Just wanted to post some opinions from the more "complex" discussions:
Smartphones Excuse:
First, major
UGH with the smartphone excuse again. Hey, GF, Masuda, if you're THAT worried about making a game that can't keep younger players interests that they want to play on their smartphone instead, have you ever thought that maybe the problem isn't with the game difficulty but rather it's WITH YOU and your design philosophy? Like, seriously, if you think Smartphones are that big of competition then why aren't YOU making a Smartphone games? Leave developing the main Pokemon games for the Nintendo Consoles to another team and/or developer (like Nintendo, Monolith Soft has been suggested on Smogon before, or another major developing studio) and lead a new team within GF that's focus is on Smartphone games. Not only is there PLENTY of ideas you can do with the Pokemon series, but you also wouldn't be tied down to the Pokemon series (heck, I think Little Town Hero wouldn't make for a bad Smartphone game series). Also, at this moment in time, people aren't really expecting that high end graphics on their phones so that's another one of your weaknesses you don't got to worry about.
Balance & Difficulty:
Would like to know what testing GF does to figure out at least levels of opponents. Actually, we'd also need to know what they considered "balance", cause I have a feeling it means "the player's Pokemon levels would be slightly higher than the opponents 99% of the time, maybe making the Champion battle more difficult with a sudden Level jump".
While we're on that, what do they also consider "increasing difficulty" means? Because it means more than just increasing Levels; you can keep the opponents at the same Level but make them more difficult by giving them better Movesets, better IVs/EVs, their Ability is useful/can be used, given a Held Item, and just in general making the AI smarter (possibly even have them switching if they figured they're at a disadvantage or have a Pokemon that would get an advantage). Oh, and it could also mean just giving the NPCs, who usually never have a full party, an extra Pokemon (and/or swapping their Pokemon for stronger species). Infact, I'd dare say, if the only thing you did was increase the Levels by a few, you didn't make things any more difficult.
Also, if you're worried about a player locking themselves into a difficulty that's "too hard" for them (or maybe "too easy"), here's a wild idea: in the Option menu let them switch difficulty levels. Like if you're going to make the games easy you obviously don't care how they beat the game.
Level Caps:
a problem especially with the idea of Level Capping in regards to EXP Share is that it would explicitly murder playstyle flexibility. Monotype runs would be dead in the water because they can't rely on a level advantage to compensate for a type disadvantage. Brute forcing with your starter would become impossible to do for those who wanna try that.
Yeah, level caps are utter BS. These are in Pokemon Radical Red, a ROM hack I've been playing recently, and they suck since they severely limit the options you can use to beat the current boss.
I still think Level Caps are a good idea if implemented correctly. Indeed, the issues both of you stated are problems that should be considered, but they're not issues which can't be worked around.
First, as
ScraftyIsTheBest suggested, having Level Caps being it's own additional Mode or Option would resolved some if not most of these issues. If a specialize run like Mono-Type or One Pokemon only isn't working out with Level Caps don't play it in that Mode (or, better yet, have it be something in the Option menu that can be turned on & off).
Second, the way I think Pokemon can do Level Caps is actually using mechanics they already have and use! Not sure how it's done in Radical Red, but putting a "hard limit" on Levels (whereas the Pokemon stops gaining Levels & possibly experience upon reaching the Level Cap) is a bad idea. Not only could it mean valuable Experience goes to waste but also completely stops the Pokemon from anyway of becoming stronger. No, in my opinion, Level Caps would use the Battle Facilities' Set Level mechanic. Upon reaching the Level Cap, the Pokemon's stats will be set as if it's always at that Level until Level Cap is increased (likely with getting the next Badge or whatever progress marker they're using). However, the Pokemon will still gain Levels. This is an important detail because this allows the Pokemon not only able to learn new & stronger Moves but also adds & adjusts EVs. Sometimes a Pokemon just needs a better Move and/or its EVs in the right stats to get the edge it needs to win. Heck, they could also allow a Pokemon's HP to keep on increasing (meaning only Atk, Def, SpA, SpD & Spe would be affected for Level Caps) if they really want to make sure the player won't get stuck with on a Level Cap run.
Also, balancing would be important. If a Pokemon for some reason needs overleveled stats to win just make sure then that no opponent has a Pokemon that goes above the Level Cap and is a few levels below it. If they have different game difficulties then maybe for the harder ones they can have important NPCs Pokemon go up to the Level Cap and maybe even go above it; but once again those difficulty modes would probably not be ones you'd play on for a Mono-Type or One Pokemon run.
Battle Frontier (& Expanded Battle Tower Expy):
~Hello Battle Frontier discussion my old friend. I've come to talk about you once again.~
Fine, making an ENTIRE Battle Frontier is decided to no longer be a viable use of resources. But that doesn't mean you can't do any unique battling modes, just add them to the Battle Tower Expy! You could even still create unique trainers for each one, they'd all just share the same location and only appear as the final boss when going through their specialized style. With a little bit of work even the previous non-explorative Battle Facilities could be fitted into the Battle Tower expy:
- Factory/Gateway/Rentals: Well, they've actually now included rental teams, but for how the Battle Factories did it all they would need to do would just let the player swap one of their Pokemon with the opponent they just defeated.
- Arena: After 3 turns the battle is judged, don't even need to put up a special graphic though a simple one would give it some visual flair.
- Dome: Only thing you gotta show is the tourney match-up results graphic.
- Pike: This is technically an explorative one BUT I think can simply be recreated. Breaking it down to its VERY basics, it's just providing a player with a choice of 3 options, the Pikes presented it as 3 doors each leading down a hallway, but it could just be as easy as a Trainer asking to pick either A, B, & C and telling them the result of their choice (then either letting them pass to the next opponent or having a battle). Obviously would hope it would be more interesting then that, but that is the basics of it and can be recycled to something which wouldn't involve picking doors each leading to a different hallway.
- Palace: This is just about the Pokemon's Nature deciding on what moves it uses on its own. Regardless how you feel about it, you can't argue it's a simple one that can be includede.
- Arcade: The only graphic you'll need is the spinner.
- Castle: No graphic needed, but rather a "Point" counter and having an NPC that you can trade in these points with for Items and other advantages before you start the next streak.
- Hall: The only graphic you'll need is the Type Board.
- The way Battle Revolution did their gimmicks with minimal graphics when needed is a good example as well.