Unpopular opinions

I've been seeing some discussion here on aspects of the competitive and/or online multiplayer side of Pokémon, and while I'm probably never going to prefer multiplayer content over single player content on average, I do want to take a moment here to talk about what I believe to be a major discrepancy about game balance as a whole. My opinions all center around what I think is the most over-used word in competitive multiplayer- "broken". Seeing this word get thrown around a lot has always confused me since it's so difficult for players to come to a consensus agreement on if certain aspects of the game are "broken" or not. The definition I'm going to use for the purpose of this post involves when assets of the game are added at a later point that already existing assets were not designed with in mind. Let's take a look at some examples of commonly debated "broken" strategies in an effort to explain what I mean by that:

Baton Pass (Gens 2 onwards): Baton Pass is arguably the single most controversial move ever added to competitive Pokémon as a result of the near-infinite potential the move provides the Pokémon and team structures using the move. In theory, any Pokémon created without Baton Pass in mind can be "broken" via the use of Baton Pass, in the form of allowing these Pokémon access to benefits they would not otherwise have access to. Furthermore, well-constructed Baton Pass teams can include specific strategies within their team structure in an effort to protect an active Baton Pass chain from being broken.

Trapping Abilities (Gens 3 onwards): The third generation games added Abilities into the game for the first time, and while a number of the third generation's own Pokémon were created with the new mechanic in mind, many Pokémon were also given Abilities that have forever changed their play style and reputation in the competitive scene. Trapping abilities such as Arena Trap, Shadow Tag, and Magnet Pull immediately come to mind as additions to already existing Pokémon that invalidate a core aspect of Pokémon's competitive gameplay.

Generational Gimmicks (Gen 6 onwards): Admittedly, Mega Evolutions earn a bit of a pass here, as the new forms are specifically designed with their respective Pokémon in mind and as such do not do anything to "break" these Pokémon in theory. This is not to say that certain Mega Evolutions have not been perceived as overpowered in different metagames, though. Other generational gimmicks that function as a universal addition to the roster of Pokémon are a different story, however, as these gimmicks (Z-Moves, Dynamax, and Terastalizing) have been proven to push Pokémon designed without these gimmicks in mind over the edge. Z-Moves provide significantly improved offesnive potential to anything that can afford to use them, and both Dynamax and Terastalizing have provoked discussions of being banned from standard play entirely.
 
Eriorguez said:
The approach a set of players have to individual 'mons as if they were goddamn NFT's is irritating. The franchise's artificial scarcity for some things is not a good thing.

Catching something in a beast or an apri ball doesn't make it more valuable.
Click to expand...

No, but equally the aesthetic and/or novelty value means something to some people.

Say what you will about artificial scarcity, I think it adds to the novelty to have some balls be restricted or harder to obtain. Like pre-Gen VIII only a select handful of Pokemon could be in the Sport Ball, for instance. There's a fun, kitschy appeal in having a Pokemon from HGSS in that particular ball (and that is a justified scarcity, it's a ball specifically for the Bug-Catching Contest so doesn't really make sense to have it be available elsewhere).

I'm a bit of a "lineage-freak" when it comes to the Pokemon I breed/catch, by which I mean I do take notice of the ball they're in, what region they come from and what route they were hatched on - why? Idk just personal preference, but I guess because it makes them more unique in my eyes. What's the difference between the Bagon you hatched and the Bagon I hatched (assuming they've got comparable stats)? Nothing in particular except for the ball they come in, their OTs, and the location they were met. All these things have a certain allure for some people.

And I am unashamedly quite into the aesthetic value of having a Pokemon be in a certain ball. Like I caught a Staryu in a Dive Ball in RSE and it just looks so freakin' good in it (even though Staryu isn't a Dive-exclusive mon). I have a shiny Bagon I caught in a Premier Ball and the green and white just work well together for some reason. I'm currently catching all the Shadow Pokemon from XD so it's been on my mind because I've been pondering, what do I want to catch in what ball? What looks good in a Pokeball vs Great Ball and so on.
 
bdt2002 said:
I've been seeing some discussion here on aspects of the competitive and/or online multiplayer side of Pokémon, and while I'm probably never going to prefer multiplayer content over single player content on average, I do want to take a moment here to talk about what I believe to be a major discrepancy about game balance as a whole. My opinions all center around what I think is the most over-used word in competitive multiplayer- "broken". Seeing this word get thrown around a lot has always confused me since it's so difficult for players to come to a consensus agreement on if certain aspects of the game are "broken" or not. The definition I'm going to use for the purpose of this post involves when assets of the game are added at a later point that already existing assets were not designed with in mind. Let's take a look at some examples of commonly debated "broken" strategies in an effort to explain what I mean by that:

Baton Pass (Gens 2 onwards): Baton Pass is arguably the single most controversial move ever added to competitive Pokémon as a result of the near-infinite potential the move provides the Pokémon and team structures using the move. In theory, any Pokémon created without Baton Pass in mind can be "broken" via the use of Baton Pass, in the form of allowing these Pokémon access to benefits they would not otherwise have access to. Furthermore, well-constructed Baton Pass teams can include specific strategies within their team structure in an effort to protect an active Baton Pass chain from being broken.

Trapping Abilities (Gens 3 onwards): The third generation games added Abilities into the game for the first time, and while a number of the third generation's own Pokémon were created with the new mechanic in mind, many Pokémon were also given Abilities that have forever changed their play style and reputation in the competitive scene. Trapping abilities such as Arena Trap, Shadow Tag, and Magnet Pull immediately come to mind as additions to already existing Pokémon that invalidate a core aspect of Pokémon's competitive gameplay.

Generational Gimmicks (Gen 6 onwards): Admittedly, Mega Evolutions earn a bit of a pass here, as the new forms are specifically designed with their respective Pokémon in mind and as such do not do anything to "break" these Pokémon in theory. This is not to say that certain Mega Evolutions have not been perceived as overpowered in different metagames, though. Other generational gimmicks that function as a universal addition to the roster of Pokémon are a different story, however, as these gimmicks (Z-Moves, Dynamax, and Terastalizing) have been proven to push Pokémon designed without these gimmicks in mind over the edge. Z-Moves provide significantly improved offesnive potential to anything that can afford to use them, and both Dynamax and Terastalizing have provoked discussions of being banned from standard play entirely.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget another Ability can push any Pokémon over the edge.

Moody (Generation 5 onwards): This is the one Ability that can be considered as both broken and uncompetitive in Single metagames, and in-game since almost every battle is a Single Battle. A free +2 on a random stat boost for a measly -1 on another after every turn may seems innocent at a glance, but the +2 will eventually patch up the reduced stat while the -1 will never outpace the boosted stats. It is worse before Gen 8, where Accuracy and Evasion can also be changed through this Ability.

Even after Moody being unable to modify Accuracy nor Evasion from Gen 8 onwards, it is still too powerful, because now it can get any Pokémon too powerful, too fast and too bulky in fewer turns. It’s a wonder that the only Pokémon that was introduced laater than the fifth Generation that gets this as Hidden Ability is Scovillain.
 
Samtendo09 said:
Don’t forget another Ability can push any Pokémon over the edge.

Moody (Generation 5 onwards): This is the one Ability that can be considered as both broken and uncompetitive in Single metagames, and in-game since almost every battle is a Single Battle. A free +2 on a random stat boost for a measly -1 on another after every turn may seems innocent at a glance, but the +2 will eventually patch up the reduced stat while the -1 will never outpace the boosted stats. It is worse before Gen 8, where Accuracy and Evasion can also be changed through this Ability.

Even after Moody being unable to modify Accuracy nor Evasion from Gen 8 onwards, it is still too powerful, because now it can get any Pokémon too powerful, too fast and too bulky in fewer turns. It’s a wonder that the only Pokémon that was introduced laater than the fifth Generation that gets this as Hidden Ability is Scovillain.
Click to expand...
You’re right, how did I miss this? It’s even worse when you consider that the stat boosts you do accumulate are pretty much random, too. There are times when I feel you’d rather have a different Ability- Speed Boost comes to mind as a similar concept, but you and your opponent both know what stat is being boosted- but if you the player can make a legitimate argument for Pokémon like non-Mega Glalie, Scovillain, freaking Bidoof, et cetera being problematic in Ubers, there’s very clearly a problem here.

(At least the Bidoof family can’t use Moody and Simple at the same time. Now that sounds like torture.)
 
pokemon-memes-piplup-gif.gif
I See....
 
Freeze should've been replaced with Frostbite after Legends Arceus. That status was so much more balanced (Freeze has always been bullshit), it made sense flavour wise, and it would've given us the opportunity to have a move that just induces Frostbite a la Will o Wisp. We could've also had a Freeze Orb, giving Guts users an easier time since even if they lose their ability somehow they still don't get their Attack reduced.

Drowsy could be interesting too, though it would need some tweaking from its Legends Arceus incarnation.

XY are my least favourite mainline Pokemon games. To this day I couldn't name one gym leader or one location from it, and mega evolution was a decent idea but in game it was completely broken. While it did save some otherwise unviable Pokemon (Mawile, Kangaskhan and Pinsir come to mind), honestly I would've preferred them just having regular evolutions. Apart from the awesome champion theme, I can't recall any music from that game either off the top of my head.
 
ChrystalFalchion said:
Freeze should've been replaced with Frostbite after Legends Arceus. That status was so much more balanced (Freeze has always been bullshit), it made sense flavour wise, and it would've given us the opportunity to have a move that just induces Frostbite a la Will o Wisp. We could've also had a Freeze Orb, giving Guts users an easier time since even if they lose their ability somehow they still don't get their Attack reduced.

Drowsy could be interesting too, though it would need some tweaking from its Legends Arceus incarnation.

XY are my least favourite mainline Pokemon games. To this day I couldn't name one gym leader or one location from it, and mega evolution was a decent idea but in game it was completely broken. While it did save some otherwise unviable Pokemon (Mawile, Kangaskhan and Pinsir come to mind), honestly I would've preferred them just having regular evolutions. Apart from the awesome champion theme, I can't recall any music from that game either off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
Frostbite would make the game literally trash. Wisp can already make many MUs a 5v6, now you're gonna add moves to make that for the other side of the offensive spectrum?
 
ChrystalFalchion said:
Freeze should've been replaced with Frostbite after Legends Arceus. That status was so much more balanced (Freeze has always been bullshit), it made sense flavour wise, and it would've given us the opportunity to have a move that just induces Frostbite a la Will o Wisp. We could've also had a Freeze Orb, giving Guts users an easier time since even if they lose their ability somehow they still don't get their Attack reduced.

Drowsy could be interesting too, though it would need some tweaking from its Legends Arceus incarnation.
Click to expand...
The likely Will-o-Wisp equivalent is the main thing that keeps me from being enthusiastic about Frostbite. Burn is more often seen out of a Ghost type than an actual Fire type because the latter is rarely defensive enough to personally care about the attack drop and Ice mons already struggle with being overshadowed by other types carrying Ice moves. How symmetric answers to physical and special moves should be is probably also worth a discussion on its own.

I do think they should experiment with a persistent status that reduces defenses, but I also feel that there's too much built on Sleep to change it easily. Maybe that's what Frostbite should do instead of dropping SpA?
 
Ironmage said:
I do think they should experiment with a persistent status that reduces defenses, but I also feel that there's too much built on Sleep to change it easily. Maybe that's what Frostbite should do instead of dropping SpA?
Click to expand...
i do think it's a great idea to have frostbite reducing defenses and maybe even a chance of not moving like paralysis - it would justify the condition being much rarer than the others without it being basically a KO as it now
 
Fairy isn't even teething issues. Its design encompasses all the worst aspects of how Gamefreak tries to handle balance, especially when Dark and Steel in 1-2 was a very reasonable pair of additions at the time.
  • Fairy's Offensive profile. All 3 resistances it includes are weak to Ground, and 1 isn't even a good defensive type because of Stealth Rock and (possibly literally) 400 Water types. I always have concerns about "two move perfection" in coverage and GF made another one despite the defensive profile of Fairy ostensibly being about fixing some such combinations like Dark/Fighting and Dragon/Ground or Fire.
  • Which brings me to Defensive Profile.
    • Fairy literally only has two weaknesses, Poison and Steel. In theory this was to improve the offensive output of these types; in practice, it benefits Poison types running the type neutrally and kneecaps anyone else because their offensive coverage outside this type isn't good, but you need to deal with Fairies now.
    • The resist profile also seems tailor made to deal with the types troubling the Meta at the time, but then there's little to no flavorful type match-ups alongside those. Why are the Fair Folk resistant to Dark Types (Evil Type in JP) when most stories they're mischievous if not evil-themselves as tricksters? Why does Fire resist them but not deal SE damage in return? And personal peeve is the Bug resistance because shit on that type some more I guess
  • Flavorwise the type is used in a boring manner. It just kind gets tossed around to things that are cute and in some cases vaguely magical. Why are Comfey and Florges pure Fairy despite clearly working plants into their biology compared to Whimsicott as a retro case? Why is Dedenne a Fairy when it just looks like every Pika-clone ever? Why is Hoopa, based on a Genie/Djinn, one of the most infamously tricksy magical beings in pop-cultural fiction, a Psychic Type instead of Fairy?
It hits bad points from me on all 3 categories I look at a type through, essentially turning into the type it was supposed to suppress (Dragon) instead of rebalancing things like Dark and Steel managed in their debut Gens, while having unfun and sometimes incoherent theming.
 
I think Fairy's defensive profile is fine in a vacuum, it's intentionally trying to buff the two worst offensive types and nerf the strongest ones. The issue is that Poison and Steel still have two shortcomings that need to be addressed to boost their offensive potential: the first is stronger, more reliable moves, and the other is more good offensive Poison and Steel-types. Both types are well known for having a pretty strong defensive profile but a weak offensive profile, and most of the good Poison and Steel-types are designed as walls and support mons (prime examples being the infamous Ferrothorn and Toxapex). Meanwhile both types don't exactly have a lot of strong reliable offensive moves. Their most "reliable" physical moves are Poison Jab and Iron Head which are a modest 80 BP, and 100+ BP moves like Gunk Shot and Iron Tail are inaccurate. On the special side, Poison fortunately has Sludge Bomb/Wave, while Flash Cannon is okay as a Steel move, but typical Fairies tend to have a high Special Defense.

That creates some issues as far as using Poison and Steel as coverage is concerned but as far as STAB, there aren't a lot of good offensively oriented Poison or Steel-types out there which compounds the perceived issue. If there were, Fairies as a whole wouldn't be as strong in the grand overall environment. The list of good offensive Steels basically boils down to...Scizor, and not much else, Poison even less so.

Fairy's offensive profile is pretty strong but its perfect synergy with Ground is usually rarely able to be used by most Fairies themselves, and it's often rare to actually want to use Fairy moves as coverage on things that do use Ground moves. It's more prominent this gen because of Terastal but that's a different story.

Honestly I don't think Fairy is necessarily overpowered in a vacuum, it's just that the specific aspects it wants to address have more things and shortcomings that need to be covered. The type feels overpowered because it's given to a lot of good Pokemon with really good skillsets to use the type well, and having a strong roster of very good Pokemon elevates it.

Flavorwise, I've said it before, but it's only had four generations to really establish itself and there's still much more room to do more with it in the future. We're already starting to see some pretty cool Fairy designs in recent years with Hatterene, Grimmsnarl, and Tinkaton, and the most recent two generations have been pretty damn fun with Fairy designs. I'm sure we'll see more out there Fairy-types in the future.
 
pika pal said:
  • Fairy literally only has two weaknesses, Poison and Steel. In theory this was to improve the offensive output of these types; in practice, it benefits Poison types running the type neutrally and kneecaps anyone else because their offensive coverage outside this type isn't good, but you need to deal with Fairies now.
Click to expand...

My very strong Type Chart Take™ is that they should have made Poison super-effective against Water. Steel already received the Ghost/Dark nerf at the same time as Fairy being added, so it's not as if pre-existing type match-ups can't be altered - and on all counts, I think it would have been healthy for the game overall. It's thematically a perfect fit, so it wouldn't cause any major confusion or headache trying to wrap your head around the new match-up; of course the type associated with pollution is super-effective against water! Giving the Poison type two major offensive match-ups, while still being checked by the best defensive type in the game in Steel, puts it in a very unique anti-meta position and avoids being too strong or overwhelming. To me, it checks all the boxes for a good change.

Of course, game balance is a very sensitive thing, and it's understandable that GF wouldn't want to rock the boat any more than necessary. Any change you make is going to have a massive ripple effect on the way everything interacts with each other, and some rando on the internet certainly doesn't have a greater claim to understanding game balance than a professional game studio that designed the chart to begin with.
 
Just A Seaking said:
My very strong Type Chart Take™ is that they should have made Poison super-effective against Water. Steel already received the Ghost/Dark nerf at the same time as Fairy being added, so it's not as if pre-existing type match-ups can't be altered - and on all counts, I think it would have been healthy for the game overall. It's thematically a perfect fit, so it wouldn't cause any major confusion or headache trying to wrap your head around the new match-up; of course the type associated with pollution is super-effective against water! Giving the Poison type two major offensive match-ups, while still being checked by the best defensive type in the game in Steel, puts it in a very unique anti-meta position and avoids being too strong or overwhelming. To me, it checks all the boxes for a good change.

Of course, game balance is a very sensitive thing, and it's understandable that GF wouldn't want to rock the boat any more than necessary. Any change you make is going to have a massive ripple effect on the way everything interacts with each other, and some rando on the internet certainly doesn't have a greater claim to understanding game balance than a professional game studio that designed the chart to begin with.
Click to expand...
This is easily one of the best single changes you could make to the type chart imo. It's intuitive and seems very healthy for overall game balance plus it gives my beloved Empoleon another defensive niche

From an in-game perspective, though, I wonder if the devs have deliberately avoided giving any single type an offensive advantage against more than one starter type? I don't see any particular reason why that would be an issue, but their weaknesses have been kept pretty separate so far.
 
ScraftyIsTheBest said:
I think Fairy's defensive profile is fine in a vacuum, it's intentionally trying to buff the two worst offensive types and nerf the strongest ones. The issue is that Poison and Steel still have two shortcomings that need to be addressed to boost their offensive potential: the first is stronger, more reliable moves, and the other is more good offensive Poison and Steel-types. Both types are well known for having a pretty strong defensive profile but a weak offensive profile, and most of the good Poison and Steel-types are designed as walls and support mons (prime examples being the infamous Ferrothorn and Toxapex). Meanwhile both types don't exactly have a lot of strong reliable offensive moves. Their most "reliable" physical moves are Poison Jab and Iron Head which are a modest 80 BP, and 100+ BP moves like Gunk Shot and Iron Tail are inaccurate. On the special side, Poison fortunately has Sludge Bomb/Wave, while Flash Cannon is okay as a Steel move, but typical Fairies tend to have a high Special Defense.

That creates some issues as far as using Poison and Steel as coverage is concerned but as far as STAB, there aren't a lot of good offensively oriented Poison or Steel-types out there which compounds the perceived issue. If there were, Fairies as a whole wouldn't be as strong in the grand overall environment. The list of good offensive Steels basically boils down to...Scizor, and not much else, Poison even less so.

Fairy's offensive profile is pretty strong but its perfect synergy with Ground is usually rarely able to be used by most Fairies themselves, and it's often rare to actually want to use Fairy moves as coverage on things that do use Ground moves. It's more prominent this gen because of Terastal but that's a different story.

Honestly I don't think Fairy is necessarily overpowered in a vacuum, it's just that the specific aspects it wants to address have more things and shortcomings that need to be covered. The type feels overpowered because it's given to a lot of good Pokemon with really good skillsets to use the type well, and having a strong roster of very good Pokemon elevates it.

Flavorwise, I've said it before, but it's only had four generations to really establish itself and there's still much more room to do more with it in the future. We're already starting to see some pretty cool Fairy designs in recent years with Hatterene, Grimmsnarl, and Tinkaton, and the most recent two generations have been pretty damn fun with Fairy designs. I'm sure we'll see more out there Fairy-types in the future.
Click to expand...
I can't help but feel that Fairy's design of being anti-meta doesn't play well with Dexit. It needs enough mons around to both create a standard meta and have options to subvert it. Want an offensive Poison to break through? Shame you can't take Beedrill-mega, Nidoking, or Nihilego in gen 9. Want to still use Steel's great defensive profile without stacking weaknesses to an already good offensive type in Ground? There are only three Steel/Flying mons in existence, you better hope every game has at least one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top