IceDoesntHelp
Banned
Pre-ordered Y, will probably pre-order X down the road.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pokémon Community Thread 3: "Soon, All of Hoenn Will Be Under Its Withering Glare "
- Thread starter UltimateIke
- Start date
If you can't tell why it's a flaw in the design, how it's a barrier to entry, nor see any alternatives to what IVs are supposed to do, then you're really not very familiar with the game and I don't see any reason to continue this conversation.
I honestly think this is the best box art in quite some time.
Y > X. #TeamY #XSUX
This looks like it needs some captions
I love how smooth and charming that model looks even when close up. I especially like their attention to the detail in the eyes.
I admit I used clones of legitimate Pokémon I downloaded using a GTS spoofing site. That doesn't give me any advantage over just trading for them normally, though (and it's much quicker). Would you also consider using cloned Pokémon cheating, if they're otherwise identical to a Pokémon found in-game?
"GET OUT"
This looks like it needs some captions
"GET OUT"
The bolded part really made me laugh. Thanks, needed something to cheer me up since I'm ill today
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
tiggerkiddo
Member
Politoed is clearly the superior frog/toad.
Soodanim
Member
JoeM86, I'm with Firestorm. If I consider playing competitively online, but realise that despite how good I might be I could lose matches based on random, invisible (until a certain point) set of stats that will take double digit hours of breeding and luck to get around, then I'm going to say "Well forget that then". It takes long enough to find the desired pokemon (encounter rates), with the nature and ability; then EV train, then level a pokemon. That's a fair amount of work. So why is it necessary for there to be another hurdle to jump? Especially when you can't tell whether or not you cleared the hurdle until you've already landed and carried on running.
Yeah, you can say it's how it's designed, and it is how the game was designed until now. TMs were single-use until gen 5, because that's how it was designed. But they changed that. EVs are going to be much easier to manage in gen 6. Lucky eggs were rare as fuck, but in gen 5 they changed that, because it's nice to be able to level things quicker than a snail's pace. A lot of things change because the games, the platforms, and the way we play games have changed since GB/GBA days. Playing online and in tournaments will only get more common as time goes on, and if they want to discourage people from needing to cheat then I think IVs being taken out is a good place to start.
Yeah, you can say it's how it's designed, and it is how the game was designed until now. TMs were single-use until gen 5, because that's how it was designed. But they changed that. EVs are going to be much easier to manage in gen 6. Lucky eggs were rare as fuck, but in gen 5 they changed that, because it's nice to be able to level things quicker than a snail's pace. A lot of things change because the games, the platforms, and the way we play games have changed since GB/GBA days. Playing online and in tournaments will only get more common as time goes on, and if they want to discourage people from needing to cheat then I think IVs being taken out is a good place to start.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
IVs are an absolutely terrible system, though. All of the games spend their time saying "it's not about weak Pokemon or strong Pokemon", etc., but a 0/0/0/0/0/0 Blaziken is inherently strongly inferior to a 31/31/31/31/31/31 Blaziken and there's nothing you can do about it. Even the suggestion you say, Joe, where IVs are capped within a certain range, doesn't work. Say IVs can never be above 120 and never be below 60, just for the sake of argument. A 10/10/10/10/10/10 Blaziken is still strongly inferior to a 20/20/20/20/20/20 Blaziken. Let's say you go the whole way, and make IVs a zero-sum game, so that every single Pokemon's IV total is locked at 90, although it can vary within stats. A 15/15/15/15/15/15 Blaziken is still inherently inferior than a 0/30/0/30/0/30 Blaziken, because the marginal increase in utility from having 15 more IVs in HP isn't worth it compared to the marginal increase in utility from 15 less IVs in ATK, although I suppose you can make the argument it's only weakly inferior since it isn't dominated in all scenarios (just the vast majority).
Regardless of how you look at it, IVs totally fly in the face of the ethos of the series: that every Pokemon can be amazing, it's just a matter of unlocking their potential by raising them well. Instead, it creates a new ethos of brutal eugenics where Dittos with high IVs in valuable stats are whored in vast breeding chambers with eligible partners to create super-Pokemon with capabilities far beyond that of poor ordinary schmucks, a Poke-Gattaca if you will. I understand what IVs are supposed to bring - a level of individuality that makes every Pokemon unique. But there should be other ways of doing that. Pokemon Stadium had a great mechanic in that it could vary texture colours for Pokemon within a certain range randomly, so that Pokemon of the same species could be distinguished by their colour. You could do something similar with size, very easily. Both of those are very easy technical solutions that suddenly mean all Pokemon can now have marginally different colour and size variations. There are many other potential mechanics out there for ensuring individuality that avoid the terrible design flaws of the IV system.
Regardless of how you look at it, IVs totally fly in the face of the ethos of the series: that every Pokemon can be amazing, it's just a matter of unlocking their potential by raising them well. Instead, it creates a new ethos of brutal eugenics where Dittos with high IVs in valuable stats are whored in vast breeding chambers with eligible partners to create super-Pokemon with capabilities far beyond that of poor ordinary schmucks, a Poke-Gattaca if you will. I understand what IVs are supposed to bring - a level of individuality that makes every Pokemon unique. But there should be other ways of doing that. Pokemon Stadium had a great mechanic in that it could vary texture colours for Pokemon within a certain range randomly, so that Pokemon of the same species could be distinguished by their colour. You could do something similar with size, very easily. Both of those are very easy technical solutions that suddenly mean all Pokemon can now have marginally different colour and size variations. There are many other potential mechanics out there for ensuring individuality that avoid the terrible design flaws of the IV system.
tiggerkiddo
Member
Do away with both IV and EV's.
EVs should stay, IVs is the only real issue with em. As long as they continue to make EVs a not so annoying grind, I don't mind them.
I'd like to be able to unlock the ability to toggle them myself.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Yeah EVs is the closest thing Pokemon has to stat customization.
Yes, but the unique aspects that both you and Firestorm suggest are completely aesthetic and pointless.
The IV system is flawed only in the way that people demand perfect Pokémon. As I explained earlier, the chances of having one are like 1 in 1 billion. It's statistically improbable, and yet everyone says it's a must. If people stopped focusing on trying to get perfect Pokémon, and accepted that IVs are meant to be a range, then the competitive aspect would be much better. You can control two IVs when breeding, leave it at that.
We're not meant to have a team of perfect Pokémon. You say it's unfair to not, or to be at a disadvantage? Well we're not meant to so it's not a disadvantage. Refer to my earlier analogy, it's very apt.
Scrapping IVs would be the dumbest move GameFreak could ever do. It'd make the game boring, make every Pokémon identical and just gut the whole damn system. It actually stuns me that people think it's a good idea.
The IV system is flawed only in the way that people demand perfect Pokémon. As I explained earlier, the chances of having one are like 1 in 1 billion. It's statistically improbable, and yet everyone says it's a must. If people stopped focusing on trying to get perfect Pokémon, and accepted that IVs are meant to be a range, then the competitive aspect would be much better. You can control two IVs when breeding, leave it at that.
We're not meant to have a team of perfect Pokémon. You say it's unfair to not, or to be at a disadvantage? Well we're not meant to so it's not a disadvantage. Refer to my earlier analogy, it's very apt.
Scrapping IVs would be the dumbest move GameFreak could ever do. It'd make the game boring, make every Pokémon identical and just gut the whole damn system. It actually stuns me that people think it's a good idea.
tiggerkiddo
Member
After reading over EV's a little more, I have no issue with them staying.
The Shadow Knight
Member
Except that being at a disadvantage that is out of your control goes head first against everything a good competitive game would hope to deliver.
EDIT:
If I'd have to make a guess I'd say that Serebii is a very, very casual player(and there's nothing wrong with that). As such he sees the diversity the IV system brings to the games as something that outweighs the negative effect it has on the competitive aspect. It really is up to game freak to appease both sides of their audience here. Given the competitive players are by far the minority we're not likely to get any satisfying changes. Personally I'd be happy if they just made breeding a bit easier still.
I am not a very casual player. If you know my pseudonym, then you know that it isn't the case. I can just see the much bigger picture.
Again, the competitive players have skewed to an aspect of the games that we're not actually meant to have. We aren't meant to have perfect Pokémon. IVs not only present diversity, they are meant to present balance, but that has been undone by the desire for perfect Pokémon.
I'm just trying to gain an even footing with the in-game League Champions and Battle Subway trainers
The Shadow Knight
Member
I have to wonder what kind of balance an inherent imbalance in the battle participants brings to the table?
P.S.: Then you are not a casual player but someone who still has a very different mind set from your average competitive player. So somewhere in between then I guess =p
Not really. Only one power item works at a time so you only have control over one IV. Then you just pray that the other two you inherit from the parents are the correct 2 out of the 12 possible IVs. Then pray that the 3 totally random IVs don't suck too much and that your nature and ability are correct. And don't even think about Hidden Power or unbreedable legends and event Pokemon. IVs really aren't a good system for a competitive game.
It's not necessarily an inherent imbalance, though.
If nobody strived for "perfect Pokémon", then everyone would have a range of IVs. We'd have a range. Some would have a high attack, some would have a high defense. If the person is lucky, it'll fit the Pokémon they have.
ArchedThunder
Banned
The problem is to be competitive you need perfect IVs. In theory IVs are a good way to make Pokemon unique, but in practice the system clearly doesn't work.
You only need perfect IVs to be competitive because the competitive community has shifted to that thinking.
I think having a cap on it, as I suggested before, so IVs can never add up to more than 160, would keep the massive level of diversity around, make things competitiveand stop with this "perfect Pokémon" crap, because they'd be impossible
Shifted my ass. Every competitive scene is about tedious min/maxing to get a few numbers difference over someone else. That will never change.
The Shadow Knight
Member
"If the person is lucky". This indeed. But do consider that luck is something universally loathed as a factor in a competitive environment.
If GF didn't want people to strive for "perfect pokemon", why did they add breeding aids at all?
EDIT:
@IV cap:
Would not change anything at all. The new optimal IV's under the restrictions would just be the new "perfect pokemon".
If they wanted people to strive for it, they'd have made it so more than 3 IVs inherited
The Shadow Knight
Member
If they wanted people to strive for it, they'd have made it so more than 3 IVs inherited
If they didn't want people to strive for it they would have made it impossible. Not have added ways of making it easier.
EDIT: If they continue their streak of making the process easier they just might end up shaking up the basic mechanics. I'd be interested to see that, but I'm not holding my breath.
Cute Dragon Here
Member
Hopefully things will get even less clunky next time around.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Very much agree.
Adding a cap like you suggested would only change the definition of what a perfect Pokemon is. People wouldn't suddenly stop caring about IVs. The very nature of competition is to strive to be the best you can possibly be. There will never be a truly competitive game where people don't care what their stats are.
Aggrotek
Member
I think it is a flaw, when in order to play competitively you HAVE to have 31 IVs in everything in order to even survive. If you don't all the other pokemon walk all over you.
I like the concept of IVs, I just don't think it is pratical or beneficial in any way.
The Shadow Knight
Member
We will complain once we know what to complain about exactly?
Not sure how Pokémon-Amie is relevant. Anyone can use Pokémon-Amie to raise their Pokémon to be as happy as possible; there's no element of luck as with IVs.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was disabled in multiplayer/Battle Frontier-type battles anyway.
Why would they do that?
And besides, there's an element of "luck" with Critical Hits and Evasion, to the point people ban evasion editing stats and people demand a rematch if a match was won due to a critical hit. It's the sort of thing I see all the time across the community
The Shadow Knight
Member
Because GF might in fact have a semblance of seperating the competitive and casual aspects of the game.
But of course that depends on how and what this feature actually does.
We'll see.
Certain other mechanics in the game do not function in those battles, such as non-hold item use, the 'shift' battle mode, the Soul Dew item, and in older games, stat boosts from badges.
If, like I suspect, Pokémon-Amie boosts are intended for in-game use rather than competitive use, I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might be disabled in those situations.
Also, yes, getting lucky during a battle gives one player an advantage. Yes, this does make the game less competitive. However, unlike IVs, it doesn't change anything in the long run; if you get unlucky in one battle, you might get lucky in the next. On the other hand, once you've gotten unlucky with IVs, your team is worse forever. This just encourages people to spend hundreds of hours breeding Pokémon to ensure their team has the highest IVs possible, which I think should be removed.
Holy hell. How is this even possible? All of the Eeveelutions have the same base stat total (525) and the same spread of stats just mixed around. The highest they get is 130 in one stat, and Umbreon already has that in Sp. Def. Even if Sylveon gets the next highest stat (110) in HP it wouldn't survive that hit, would it?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
We don't know how that mechanic works yet. If it's basically a free +2 evasion for being at 255 happiness, we probably will complain about it. As it is, it may end up being a worthwhile mechanic. Can't say either way at this point. Meanwhile, IVs are currently around and they are a terrible mechanic. You're also fundamentally ignoring or misunderstanding a lot of the arguments at this point.
This is because it is a must. In a competitive game, winning is the absolute and sole objective. The action which contributes a the greatest amount towards winning is more desirable than any other action. Having 31/31/31/31/31/31 IVs contributes more to winning than having 0/0/0/0/0/0 IVs, and thus is more desirable. If people did not attempt to gain 31/31/31/31/31/31 IVs, they would be performing a less desirable action - that is, not playing to the win condition. This is syonymous with not acting competitively. Therefore, if people stopped focusing on trying to get perfect Pokemon, and accepted that IVs are "meant to be a range", then the competitive aspect wouldn't be much better. By the very definition of what it means to play competitively, it would be less competitive.
Several people have explained to you why this wouldn't actually work. I gave quite a detailed post above explaining how even the strictest possible limit, a zero sum limit around the median, still wouldn't prevent people striving for perfect Pokemon.
This argument does not make any logical sense. Just because you're not supposed to be at disadvantage, that doesn't mean you aren't actually at a disadvantage. The intention and the actuality often do not match up. It is a fact that a 31/31/31/31/31/31 Blaziken is superior in achieving the win conditions of a Pokemon battle to a 0/0/0/0/0/0 Blaziken. It is also a fact that a 0/31/0/31/0/31 Blaziken is superior to a 15/15/15/15/15 Blaziken. This may not have been an intention of the design - but it is still the end result, even as an unintended consequence, and it still disadvantages player in that it makes them less able to achieve the win condition.
The first part of this is probably true. We may not have been intended to have perfect Pokemon. However, the intention, once again, has not matched up with the result. Despite the (possible) intention for us not to obtain them, perfect Pokemon are in fact obtainable. This actively works to decrease balance, because they are objectively superior in every facet to imperfect Pokemon.
If you don't want someone to do something, don't let them do it. As it is, a) we can do it (with extreme and rather tedious difficulty), and b) there is a large incentive to do it (it's playing optimally), and therefore given we are both able to do it and incentivised to do it, we will do it.
You're certainly not a casual player, but you're not a competitive one either. Currently, for competitive players, IVs do make the game extremely boring already. Breeding can take tens or even hundreds of hours of doing an extremely repetitive and monotonous task. As I've said, I understand the value of diversifying Pokemon. I don't think anyone is suggesting we scrap IVs, but don't then introduce some other mechanism to encourage diversity. However, IVs a) don't achieve diversity because everyone aims for a single standard anyway, and b) that striving process is immensely tedious.
I've highlighted this sentence by itself because I think it highlights the crux of the issue, which is that you simply don't understand to be what it means to be competitive. To be competitive is to play solely towards the win condition, within no other concerns. Using a perfect Pokemon contributes more in all situations towards achieving the win condition than using an imperfect Pokemon. Therefore, to not use a perfect Pokemon is to not be playing fully competitively. The competitive community hasn't "shifted to that thinking", that thinking is what it means to be a competitive community.
(your arguments above have all been grouped by theme rather than order as I found it easier to approach them that way)
This is because it is a must. In a competitive game, winning is the absolute and sole objective. The action which contributes a the greatest amount towards winning is more desirable than any other action. Having 31/31/31/31/31/31 IVs contributes more to winning than having 0/0/0/0/0/0 IVs, and thus is more desirable. If people did not attempt to gain 31/31/31/31/31/31 IVs, they would be performing a less desirable action - that is, not playing to the win condition. This is syonymous with not acting competitively. Therefore, if people stopped focusing on trying to get perfect Pokemon, and accepted that IVs are "meant to be a range", then the competitive aspect wouldn't be much better. By the very definition of what it means to play competitively, it would be less competitive.
Several people have explained to you why this wouldn't actually work. I gave quite a detailed post above explaining how even the strictest possible limit, a zero sum limit around the median, still wouldn't prevent people striving for perfect Pokemon.
This argument does not make any logical sense. Just because you're not supposed to be at disadvantage, that doesn't mean you aren't actually at a disadvantage. The intention and the actuality often do not match up. It is a fact that a 31/31/31/31/31/31 Blaziken is superior in achieving the win conditions of a Pokemon battle to a 0/0/0/0/0/0 Blaziken. It is also a fact that a 0/31/0/31/0/31 Blaziken is superior to a 15/15/15/15/15 Blaziken. This may not have been an intention of the design - but it is still the end result, even as an unintended consequence, and it still disadvantages player in that it makes them less able to achieve the win condition.
The first part of this is probably true. We may not have been intended to have perfect Pokemon. However, the intention, once again, has not matched up with the result. Despite the (possible) intention for us not to obtain them, perfect Pokemon are in fact obtainable. This actively works to decrease balance, because they are objectively superior in every facet to imperfect Pokemon.
If they wanted people to strive for it, they'd have made it so more than 3 IVs inherited
If you don't want someone to do something, don't let them do it. As it is, a) we can do it (with extreme and rather tedious difficulty), and b) there is a large incentive to do it (it's playing optimally), and therefore given we are both able to do it and incentivised to do it, we will do it.
You're certainly not a casual player, but you're not a competitive one either. Currently, for competitive players, IVs do make the game extremely boring already. Breeding can take tens or even hundreds of hours of doing an extremely repetitive and monotonous task. As I've said, I understand the value of diversifying Pokemon. I don't think anyone is suggesting we scrap IVs, but don't then introduce some other mechanism to encourage diversity. However, IVs a) don't achieve diversity because everyone aims for a single standard anyway, and b) that striving process is immensely tedious.
I've highlighted this sentence by itself because I think it highlights the crux of the issue, which is that you simply don't understand to be what it means to be competitive. To be competitive is to play solely towards the win condition, within no other concerns. Using a perfect Pokemon contributes more in all situations towards achieving the win condition than using an imperfect Pokemon. Therefore, to not use a perfect Pokemon is to not be playing fully competitively. The competitive community hasn't "shifted to that thinking", that thinking is what it means to be a competitive community.
(your arguments above have all been grouped by theme rather than order as I found it easier to approach them that way)
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Yep. Changing what's perfect just means the metagame will gravitate towards that. There may be more roadblocks involved for getting what is now considered perfect, but a select subset of people will still attain it. Making it harder means that subset might be smaller, but at the same time the existence of these people will still discourage fairly hardcore players to play seriously online.
That aside, random evasion boosts could be awful.
Thanks.
Well I imagine they will have a hard time to make carts for everywhere around the world, but I don't think any Pokémon game has had stock issues.
You're not a junior anymore, congrats!
I like you.
ColtraineGF
Member
I still want to wait until XY release to find out what has been done to make any of this easier. Right now I'm just operating on incomplete information at the moment.
I accept that we have to wait and see, but there's a difference between using items and manipulating things in this manner. I doubt GameFreak would have implemented this feature just to disregard it in external play.
I just feel that if they were to cut IVs out, then it would damage the franchise considerably. You guys say my idea of a max would shift the idea of the perfect Pokémon down to an optimal one, I argue that it doesn't. It'll create a decent amount of diversity without crap like that.
I just feel that if they were to cut IVs out, then it would damage the franchise considerably. You guys say my idea of a max would shift the idea of the perfect Pokémon down to an optimal one, I argue that it doesn't. It'll create a decent amount of diversity without crap like that.
ArchedThunder
Banned
If they get rid of IVs the only people who would notice are competitive players and they would be very happy.
I don't think they should cut IVs out. I think they should tweak the system to make them easier to customise (read: maximise) for competitive battling. Even something as simple as "when you're online, your Pokémon's stats temporarily increase a bit to what they would have been if you had max IVs".