Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 134

Thread: Thoughts on the Upcoming Pokemon Switch Game?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    The turn-based battle system has been a part of Pokemon for over 2 decades. Changing it now may alienate older fans, especially competitive players.
    That's why I suggested keeping the old system for single and double battles, but invoke a new turn-based battle system for triple, quadruple, quintuple, and maybe even sextuple battles. You're never going to get quadruple battles or beyond working in the old system without any kind of positioning effects, the field just becomes too wide.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wherever the adventure lies
    Posts
    11,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrinceOfFacade View Post
    Let's not go over to the deep end and assume any change to the battle system means a totally different one. To clarify, let's just list the things that would never be affected even if real time battling was to be hypothetically implemented:

    - Type match ups would not be affected
    - Stats would not affected
    - Attack categories would not be affected
    - Attack formulas would not be affected
    - Entry hazards would not be affected
    - Weather effects would not be affected

    The only thing that would actually be affected by a real time battle system are status ailments, which depend on the turn based system to trigger infliction, but we all know real time battling isn't going to happen, so let's not freak out.


    Now, in the case of the Active Time Battle system I mentioned earlier, turn based movement is not lost, and the real time aspect applies mostly to NPC opponents. Now, while the player's turn activates as soon as a decision is made, this doesn't necessarily carry over into PvP battles. Basically, the meta people are stating would be ruined would likely not even be touched, even if it were to be, it wouldn't be enough to destroy current strategies.


    So, let's just relax on that. Nothing is happening to the meta.
    The issue with switching to real time has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the mechanics. In fact, you could apply those mechanics to multiple different genres and gameplay styles. The issue is that the different battling styles is with how the fighters take damage. Turn based battling is more cerebral, you have to take whatever your opponent is doing and so you have to plan around that. Whereas with real time you can dodge, block, or counter your opponents so it's more reflex based. If you switched from turn based to real time you'll lose players that like/are good at the planning ahead and hate/aren't good with reflexes. Imagine if you tried to turn chess into a LARP, you got rid of the turns in that game and the different pieces could move anytime they wanted. Then the game becomes more a matter of athleticism than careful scheming and the game would lose its identity and turn people off who aren't athletic. It's the same with Pokemon going from turn based to real time, even though mechanically it'd be mostly the same, it wouldn't feel the same because the two styles require completely different skills to be successful. So again, it'd be better to address this with a spinoff than the main game.
    Quote Originally Posted by LizardonX View Post
    Tabitha has really let himself go, just how many lava cookies did he eat in the last 11 years?

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt the Cat View Post
    The issue with switching to real time has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the mechanics. In fact, you could apply those mechanics to multiple different genres and gameplay styles. The issue is that the different battling styles is with how the fighters take damage. Turn based battling is more cerebral, you have to take whatever your opponent is doing and so you have to plan around that. Whereas with real time you can dodge, block, or counter your opponents so it's more reflex based. If you switched from turn based to real time you'll lose players that like/are good at the planning ahead and hate/aren't good with reflexes. Imagine if you tried to turn chess into a LARP, you got rid of the turns in that game and the different pieces could move anytime they wanted. Then the game becomes more a matter of athleticism than careful scheming and the game would lose its identity and turn people off who aren't athletic. It's the same with Pokemon going from turn based to real time, even though mechanically it'd be mostly the same, it wouldn't feel the same because the two styles require completely different skills to be successful. So again, it'd be better to address this with a spinoff than the main game.
    It seems you did not fully read the post of mine you quoted, because in that post I was mainly discussing the Active Time Battle system, and rejected real time battling as a possible outcome in that same post.

    If you'd like to voice your opinions on Pokémon having a system similar to Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system, I'm all ears, but I thought we've all agreed real time battling is not happening. There's no need to debate about that system any longer.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Making the Switch game have a real time battling system would make Pokken worthless. Why port Pokken to the Switch and support it with DLC when the main series is going to be similar?
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wherever the adventure lies
    Posts
    11,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrinceOfFacade View Post
    It seems you did not fully read the post of mine you quoted, because in that post I was mainly discussing the Active Time Battle system, and rejected real time battling as a possible outcome in that same post.

    If you'd like to voice your opinions on Pokémon having a system similar to Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system, I'm all ears, but I thought we've all agreed real time battling is not happening. There's no need to debate about that system any longer.
    I mean, I haven't played Final Fantasy so I don't know a whole lot about its ATB system, but it doesn't really sound like a good compromise because you don't really have full control over the Pokemon. It just sounds like turn based with more loosely defined turns. If I wanted a real time battling system, I'd want to be able to run around and fire off attacks whenever I want like you can in Pokken and Pokepark. If somehow you can do that with the ATB, then fine, but I don't think you can really reconcile that with the turn based systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by LizardonX View Post
    Tabitha has really let himself go, just how many lava cookies did he eat in the last 11 years?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt the Cat View Post
    I mean, I haven't played Final Fantasy so I don't know a whole lot about its ATB system, but it doesn't really sound like a good compromise because you don't really have full control over the Pokemon. It just sounds like turn based with more loosely defined turns. If I wanted a real time battling system, I'd want to be able to run around and fire off attacks whenever I want like you can in Pokken and Pokepark. If somehow you can do that with the ATB, then fine, but I don't think you can really reconcile that with the turn based systems.
    You would have no control over NPC characters in battles, which is already the case in Pokémon, where you cannot control an ally's pokemon, even in Multi Battles.

    Basically, in the story, your allies and opponents move more freely, against the turn-based system you still follow. Transferring that to PvP battles, since players always follow the turn-based system, the concept would not be lost. Therefore, with ATB, the real time component applies only to NPCs, who are mostly foes.

    The ATB system is designed to increase intensity, difficulty, and strategy in battles. It requires you think faster and form strategies in less time, because the foe won't wait until you've made a decision to attack.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wherever the adventure lies
    Posts
    11,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrinceOfFacade View Post
    You would have no control over NPC characters in battles, which is already the case in Pokémon, where you cannot control an ally's pokemon, even in Multi Battles.

    Basically, in the story, your allies and opponents move more freely, against the turn-based system you still follow. Transferring that to PvP battles, since players always follow the turn-based system, the concept would not be lost. Therefore, with ATB, the real time component applies only to NPCs, who are mostly foes.

    The ATB system is designed to increase intensity, difficulty, and strategy in battles. It requires you think faster and form strategies in less time, because the foe won't wait until you've made a decision to attack.
    That would probably do more harm than good then. The only thing it would really satisfy would be the people who want more of a challenge, the casuals and the players who want real time battling probably wouldn't enjoy that system. The casuals don't really pay attention too much so they'd end up punished and the players who want real time battling want to be able to do it themselves, not simply to battle NPCs that can.
    Quote Originally Posted by LizardonX View Post
    Tabitha has really let himself go, just how many lava cookies did he eat in the last 11 years?

  8. #83
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrinceOfFacade View Post
    You would have no control over NPC characters in battles, which is already the case in Pokémon, where you cannot control an ally's pokemon, even in Multi Battles.

    Basically, in the story, your allies and opponents move more freely, against the turn-based system you still follow. Transferring that to PvP battles, since players always follow the turn-based system, the concept would not be lost. Therefore, with ATB, the real time component applies only to NPCs, who are mostly foes.

    The ATB system is designed to increase intensity, difficulty, and strategy in battles. It requires you think faster and form strategies in less time, because the foe won't wait until you've made a decision to attack.
    This system will punish and alienate casuals. This is not a good battle system.
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  9. #84

    Default

    I feel like people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think the battling system is going to change; I don't see it changing. I don't really have any high hopes for this game especially if it's coming out this year since it just feels like gamefreak is rushing to get it released for the money, which will probably make the quality of the game suffer.
    ~Tier lists are annoying~

    ~Biggest DP fan...apparently ~

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokegirl Fan~ View Post
    I feel like people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think the battling system is going to change; I don't see it changing. I don't really have any high hopes for this game especially if it's coming out this year since it just feels like gamefreak is rushing to get it released for the money, which will probably make the quality of the game suffer.
    I'm personally content with any battle system, as I enjoy different kinds; thus I am completely content with the current system remaining.

    My one hope and expectation is the inception of third person view. It's about time they got rid of the constant shift in angles. It's annoying and very unnecessary. Other than that, I'm basically fine with whatever else they do.

    I simply feel there is a chance the battle system could see a shift. It certainly won't be anything drastic, but I do see it happening. As I've stated before, if these last few years of Pokémon have taught anything, it's to expect the unexpected.


    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    This system will punish and alienate casuals. This is not a good battle system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt the Cat View Post
    That would probably do more harm than good then. The only thing it would really satisfy would be the people who want more of a challenge, the casuals and the players who want real time battling probably wouldn't enjoy that system. The casuals don't really pay attention too much so they'd end up punished and the players who want real time battling want to be able to do it themselves, not simply to battle NPCs that can.
    Let's not act like there will be massive uproar and a drop in sales. Even with all the past complaints, Pokémon remains the second biggest selling video game franchise of all time, behind only Mario. Not even USUM will be enough to keep people from buying the Switch title when it releases. Hell, the game is likely to attract more buyers than before. I do get that any change in the battle system will result in dissatisfaction from a good batch of players, but let's be realistic:

    - Most of the fans who play Pokémon today have been playing for nearly or over 20 years.
    - Most of the fans who play Pokémon today have played many kinds of RPGs, and are well familiar with different types of battle systems.
    - Most of the fans who would be upset with a change in the battle system will move passed it before the game is even released.
    - Most of the fans who would be upset with a change in the battle system will still play the Switch title for other reasons.
    - The amount of players who would elect not to purchase the Switch title due to a change in the battle system will not nearly be enough to impact sales.

    I cannot think of too many players who would be so upset with a change in the battle system that they would just flat out reject the game or series entirely. I honestly doubt either of you two would flat out reject the game for that reason. I mean, seriously. If learning a new battle system is that upsetting for you, I don't even know what say.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrinceOfFacade View Post
    I'm personally content with any battle system, as I enjoy different kinds; thus I am completely content with the current system remaining.

    My one hope and expectation is the inception of third person view. It's about time they got rid of the constant shift in angles. It's annoying and very unnecessary. Other than that, I'm basically fine with whatever else they do.

    I simply feel there is a chance the battle system could see a shift. It certainly won't be anything drastic, but I do see it happening. As I've stated before, if these last few years of Pokémon have taught anything, it's to expect the unexpected.






    Let's not act like there will be massive uproar and a drop in sales. Even with all the past complaints, Pokémon remains the second biggest selling video game franchise of all time, behind only Mario. Not even USUM will be enough to keep people from buying the Switch title when it releases. Hell, the game is likely to attract more buyers than before. I do get that any change in the battle system will result in dissatisfaction from a good batch of players, but let's be realistic:

    - Most of the fans who play Pokémon today have been playing for nearly or over 20 years.
    - Most of the fans who play Pokémon today have played many kinds of RPGs, and are well familiar with different types of battle systems.
    - Most of the fans who would be upset with a change in the battle system will move passed it before the game is even released.
    - Most of the fans who would be upset with a change in the battle system will still play the Switch title for other reasons.
    - The amount of players who would elect not to purchase the Switch title due to a change in the battle system will not nearly be enough to impact sales.

    I cannot think of too many players who would be so upset with a change in the battle system that they would just flat out reject the game or series entirely. I honestly doubt either of you two would flat out reject the game for that reason. I mean, seriously. If learning a new battle system is that upsetting for you, I don't even know what say.
    You can't speak for everyone (or most people anyway). Don't state assumptions like they're facts.
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    186

    Default

    I am not buying a Full on console to play Pokemon anything.

    That is all.
    Living Bank/Dex complete.

    Campions beaten: Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, Kalos, and Alola.

    Shiny Collection: ,654,694,716,717,769

  13. #88

    Default

    Honestly after reading the last couple of pages I choose to admit no matter what we discuss, suggest, or speculate it's up to Game Freak to develop the game. The truth is we don't know what the Switch will offer the Pokemon series...

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    You can't speak for everyone (or most people anyway). Don't state assumptions like they're facts.
    That wasn't an assumption; it was an acknowledgement of repeated history.

    No matter how much we complain, we still buy the games, because we are still psyched to see what the next installment has to offer. Even I, as critical as I am, have been guilty of that on more than one occasion.

    This game could end up being far different than any of its predecessors, or end up being just like them, and we would still play it. Why? Because we are Pokémon fans. You couldn't even avoid the game to spite me, mate. We are all excited for this game accept for Vroomer apparently, regardless of our complaints, so let's not fill ourselves with the notion that if the Switch title is 'too different,' doom will ensue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomer View Post
    I am not buying a Full on console to play Pokemon anything.

    That is all.
    Speaking of Vroomer, does that mean this is the end of Pokémon for you? If so, why the decision?

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default

    If they change the Battlesystem they will perhaps let you toggle it.

    Standard for "Story Battles" is Real Time.
    Standard for Multiplayer is Turn based.

    In the Options you can toggle between Real Time and Turn based for the Story. Real Time Battles could be a new Battle Mode for the Multiplayer.

    So it would be the same Battlesystem just with a faster pace, I think Story Fights that usually aren't really difficult would benefit from that. For the Multiplayer it could be a new fun way to play but they shouldn't kill the more strategic "think before your move" (Poke Chess) style of battle.

    Whatever you do GameFreak, just make sure you copy that Attacks directly on the Facebuttons (A/B/X/Y) from Xenoblade 2. No more Menu clicking.
    Last edited by SuperTentacle; 12th February 2018 at 10:15 AM.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperTentacle View Post
    If they change the Battlesystem they will perhaps let you toggle it.

    Standard for "Story Battles" is Real Time.
    Standard for Multiplayer is Turn based.

    In the Options you can toggle between Real Time and Turn based for the Story. Real Time Battles could be a new Battle Mode for the Multiplayer.

    So it would be the same Battlesystem just with a faster pace, I think Story Fights that usually aren't really difficult would benefit from that. For the Multiplayer it could be a new fun way to play but they shouldn't kill the more strategic "think before your move" (Poke Chess) style of battle.

    Whatever you do GameFreak, just make sure you copy that Attacks directly on the Facebuttons (A/B/X/Y) from Xenoblade 2. No more Menu clicking.
    I don't think that there will be a toggle. I think that if real time battling is in the game then it will be the only battle style in the game.
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1

    Default

    First off, this is my first post. Been lurking this site ever since I was a youngin' in grade school (probably about 7 or so years) so I figured I'd air out my thoughts on a topic that's been rattling in my head since I heard the news of a true-to-handheld version coming to the Switch!

    Anyways, I know I'm a little late to this thread but I'm going to throw out a bunch of my hopes for Pokemon on the Switch!

    First off, I don't see battling mechanics going anywhere. The special/physical split was a huge investment on GF's part and already with Z-moves, Mega-evos and items, players are likely still being side-swiped by competitive builds. On the other hand, I hope battle scenes are a little more open. IE; when Ash and Co. are battling it's always in an open field or designated battle area. I hope this is something they could introduce with the Switch capabilities. This could lend itself to nice gathering areas for trainers and such in whatever online capacity this game holds. Players could ban together online, interact with eachother in real time and go head-to-head just like in the series. Bring our pokemon and our adventures to life, GF!

    In addition, real-time movement could be a fun gimmick in-game even if it had no affect on combat. You could move your pokemon anywhere you would like at whatever time in battle but either way, Pikachu will still hit you with a TB or charge at you across the battlefield with a quick attack, or whatever 4-moves the trainer has determined.

    More open-worlded-ness. This goes hand-in-hand with open field combat. GF has already created fairly expansive games on a glorified SD card, I have no fear they will short us out on expanding areas or seemingly never-ending routes between towns. We know they will try to hold our hands up to the E4 or whatever this game possesses (please bring back gyms or trial/gym/contest combination) - but this could vastly improve post-game content if they just opened barricades or constructed various towns by the end of the heroes journey, expanding casual, young, and veteran poke-gamer's adventure without connection to WiFi.

    Considering WiFi, I wish for something open-ended. I don't want to go online to only be able to trade randomly or lock myself into a battle arcade. In (hopefully!) 2019, we should be able to walk around and interact with whoever we please, sporting our poke-outfits, and talk amongst eachother as well as a more formal-feeling way to getting eachother's FC. WE should be able to decide who we want to trade with, battle with, exchange items with, INTERACT with. Of course, I love Wonder-Trade and maybe they could implement a station or building just for that, in addition to other current Online functions. For instance, a bunch of trainers walk into an expansive room and auction off their unwanted poke's for something different, like the current system, but just a little more interactive and alive, and you get the same exact gambles.

    In all reality, post-game content could all be tied with Wifi, and that would be cool with me. Maybe a main gathering town that everyone transports to when entering Online Connection, surrounded with open-areas to hunt pokemon with revolving area types and species to catch..? Also, I truly hope there is some co-op service for community-minded gamers. Find a few trainers who shares your battling values or poke-contestant grit? Ask them to become a Team! from there, you and up to whatever-amount of players GF allows, can train together, pull double battles together (like in a double, you and your friend/rival send out one poke each to control against 2 other pokemon from 1 trainer, 2, or hyuck, even 6 trainers/wild pokemon).

    As much as I love training a pokemon to lvl 100, I equally hate Base Stat Values. Sure, it's good to have a meta, but I should be able to feel like Ash with my super-trained Pikachu taking down seemingly mighty foes. Maybe make the lvl100 a soft-cap. Afterwards, exp is capped at lvl100 exp value, but trainers can still earn experience to boost a pokemon's stat afterwards similar to the current EV method. Youngster Joey could throw out a lvl.119 Rattata, and could have been specifically training it in ATK to really make it's Quick Attack hurt. This could make EV-training fun, or totally reinvent the mechanic with the idea of further increasing any pokemon's value to truly make it competitive (looking at you BUG/FLYING "losers"). If I want a Butterfree to have a fighting chance against a Giratina, I should be able to if I put the time and effort into it. THIS would be truly revolutionary for Pokemon.

    Basically, I want Pokemon Switch to feel more alive. I've been playing Pokemon since Red on original Gameboy, so I guess you could say it's in my blood. I could care-less if they introduce new species, especially if I can make my JPN Stantler a force to be reckoned with for once. Also, GameFreak, please hire me!

    Thoughts?

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    England
    Posts
    13

    Default

    There's no way they're gonna go over the level 100 cap but some sort of level scaling would be good, especially if you could rebattle trainers in the aftergame that have levels to match your own.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Changing the game too much (like changing the battle system) may alienate players who cannot adapt to the changes.
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    Changing the game too much (like changing the battle system) may alienate players who cannot adapt to the changes.
    The question is must ask is, what would prevent them from being able to adapt?

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    Changing the game too much (like changing the battle system) may alienate players who cannot adapt to the changes.
    But forsaking change just out of fear of alienating customers also means you can't get progress or improvement at all. The current battle system is twenty years old and was fine for the Game Boy games, but let's be honest, it's horribly outdated by today's standards for what is supposed to be the main pokémon series and such an enormous franchise. Competitive battling is in a bad state right now because it's dominated by hacking (seriously, just take a look at the trade forums here and see how many people are trading hacked pokémon) and single battles just lack creative possibilities so that most teams are just Landorus + Mega Salamence / Mega Charizard + Mimikyu + Tapu of choice + Heatran. It's just naďve to suggest the battle system is actually in a good place right now when half the teams are the same hacked teams. Take a look at the Pokémon Global Link and pull up stats. 38% of Ho-Oh in the Special Rating Battles run Z-Celebrate, which is a shiny Japanese-only event move from a specific pokémon centre opening (so not even feasible for a lot of Japanese players to get) from ORAS when Celebrate didn't do anything, so not that many people actually kept that move on it back in the day. You can't convince me that there're still so many legit Celebrate Ho-Oh out there. And half of the Ho-Oh are Regenerator, so barely any Ho-Oh left (about 12%) that are actually caught in the game. 21% of Stakataka run Lonely for the Attack Beast Boosts, but to do that you need a very specific IV combination which is 1 in 5000+ odds together with the (Synchronized) nature. You can't convince me that so many people soft-reset for weeks upon weeks on their Stakataka spawns just to get the attack beast boosts. Hacking dominates competitive battling and it ruins it in favour of actual creativity, inventiveness, and skill.

    My opinion of course, but I think the a large portion of the people you'd chase off are the hackers that don't add anything to the competitive scene anyway besides the same old hacked teams. Let them go back to Showdown or something. I think the Pokémon Company and GameFreak need to make a decision. Either keep things going the way they are and tolerate hacking and hacked pokémon the same way they've done until now, or actually get some change going and perhaps actually get some real competitive battling going where skill and creativity matter more than hacking in the event moves and the odd nature. That doesn't have to mean real-time battling, but it does mean changing it up somehow.
    Last edited by Sceptile Leaf Blade; 13th February 2018 at 5:44 PM.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sceptile Leaf Blade View Post
    But forsaking change just out of fear of alienating customers also means you can't get progress or improvement at all. The current battle system is twenty years old and was fine for the Game Boy games, but let's be honest, it's horribly outdated by today's standards for what is supposed to be the main pokémon series and such an enormous franchise. Competitive battling is in a bad state right now because it's dominated by hacking (seriously, just take a look at the trade forums here and see how many people are trading hacked pokémon) and single battles just lack creative possibilities so that most teams are just Landorus + Mega Salamence / Mega Charizard + Mimikyu + Tapu of choice + Heatran. It's just naďve to suggest the battle system is actually in a good place right now when half the teams are the same hacked teams. Take a look at the Pokémon Global Link and pull up stats. 38% of Ho-Oh in the Special Rating Battles run Z-Celebrate, which is a shiny Japanese-only event move from a specific pokémon centre opening (so not even feasible for a lot of Japanese players to get) from ORAS when Celebrate didn't do anything, so not that many people actually kept that move on it back in the day. You can't convince me that there're still so many legit Celebrate Ho-Oh out there. And half of the Ho-Oh are Regenerator, so barely any Ho-Oh left (about 12%) that are actually caught in the game. 21% of Stakataka run Lonely for the Attack Beast Boosts, but to do that you need a very specific IV combination which is 1 in 5000+ odds together with the (Synchronized) nature. You can't convince me that so many people soft-reset for weeks upon weeks on their Stakataka spawns just to get the attack beast boosts. Hacking dominates competitive battling and it ruins it in favour of actual creativity, inventiveness, and skill.

    My opinion of course, but I think the a large portion of the people you'd chase off are the hackers that don't add anything to the competitive scene anyway besides the same old hacked teams. Let them go back to Showdown or something. I think the Pokémon Company and GameFreak need to make a decision. Either keep things going the way they are and tolerate hacking and hacked pokémon the same way they've done until now, or actually get some change going and perhaps actually get some real competitive battling going where skill and creativity matter more than hacking in the event moves and the odd nature. That doesn't have to mean real-time battling, but it does mean changing it up somehow.
    That's called a metagame. Just about every competitive video game has one.
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    That's called a metagame. Just about every competitive video game has one.
    You're missing the point of my post though. The battle system is so simple that simply hacking in a team with powerful pokémon is rewarding enough over actually using skill and creativity with other pokémon to such a degree that a very significant amount of the pokémon used competitively are illegal, and I am expressing my dislike over that situation.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    The battle system doesn't have to be complex. It would alienate children and casuals and cause a decrease in sales.
    I'm a young boy with a lot to prove.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RileyXY1 View Post
    The battle system doesn't have to be complex. It would alienate children and casuals and cause a decrease in sales.
    For one, the majority of current main series players are teenagers and adults, not children.

    Two, the casual players are the ones who are most likely to to adapt, and by choice. It's the competitive players who would be distraught, for they would have to learn the ins and outs of the new system to play competitively.

    Three, there are far more casual players than competitive. Thus, there won't be anything close to a decrease in sales. As I've said before, the mere fact that it is a main series game on home console is enough to increase sales, bringing in new players to the series.

Page 4 of 6 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
  •