to be able to stack on immunities/resistances/find ways to counter. Fine on paper, that's just teambuilding! but we have to remember most gyms will not be high leveled or 6 mons, and not all types have ways to do that without being extremely overwhelming for its placement. its very easy to fall into romhacky "counters everything" teams, or to just not do enough and end up being bodied either way.
If you have a doubles team though, you force the player to either teambuild with multiple counters (already more interesting than using a single mon tbh) or for the other pokemon of the team to pick up the slack and be there to help the counter. meanwhile you can create a foe with pokemon that are actually supports and defensive without being blown exploded by the players starter or something. it also makes very small counters to types the team is weak to much more effective: you can have a water/ground type that protects the other water types from electric types, while another pokemon uses flying moves to chip grass types (doesnt have to be stab). its beatable, but engaging
I think i agree, we dont need infestations of worthless trainers, we can have things like route/area minibosses that are just little challenges to get you ready to move on to the next area. most games have a few trainers that stand out for being a bit more challenging, and i think you can make a pokemon game with just themWould it be a hot take for me to say like 80% of the non-boss trainers just shouldn't even be around in the games? (and replaced with higher quality and tougher battles, though not boss level obviously)
One of the worst things about the pokemon games is just how long it takes to play through them while also hardly doing anything, and the tons of trainer battles that are super easy to go through is one of the most egregious things causing that. SV replacing this cycle of going through routes catching some stuff, battling like 20 trainers with two underleveled raticates and five magikarps and whatever the fuck else, getting to the city and talking to like 20 people, and so on, with exploring a larger region and having two other stories with their own boss battles replacing that cycle, is probably the biggest thing that made me enjoy the game so much more than most other pokemon games.
Seriously, so many of the battles being mind-numbingly boring and easy is awful. Switching to doubles and less quantity but far higher quality would be awesome.
Would it be a hot take for me to say like 80% of the non-boss trainers just shouldn't even be around in the games? (and replaced with higher quality and tougher battles, though not boss level obviously)
One of the worst things about the pokemon games is just how long it takes to play through them while also hardly doing anything, and the tons of trainer battles that are super easy to go through is one of the most egregious things causing that. SV replacing this cycle of going through routes catching some stuff, battling like 20 trainers with two underleveled raticates and five magikarps and whatever the fuck else, getting to the city and talking to like 20 people, and so on, with exploring a larger region and having two other stories with their own boss battles replacing that cycle, is probably the biggest thing that made me enjoy the game so much more than most other pokemon games.
Seriously, so many of the battles being mind-numbingly boring and easy is awful. Switching to doubles and less quantity but far higher quality would be awesome.
That is for sure a hot take I can agree with. It doesn’t help that some Gym Leaders - even back in the good old days! - were barely better than generic trainers, or worse, outclassed by some random trainers right before they are fought.I think i agree, we dont need infestations of worthless trainers, we can have things like route/area minibosses that are just little challenges to get you ready to move on to the next area. most games have a few trainers that stand out for being a bit more challenging, and i think you can make a pokemon game with just them
Great post.double posting but its for a different topic
people always talk about doubles, and implementing doubles in the main campaign of pokemon. Now, personally I enjoy singles battles too and i would prefer a more hybrid type of game, but lets ignore that and talk about just doubles
So my preference for this is very much only doubles in main fights (rivals, gyms etc) > doubles for all fights. I think the main problem with doubles is that for any fight that isnt important, it gets reaaaaally annoying to constantly do double fights with the common fodder trainers. theyre fun once or twice but i think the "doubles is faster" stuff stops being true the lower the quality of a trainer is. when the answer is just to spam a move, youd rather have a simple click move > action than click move > choose target > click move > choose target loop.
but the best part of doubles is that i think monotype gyms really benefits from being a doubles battle. for single monotype to not get destroyed by a counter, you need to be able to stack on immunities/resistances/find ways to counter. Fine on paper, that's just teambuilding! but we have to remember most gyms will not be high leveled or 6 mons, and not all types have ways to do that without being extremely overwhelming for its placement. its very easy to fall into romhacky "counters everything" teams, or to just not do enough and end up being bodied either way.
If you have a doubles team though, you force the player to either teambuild with multiple counters (already more interesting than using a single mon tbh) or for the other pokemon of the team to pick up the slack and be there to help the counter. meanwhile you can create a foe with pokemon that are actually supports and defensive without being blown exploded by the players starter or something. it also makes very small counters to types the team is weak to much more effective: you can have a water/ground type that protects the other water types from electric types, while another pokemon uses flying moves to chip grass types (doesnt have to be stab). its beatable, but engaging
i personally disagree, I like grinding against other trainers because I enjoy seeing my Pokemon get stronger, and many low stakes fights help me learn its strengths and weaknesses, as well as appreciating the subtleties of its strengths. It helps me develop personal relationships with my Pokemon.Would it be a hot take for me to say like 80% of the non-boss trainers just shouldn't even be around in the games? (and replaced with higher quality and tougher battles, though not boss level obviously)
One of the worst things about the pokemon games is just how long it takes to play through them while also hardly doing anything, and the tons of trainer battles that are super easy to go through is one of the most egregious things causing that. SV replacing this cycle of going through routes catching some stuff, battling like 20 trainers with two underleveled raticates and five magikarps and whatever the fuck else, getting to the city and talking to like 20 people, and so on, with exploring a larger region and having two other stories with their own boss battles replacing that cycle, is probably the biggest thing that made me enjoy the game so much more than most other pokemon games.
Seriously, so many of the battles being mind-numbingly boring and easy is awful. Switching to doubles and less quantity but far higher quality would be awesome.
It makes sense with the original design philosophy of the games(which has since gone out the window and is why the franchise is somewhat flailing with regards to difficulty since ~gen 5).Would it be a hot take for me to say like 80% of the non-boss trainers just shouldn't even be around in the games? (and replaced with higher quality and tougher battles, though not boss level obviously)
One of the worst things about the pokemon games is just how long it takes to play through them while also hardly doing anything, and the tons of trainer battles that are super easy to go through is one of the most egregious things causing that. SV replacing this cycle of going through routes catching some stuff, battling like 20 trainers with two underleveled raticates and five magikarps and whatever the fuck else, getting to the city and talking to like 20 people, and so on, with exploring a larger region and having two other stories with their own boss battles replacing that cycle, is probably the biggest thing that made me enjoy the game so much more than most other pokemon games.
Seriously, so many of the battles being mind-numbingly boring and easy is awful. Switching to doubles and less quantity but far higher quality would be awesome.
Btw, Emerald had this solved in uhhhh, 2004?double posting but its for a different topic
people always talk about doubles, and implementing doubles in the main campaign of pokemon. Now, personally I enjoy singles battles too and i would prefer a more hybrid type of game, but lets ignore that and talk about just doubles
So my preference for this is very much only doubles in main fights (rivals, gyms etc) > doubles for all fights. I think the main problem with doubles is that for any fight that isnt important, it gets reaaaaally annoying to constantly do double fights with the common fodder trainers. theyre fun once or twice but i think the "doubles is faster" stuff stops being true the lower the quality of a trainer is. when the answer is just to spam a move, youd rather have a simple click move > action than click move > choose target > click move > choose target loop.
but the best part of doubles is that i think monotype gyms really benefits from being a doubles battle. for single monotype to not get destroyed by a counter, you need to be able to stack on immunities/resistances/find ways to counter. Fine on paper, that's just teambuilding! but we have to remember most gyms will not be high leveled or 6 mons, and not all types have ways to do that without being extremely overwhelming for its placement. its very easy to fall into romhacky "counters everything" teams, or to just not do enough and end up being bodied either way.
If you have a doubles team though, you force the player to either teambuild with multiple counters (already more interesting than using a single mon tbh) or for the other pokemon of the team to pick up the slack and be there to help the counter. meanwhile you can create a foe with pokemon that are actually supports and defensive without being blown exploded by the players starter or something. it also makes very small counters to types the team is weak to much more effective: you can have a water/ground type that protects the other water types from electric types, while another pokemon uses flying moves to chip grass types (doesnt have to be stab). its beatable, but engaging
Btw, Emerald had this solved in uhhhh, 2004?
I suppose it'd be a bit harder nowadays though, but it is what it is.
They really gotta encourage Doubles as the main way of playing if they want to push VGC that hard though. I fell out of Doubles back in the day because the Frontier Brains didn't show up on Doubles, how stupid is that?
Honestly I don’t really think I see the hardship of designing good early game double battles. Mons already has weak doubles tech that they can use as inspiration for battles and accustom the player to the battle style. Disarming Voice is a really weak spread move for instance, introduces the concept of spread moves to the player well, that type of thing. They just made Dragon Cheer which is weak dubs tech too. Late game that can be Howl and there’s clear mechanical power scaling happening there. Give the champion Decorate Alcremie lol.not really? people want a full game of doubles, and emerald showed they could make one (1) good doubles gym, but not an entire game.
if you mean in team comp I think thats fair, though they still need to solve the early game doubles gym. you dont want it to feel like an easy chore beatdown, because then its slower singles, but the lower levels of anything means one good pokemon being supported by another can make it more of an headache than its supposed to be. its probably why the double gyms we have are all pretty much the last ones.
i think alola also solved this partially, but its easier to build a boss with a goon to support it than a team
see the issue imo is that while this is true, just because a doubles battle goes faster doesnt mean it feels faster for a player. a lot of the feeling comes from the effort of adjusting 4 inputs instead of one, which feels more sluggish than a single move click, even if that means you knock things faster. and it sounds exaggerating that itd matter that much but i think it does have an effect, as whenever i ask why someone doesnt like double battles the answer is more commonly that theyre annoying and slowDouble battles are kind of inherently faster than single battles too. Each individual turn may take longer but that’s because each turn is compressing two turns into one while taking less time than playing out 2 turns in a single battle does. So stomp battles should be taking less time on average not more. Especially if you’re stomping via actual doubles strategy such as Howl or Helping Hand or whatever and netting KOs in one turn that in singles would take 2.
No, no. I was talking about how most battles in Emerald could be doubles if you wanted, but they could also be turned into singles if you broke up the duos.not really? people want a full game of doubles, and emerald showed they could make one (1) good doubles gym, but not an entire game.
I dunno about that. Iirc, some editors can be used to force doubles for any trainer. Maybe I'll do that in SwSh when I'm done with Stadium 2/Crystal.With that in mind, I think people who are skeptical of just taking an indev vanilla main series game and flipping a switch to turn every fight from singles to doubles are probably right.