Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 210

Thread: have the current game mechanics made competitive play less fun?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hidden Power View Post
    The existence of stat exp and IVs in generation I makes little difference in gameplay to most people since:

    1) Technology isn't as ubiquitous and advanced as what we have today. Sure, those mechanisms existed, but I'm between sure back in the 90s no one in my whole school would know anything about it. I didn't even send out my first E-mail until in like 2001, while kids who are at the age when I got my first Pokemon game can handle smartphones and google the basic stuff. It's a difference of not knowing at all v.s. knowing (because you will read or hear about it sooner or later) and actively ignoring it.

    2) There's little you could do to "customize" those stats. From the article on Bulbapedia it would seem that every Pokemon get the same stats exp as long as you train your Pokemon up, and when it comes to IVs there's no breeding; it's pretty much up to luck as to what you get from the wild. And I would guess that the 'websites' you're talking about served as an analysis of game codes rather than game guides for the average player. The impact of those mechanisms really matter when GF made the stats more variable than before while handing out more in-game tools to modify them, starting from Gen II and III.

    Generalizing the fact that some form of stats modifying mechanisms exists both in Gen I and later gens to assume that it makes no difference back then and now is a pretty narrow point of view.
    Congratulations. You are a technology literate 20-something year old and can easily find stuff like fan sites that explain these things. Similarly, children today are ignorant because they aren't on fan based sites. They aren't on computers unspervised often and do other things when they are on them.

    And even so, the knowledge that advance mechanics exist shouldn't be a mind blowing fact to anyone (they pretty much exist in any number of games), nor does it change anything in how one plays. There is never a point in the game where you are forced to chain breed for an egg move or catch a Pokemon with a certain nature with Synchronize or anything advanced like that. Just like 10+ years ago. Pokemon has largely stayed the same in how it treats advanced mechanics. They're there, and it is up to you the player if you want to use them or not.

    The original post is based on the premise that there are no advanced mechanics in the old games. That is false.

    As to your point: Regardless of how the exact stats are calculated between Gen I and II, why does that matter? Does the change in a mathmatic formula suddenly make it THAT much of a difference? Or is it still something that competitive players will seek out and everyone else can safely ignore?

    If anything, modern mechanics make it much easier for the casual player to understand the advanced mechanics and join in the advanced play if they want to. Rather than the games getting more grindy over time, it is now easier than ever to breed a decent Pokemon for a competition.
    Last edited by randomspot555; 17th April 2013 at 7:06 PM.
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    Congratulations. You are a technology literate 20-something year old and can easily find stuff like fan sites that explain these things. Similarly, children today are ignorant because they aren't on fan based sites. They aren't on computers unspervised often and do other things when they are on them.
    You're ignoring how the demographics of internet users have changed over the years, by assuming that kids of X age today are exposed to the same level of internet content as kids of the same age back in the 90s. They're not.

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    And even so, the knowledge that advance mechanics exist shouldn't be a mind blowing fact to anyone (they pretty much exist in any number of games), nor does it change anything in how one plays. There is never a point in the game where you are forced to chain breed for an egg move or catch a Pokemon with a certain nature with Synchronize or anything advanced like that. Just like 10+ years ago. Pokemon has largely stayed the same in how it treats advanced mechanics. They're there, and it is up to you the player if you want to use them or not.
    It isn't mind blowing per se, but it does irk players when they know they have the means to maximise the potential of their favorite Pokemon at the expense of time and perhaps, overall enjoyment of the game. Besides, which other game you speak of falls into the same category as Pokemon, which is a hybrid of RPG and pet raising game? Even if I were to go through the likes of Final Fantasy series with an in-depth guide to max out my character and basically do everything 100%, I do so with the mindset that that's the endpoint. For Pokemon it's a never ending process if you're into these mechanics, whenever you choose to train a new Pokemon.

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    The original post is based on the premise that there are no advanced mechanics in the old games. That is false.
    Congrats on winning an argument on the internet over technical grounds then.

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    As to your point: Regardless of how the exact stats are calculated between Gen I and II, why does that matter? Does the change in a mathmatic formula suddenly make it THAT much of a difference? Or is it still something that competitive players will seek out and everyone else can safely ignore?
    Uh, I'm think the maximum difference is 15 points per stats for a zero IV and max IV Pokemon in Gen I, assuming both Pokemon were trained without any specific means to level 100. Today we're looking at a difference of 31 IV, 64 points from manipulating EV spread to the desired stats and up to a 20% difference in stats with nature. Of course it makes a lot of difference. Just pick any Pokemon on Bulbapedia and look at its min/max for any stats.

    Even for the casual players, they would find themselves in a position where their Pokemon isn't "as strong as what everyone else says", simply because they grind too much at the wrong place with the wrong Pokemon.

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    If anything, modern mechanics make it much easier for the casual player to understand the advanced mechanics and join in the advanced play if they want to. Rather than the games getting more grindy over time, it is now easier than ever to breed a decent Pokemon for a competition.
    Pretty sure the 'mechanics' we're talking about has become more complex rather than simplified. What's simplified is the means to modify them: the ease of passing natures, IVs, training EVs etc. In fact I would think that Game Freak could have decided to shift Daycare to post-E4 in B2W2 so that players focus less on the breeding and more on the playing, at least during the main game.

    Since the OP's title was whether the mechanics have made competitive less fun, I'll just say that personally I have no time for those various manipulation in-game, especially when competitive play usually requires you to optimize your team with time and changes to the metagame rules, which is why I just use a battle simulator whenever I'm up for a bit of competitive fun. All it matters to the program is the min/max of each stats, just distribute the points and it's good to go.
    Last edited by Hidden Power; 17th April 2013 at 8:26 PM.
    The best evolutionary designs are brought about by a balance between change and consistency.
    Artwork by Piper Thibodeau. You can view more of her work here.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hidden Power View Post
    You're ignoring how the demographics of internet users have changed over the years, by assuming that kids of X age today are exposed to the same level of internet content as kids of the same age back in the 90s. They're not.
    I'm not ignoring that at all. The fact is they're still not going out and seeking out fan sites that explain in-depth mechanics. Laws and parental involvment typically prevent children under 13 from even signing up for a forum like this. I'm sure it isn't impossible that kids find out about them. But in my experience of having little cousins who play Pokemon and meeting their friends, they certainly are unaware of the deeper mechanics outside of anything that isn't explained in the game such as natures boosting stats, paralysis slowing down Speed, and the physical/special split.

    It isn't mind blowing per se, but it does irk players when they know they have the means to maximise the potential of their favorite Pokemon at the expense of time and perhaps, overall enjoyment of the game. Besides, which other game you speak of falls into the same category as Pokemon, which is a hybrid of RPG and pet raising game? Even if I were to go through the likes of Final Fantasy series with an in-depth guide to max out my character and basically do everything 100%, I do so with the mindset that that's the endpoint. For Pokemon it's a never ending process if you're into these mechanics, whenever you choose to train a new Pokemon.
    If you're narrowing games down to "hybrid RPG and pet raising", admittedly, you're limiting it a lot. If you expand it to any game that allows players to face eachother, there's tons that have hidden mechanics and a competitive scene that the casual player is ignorant of. Smash Bros has all types of strategies and mechanics that are abused and freeze framing and crazyness that the average player never even thinks about.

    Uh, I'm think the maximum difference is 15 points per stats for a zero IV and max IV Pokemon in Gen I, assuming both Pokemon were trained without any specific means to level 100. Today we're looking at a difference of 31 IV, 64 points from manipulating EV spread to the desired stats and up to a 20% difference in stats with nature. Of course it makes a lot of difference. Just pick any Pokemon on Bulbapedia and look at its min/max for any stats.
    Somehow I don't think the complaints of casual players would cease if the games reverted to Gen I mechanics. Gen I was hilariously bad when it comes to messed up mechanics, glitches not fixed, and so on. There's always going to be a degree of luck factor in Pokemon, but Gen I ranked it up a bunch.

    The complaint isn't "there's a bunch of variables and if there just a few less, I'd be good", it is that they exist at all and that an EV trianed Pokemon will always win against the starter they raised from level 5. This isn't an uncommon belief in Pokemon of playing it casually and "for fun" (though I hate using that term myself), and there's no shortage of people who play similarly that would be glad to battle other casual players.

    Even for the casual players, they would find themselves in a position where their Pokemon isn't "as strong as what everyone else says", simply because they grind too much at the wrong place with the wrong Pokemon.
    Then casual players in Pokemon should do what casual players do in Smash Bros and MArio Kart and every other game series of all time: Play with other casual players. There's a reason why junior varsity leagues don't play against NBA and NFL teams.

    Pretty sure the 'mechanics' we're talking about has become more complex rather than simplified. What's simplified is the means to modify them: the ease of passing natures, IVs, training EVs etc. In fact I would think that Game Freak could have decided to shift Daycare to post-E4 in B2W2 so that players focus less on the breeding and more on the playing, at least during the main game.
    You knew what I meant. It's easier now than ever to customize your Pokemon and bring out it's power. And just like 10 years ago, it is entirely optional and is never needed to do so or understand it to complete and enjoy the game.

    The focus has always been on the main game, regardless of the location of the Daycare.
    Last edited by randomspot555; 17th April 2013 at 8:38 PM.
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    688

    Default

    I see the need to separate Pokemon from other PvP games because of several fundamental differences. There's involvement of time and effort to build up a team, the game promotes a sense of ownership of the virtual companions who fight for you, and the battle mechanics pretty much excludes all form of manipulation except your decision making skills. This differs greatly from games like DotA, or Mario Kart, and ironically Pokemon battle simulators as well, because these games exclude variations in the 'potential' of your character/race car and move on straight to test your competitive skills, and the former two examples in particular depends on how good your reflexes are.

    And you would think that with all the RNGing or hacking to optimize Pokemon teams for all the official tournaments it would be easier if there's some sort of official battle simulator such that players 'create' their team and fight it out, while the program simply excludes 'impossible' set-ups, but that would not have been in the interest of Game Freak or the franchise, since they do want to encourage people to buy and play the games.

    The focus on the main game hasn't shifted, that I agree, but we're talking about competitive play here, which can be considered a post-game activity (unless someone decided to get themselves stuck before a gym just to train up a team of competitive Pokemon). If we're talking about casual players and how they could have not known about all these in-depth mechanics at all, the same could be said if such mechanisms did not exist; they wouldn't have noticed it. The mechanics to maximize your Pokemon's potential, which even though is easier nowadays, is still a hassle that most competitive player would just bypass by means of simulators, hacking and whatsnot because they have no value to competitive play.

    And honestly I don't get the term 'casual competitive'. Leagues exist because of the variation in how good you are (just like the various tiers in the metagame), not because the lower leagues are casual. Who doesn't play to win? And unfortunately there isn't exactly a clear-cut definition for casualness or some sort of league brackets for Pokemon.
    Last edited by Hidden Power; 17th April 2013 at 10:03 PM.
    The best evolutionary designs are brought about by a balance between change and consistency.
    Artwork by Piper Thibodeau. You can view more of her work here.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    This post is based on an assumption that no one knew about the mechanics in Gen I. This is false.
    I never made that assumption. I realized that advanced, more hidden mechanics existed since the very beginning. But it can't be denied that the percentage of people that knew about these advanced mechanics that existed in RBY back then is less than the percentage of people that know about them in DPP or BW2 now. And this increase in percentage of people that know about advanced mechanics such as EV's and IV's may very well be the difference between a "more fun" and a "less fun" competitive scene.

    Nothing has changed since Gen I. Advance mechanics existed and were known about then, and existed and are known about now. Just like then, they can still be ignored and are not required to know about to play the main game or play against other people.
    Yes, but the number of people that knew about these mechanics back then and the number right now are vastly different. Such a huge increase in this advanced mechanic knowledge means more people with the perfect team instead of just teams made as a result of experimentation, which leads to more monotony, which leads to "less fun".

    Of course, I don't agree with monotony automatically meaning less fun all on its own.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    4,293

    Default

    How some fans react to these "complicated mechanics".

    You are talking about Pokemon, which still markets to younger people. You could write essays about competitive battling, sure, but you could obsess that much about almost any substantial statistical multiplayer.

    Hoenn has disappointed.

    P.S. I get tired of complaints from great games.
    3DS friend code: 2148-8189-4401 (Rock Type) Nosepass/Pupitar/Barbaracle
    Dream Code: 5400-2204-6955

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

    So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.
    Last edited by SBaby; 1st May 2013 at 8:37 PM.
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    somewhere...
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SketchQueen View Post
    The talk about IV's and EV's and how they've existed since generation 1 is probably the result of a miscommunication. It's more like the discovery of these mechanics.
    that'a exactly what i meant.
    PM me if you want to battle! i'm always looking for a good battle!

    "strong pokemon. weak pokemon. that is only the selfish perception of people. real trainers try to win with their favorites." - karen

    black 2 national pokedex: 649/649

  9. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
    I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

    So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.
    This is me, totally me.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    The game mechanics don't really bother anymore since I'm using poke dit so it's really easy to make Pokemon with the best evs and ivs.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    ISS
    Posts
    819

    Default

    I understand the mechanics of the games though I do not battle competitively, I think the current mechanics are good and should stay with the possibility of them getting improved in future titles as it does make everything more complex, challenging and interesting

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    That way
    Posts
    6,778

    Default

    It's not that hard to understand EVs and all of that really. Personally I think the mechanics are find as they are and have made competitive play more fun but I wouldn't mind if they were changed in some way.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North east England, IT EXISTS!
    Posts
    553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
    I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

    So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.
    How's competitive battling in itself 'elitist'?

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Twinleaf Town
    Posts
    646

    Default

    I retired from competitive back at the beginning of 2012. Now I'm just looking for casual battles, but I still have all of my Pokemon, and occasionally use a few of them in my casual battles haha. I don't think it's less fun because of those things. I think competitive is less fun than the actual game itself because people take it too seriously.
    Within my lifetime, I've done a lot of walking. I started my journey walking on a little path called Route 1. Little did I know that walking down that route would lead me onwards to a road that went by the name of Victory. Just west of Victory Road, I walked up an entire mountain where atop stood a silent trainer who was one of the mightiest I had ever faced. I've walked, through sandstorms, across the hard desert of Hoenn. I've walked through pelting hail, across the snow covered terrains of Sinnoh. And now as I look back on all my travels I find myself walking across the Skyarrow Bridge of Unova. It took a lot of walking through tall grass patches to get where I am today...But it was worth the walk.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a bin.
    Posts
    117

    Default

    I understand what Nintendo and Gamefreak were thinking when they added competitive prospects ("competitive battling will appeal to older gamers too") but I've never been so good at it myself, so generally I just ignore it and beat the cr*p out of trainers anyway.


  16. #41

    Default

    People take the game seriously but that doesn't make it not fun. I think being serious is part of the fun because it's a challenge to overcome your opponent.

    Competitive battling is great right now. Nowadays people use ev's and iv's for all the pokemon games because it is a necessity. It plays a big part in the meta. A person without ev's and iv's will surely lose to a person with ev's and iv's assuming both players are equally good at competitive play.
    "If you're not going to lie, at least tell the truth."

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Dragon View Post
    How's competitive battling in itself 'elitist'?
    The word 'competitive' implies that you are competing, ie you are battling seriously. That in and of itself can be considered elitist in the same way that making anything else into a competition can be (reference Smash Bros), though there are more reasons than because of the meaning of one word. I don't want to be unfair and only use that word to illustrate the whole elitism thing.

    Here's a small sample of the reasons why it's elitist to me. In my experience (and right on this site many many times, for that matter), competitive battlers tend to think they're better than everyone else. Whenever someone criticizes an aspect of competitive battling (especially with Smogon-related things; no fooling, competitive battlers worship those people) even in a minor sense, they're confronted about it by the competitive battling crowd, like they're somehow the bad guy. Competitive battlers are really good at playing the victim. I've seen this right on this site. I've literally watched people that criticize competitive battling get chased off this site because of it.

    Another reason is the whole 'hardcore fan' thing. Hardcore fans of anything tend to act elitist, and you won't find a bigger forum for hardcore Pokemon fans than in the competitive battling section. Seriously, hardcore fans scare me. And I really wish you had been around here in 2006, because if you were you would probably know why.

    Those are just a couple examples. If I listed all the reasons why I consider it to be elitist, this would be a tl;dr post.

    Granted, there are some people that aren't like that, but not many. An overwhelming majority of competitive battlers act like that.
    Last edited by SBaby; 13th May 2013 at 1:39 AM.
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
    The word 'competitive' implies that you are competing, ie you are battling seriously.
    Are you not competing against the Bug Trainer on Route 1? They give you prize money if you win. You give them prize money if you lose.

    Here's a small sample of the reasons why it's elitist to me. In my experience (and right on this site many many times, for that matter), competitive battlers tend to think they're better than everyone else.
    Some people are jerks. Sorry, but that's life. That doesn't mean their activites make them jerks. That doesn't mean only jerks do those activities. It just means those are jokes who participate in an activity. Generalizing and stereotyping is not exactly a good way to make it seem like you are truly the victim and those other guys are bullies.

    I'm sorry some guy from some website was mean to you. That doesn't mean competitive battling is somehow inherently horrible and only attracts jerks, or that they "chase" people off of websites, or that they "attack" people in forums. In my observance, a lot of people here view a discussion involving other opinions and you know, discussion, as being "attacked".
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    Are you not competing against the Bug Trainer on Route 1? They give you prize money if you win. You give them prize money if you lose.
    No, you load the game when you lose. Not to mention, you're battling them to get them out of your way. Difference. Plus, you're not going to lose against an AI-controlled Bug Trainer, unless you're doing it deliberately. This is really grasping at straws to rationalize the concept of competitive battling.

    Understand that I personally have no problem with the actual concept of competitive battling. Other than a few aspects of it that I would personally change (such as introducing the idea that it's not true competitive battling if you ban moves or Pokemon that are used in-game; and this is what caused them to start bashing me and acting like they're better than me, by the way, which I had come to expect from the competitive battlers by that point). No, it's those kind of people you tend to see in that forum, and not the concept that I take the biggest issue with.


    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    Some people are jerks. Sorry, but that's life. That doesn't mean their activites make them jerks. That doesn't mean only jerks do those activities. It just means those are jokes who participate in an activity. Generalizing and stereotyping is not exactly a good way to make it seem like you are truly the victim and those other guys are bullies.

    I'm sorry some guy from some website was mean to you. That doesn't mean competitive battling is somehow inherently horrible and only attracts jerks, or that they "chase" people off of websites, or that they "attack" people in forums. In my observance, a lot of people here view a discussion involving other opinions and you know, discussion, as being "attacked".
    It was several people here, on this site, and it wasn't necessarily all to me personally. The only thing that was said to me here, was that I was 'ganging up on them', when I was bringing up criticisms of competitive battling. And the thing is, competitive battlers love to do exactly what you are doing here, with the whole 'generalizing' and 'stereotyping'. Whenever someone brings up the elitism of it, it's always 'stereotyping'. Though you may have done it inadvertainly (ie I don't think you're elitist), you've provided a classic textbook example of what I mean when I say they're good at playing the victim. Sorry, but they do this all the time, and it really just seems like an excuse they use to avoid having to defend their position.
    Last edited by SBaby; 13th May 2013 at 6:34 PM.
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    add me on kik winkface
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
    I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

    So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.
    Well then you call someone an "elitist" you're pretyt much warranting a negative reaction out of them.
    Maybe YOUR the elitist here. Your opinions on this matter sure are accusatory.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenotwapal View Post
    Well then you call someone an "elitist" you're pretyt much warranting a negative reaction out of them.
    Maybe YOUR the elitist here. Your opinions on this matter sure are accusatory.
    My 'opinions' on the matter are observations moreso than 'opinions'. But again, this is what I've come to expect, so I'm not surprised. My mention about elitism isn't something I simply 'decided' to use. A majority of competitive battlers act that way. Therefore, that must mean it is by in large elitist. Therefore, that is why I don't do competitive battling anymore.

    If this changes, then I might go back to it. But I don't foresee that happening.

    Again, I'm not saying it's everybody. But it's definitely a vast majority of them.
    Last edited by SBaby; 13th May 2013 at 9:36 PM.
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,484

    Default

    It is so such an elitist thing that they provide tutoring programs for those new to competitive battling to learn. Man, what a bunch of elitist jerks!

    I'm sure your interactions with like, 12 or 15 or 25 people or whatever, are totally representative of the thousands of people that participate in competitive battling on Wi-Fi, in simulators, and at official tournaments and are substantial to make factual statements such as those you've made.
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    It is so such an elitist thing that they provide tutoring programs for those new to competitive battling to learn. Man, what a bunch of elitist jerks!

    I'm sure your interactions with like, 12 or 15 or 25 people or whatever, are totally representative of the thousands of people that participate in competitive battling on Wi-Fi, in simulators, and at official tournaments and are substantial to make factual statements such as those you've made.
    You do realize that I have not once mentioned Smogon when talking about competitive battling on this topic, right? You should understand that this in and of itself is an accomplishment. No, what I'm talking about in this case are things that I've seen here, right on this site. So it really has relatively little to do with other forums or sites.

    Anyway, I was weighing whether or not I should respond to the rest of your remark, since said remark is purely speculative and not factual (not to mention you're really grasping at straws here, bringing tournaments into the argument to try and make it sound like you've got DNA evidence to argue my point). There is no way for you to tell how many competitive battles I've been in, because I've never told anybody how many competitive battles I've been in. But no matter what number I could conceivably give, I'm sure you'll try and discredit what I've said by bringing up things that quite frankly I really don't care about. Give up, seriously. It's an excercise in futility, and you're not going to convince me until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's changed. Instead, I'll say this much. I'm not the only person that views competitive battling in this manner.


    Anyway, getting back to the original topic at hand (since this has gone waaaaaaaaay off base). As far as whether or not I think the current game mechanics have made it less fun, I'm probably not the right person to ask this. It's probably better to ask people that are more involved in competitive battling, since they would have better input than I would regarding the matter.
    Last edited by SBaby; 13th May 2013 at 11:46 PM.
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    add me on kik winkface
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
    You do realize that I have not once mentioned Smogon when talking about competitive battling on this topic, right? You should understand that this in and of itself is an accomplishment. No, what I'm talking about in this case are things that I've seen here, right on this site. So it really has relatively little to do with other forums or sites.

    Anyway, I was weighing whether or not I should respond to the rest of your remark, since said remark is purely speculative and not factual (not to mention you're really grasping at straws here, bringing tournaments into the argument to try and make it sound like you've got DNA evidence to argue my point). There is no way for you to tell how many competitive battles I've been in, because I've never told anybody how many competitive battles I've been in. But no matter what number I could conceivably give, I'm sure you'll try and discredit what I've said by bringing up things that quite frankly I really don't care about. Give up, seriously. It's an excercise in futility, and you're not going to convince me until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's changed. Instead, I'll say this much. I'm not the only person that views competitive battling in this manner.


    Anyway, getting back to the original topic at hand (since this has gone waaaaaaaaay off base). As far as whether or not I think the current game mechanics have made it less fun, I'm probably not the right person to ask this. It's probably better to ask people that are more involved in competitive battling, since they would have better input than I would regarding the matter.
    This is a SEVERE case of the hypocrisy. You practically ooze it.

    Current Game mechanics have enhanced competitive play by the way.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    74

    Default

    I think that, disregarding minority extremes, the term 'elitist' referred to the average competitive battler is not incorrect. It's a little exaggerated, since the word has some negative connotations with it, negative connotations that are not fully shared by the average competitive battler, but, to an extent, that is what they are.

    Since a player starts off almost always as a casual player, going through the game sometimes with only a rudimentary grasp of strategy. Later on, after a few years of owning the game, it's natural for the person to develop better skills for the more tough challenges, and see themselves as better than they once were.

    This pattern continues for when they decide to test their skills against real people. They see themselves face people of equal and greater skills, and soon see their current tactics to be insufficient for the challenge. Thus, as they had done when facing, say, the Battle Frontier, they improve their strategy. And, as with the Battle Frontier, they end up considering themselves better players because of it.

    Just as we tend to look upon trainers who beat the game with an overleveled Charizard and see ourselves as better, with our more balanced and effective teams, with pity for their ignorance and a little condescension for us being 'better', so such competitive battlers tend to look upon those who build their teams with sweepers and don't use ultra-complex strategies with pity and condescension. While in this case there is something to be said for playing both styles, I can't begrudge the competitive battlers for feeling the way they do, seeing as we feel the same way towards another simpler style of playing.

    Also note that when I say 'we', I use it for the fanbase as a whole and I recognize that exceptions do exist, so there's no reason to speak up if, on those grounds, you feel differently from what I've stated.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •