• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Official Pre-Pokémon Sword & Pokémon Shield Speculation & Leaks thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
My, so many multi-quote long posts. I guess a region that neighbors Kalos in the same way that Johto neighbors Kanto may be a great idea. Though having a region so close to Kalos may make you want to go to Kalos and no games let you visit a second region since the Johto games. And after everything that needs to be put in a Pokémon game and all those Pokémon in the National Dex, it may be hard to fit the second region on the card. But the game can reference Kalos in dialogue like how the characters in other games make references to past regions. But maybe the new region could just be based on England instead and have a clock tower in the most major city in the game that is based on Big Ben from London.
 
Has anyone looked at Junichi Masuda or even Shigeru Ohmori's twitter lately? they always give hints to the main pokemon games on their twitters before they reveal them. Maybe some pictures on their twitter can give us a hint what the next region will be or even the titles of the games?
 
Has anyone looked at Junichi Masuda or even Shigeru Ohmori's twitter lately? they always give hints to the main pokemon games on their twitters before they reveal them. Maybe some pictures on their twitter can give us a hint what the next region will be or even the titles of the games?
Not much in terms of hints
 
Has anyone looked at Junichi Masuda or even Shigeru Ohmori's twitter lately? they always give hints to the main pokemon games on their twitters before they reveal them. Maybe some pictures on their twitter can give us a hint what the next region will be or even the titles of the games?
Ohmori did tweet about some animals he saw recently. A goose, peacock and goat. It might mean something, but I don't think it does.
 
No, it's not. A person who spends three hours in pursuit of a particular Pokemon and comes up empty is no closer to getting the Pokemon that someone who only spent five minutes. Encountering the other Pokemon hasn't increased their chances of obtaining the rare Pokemon, because the encounter rate remains the same, regardless of time or other encounters.

Of course, it is (a new chance to find the desired Pokémon). At each new encounter (or spawn if we were talking about Pokémon appearing in the overworld), it is a new chance for the Pokémon to appear.

That means that in the case of random encounters (let's use the random encounters example to make this simple), if a Pokémon has a 10% of chance of encounter, every new wild battle you enter you will have a new 10%-of-chance of finding that Pokémon.

Of course, I totally aware that the odds aren't directly cumulative. Since with each new encounter, the "roulette" would reset to 10%.

So, that doesn't mean that if you enter in 10 wild battles you will find the Pokémon (10%*10 = 100%, obviously this would be wrong).

But if you enter 10 wild battles, you will have a total of approximately 38% of chance of finding the Pokémon, with all the 10 attempts of do so. (By my calculations, that would be the result. I may be wrong.)

I was also referring to JRPGs when I said other games that don't require players to grind. Just because a player can grind in a game doesn't always mean that they must grind to finish the game.

Still, as I said, grinding is a characteristic of JRPG games. And it has always been a characteristic of Pokémon. Whether people like it or not.

As I said, I don't care if people that don't like grinding will play it or not, that decision belongs to them. I said that, if it is a characteristic of the genre, they should not expect that it would be removed just exclusively because they don't like it.

It would be the same thing as going to a Mexican restaurant and asking them to remove the Mexican foods from the menu.

Whether it will be optional or not will depend on the game or series. About rare encounters, they are optional.

Like I said, an optional challenge and reward. People aren't forced to go through it, they will still be able to progress in the game, and even get the Pokémon by other ways (either by trading, or like many other times, just by finding the same Pokémon in some other spot with higher chances of encounters later in the game).

Why is it that you'll accept an extra element to encounter mechanics as depth, but you think that adding to maps will make them convoluted? You can't claim that adding to something is always good because it adds depth and then claim that adding to something else would be a bad thing.

First of all, It's not adding "an extra element" to the encounters. The encounters are already based on percentages, putting Pokémon with lower chances of encounter isn't "adding an extra element", it is making use of the existing system as it is.

I have already explained why, in the case of XY, the game would be convoluted by Minya's suggestion (if you are referring to that example).

But then you say later in your post:

You can't say that it pleases both groups and then argue that it doesn't matter that it pleases both groups.

The encounter's system is there.

The encounters are based on percentages.

To add depth to the system, developers add Pokémon with low chances of encounter, as well.

Some hardcore players will like that, others will not. Taste is something subjective.

But the depth is there. Whether people like it or not.

By your logic, could we say that competitive battles have no depth if I don't like them? That not how it works.

If they're rare, why would they be everywhere and in places easy to access?

They can appear anywhere, but their appearances are still rare.

In the same way, regarding the other example, we could think: "if they are rare, why are there so many of them here in this place?"

In both examples we are talking about rare creatures. The only difference is the reference point we are using to refer to them.

In the first example, we are noting the fact that although rare, they may still appear anywhere (relative to places).

In the second example, we are noting the fact that although rare, they still appear in large quantities at a single point (relative to quantity).

Also, that was only a theoretical example, to show that the fact that there is a chance of the creature appearing anywhere doesn't eliminate its rarity. But in our example and this discussion specifically, there are several sposts with low chances of encounters, but they still are different Pokémon. So they would not be appearing up everywhere. What I meant is that everywhere there are chances of finding a different rare Pokémon, and that adds to the game world.

  • Because it's massively time-consuming.
  • Because it restricts Pokemon usage, leading to less of a variety of Pokemon for people who don't want to spend hours running in the grass
  • Because it leads to some Pokemon being und
And all that could be said about a total replacement of rare encounters by Minya's suggestion as well.

The possible "massively time-consuming" is one of the impositions placed to make the Pokémon rare.

And the fact that it "leads to some Pokemon being und" is the consequence of that.

These things you quoted aren't even cons properly.

Unless your idea is to end the concept of rare Pokémon in the game (or make it even easier, as if all the ease we have: GTS, Wonder Trade, Breeding, etc. wasn't enough)

Also, as I said, there would be people who like grinding (as the user that said him find it relaxing) and that would find the giant dungeons/quests tiresome, as well.

Please do not accuse me of playing dumb. I genuinely do not see why a surprise that comes from the game is any more significant than a surprise that comes from the player hiding information from themselves, and I'd appreciate it if you tried to actually explain why instead of accusing me of being dishonest.

Sorry if it gave you a wrong impression, but that's not what I meant.

And I already explained that, the two cases have absolutely nothing to do with game design, at all. They are external factors, that's why.

The problem that people have with Masuda's reasoning was his choice to remove the Frontier. If Masuda had just looked at a way to improve the Frontier, people wouldn't have been as frustrated, even if he still thought it originally had problems. So, the difference in those thought processes is the choice to remove vs the choice to improve.

I see. But then, regarding it, there is no conflict between our ideas. I'm in favor of improvements, as well. As I have told you several times.

Then go quote their posts. I don't see why you would argue with my points to argue against someone else's.

But it was you who quoted me first while I was answering to someone else about why I think it would be wrong to remove the rare encounters just because he thinks it is "annoying." And that's how the discussion started. But I've been telling you from the start, that I'm against a total removal of them, not against improvements.

People are capable of doing tasks that annoy them? Again, look at the posts on this thread-there's plenty of people who said they did it, but they weren't happy about it.

But if the rare encounters' Pokémon are (supposedly by you) more "annoying" to get to these peoples than the competitives Pokémon, why would they only require competitives Pokémon in trade? And not the hardest ones to obtain (the ones from the rare encounters)?

Yes. I never said they weren't, just that they had been improved on.

Right. Just a note: time-consuming is usually the imposition that developers use to add challenges to the things.

That is universal, because you can't measure the exaclty energy expended by the player on the other side of the screen, or something like that. Therefore, higher (and hence higher rewarding) achievements will take more time to be made in games.

So obviously players who invest more time playing it, usually (when the game isn't pay to win) will be rewarded for it.

I understand that the breeding system also needs improvement, improvements can be good.

But I hope that with "improvements" you're not saying just "more facilities". Because even in that aspect (of Breeding) the game is already more than easy. Something else (like Let's Go) would make Pokémon a game without depth.

Again: I am not advocating for anything to be completely removed. If you want to argue against someone that suggests the total removal, then talk to them, not me.

As I said, it's was just a rhetorical question. But it was you who quoted me first while I was answering to someone else about why I think it would be wrong to remove the rare encounters just because he thinks it is "annoying." And that's how the discussion started.

How does this contradict myself? Saying that competitive breeding requires the hassle of step grinding doesn't contradict the fact that finding rare Pokemon has required triggering countless encounters.

In your second example, unlike the first, you implied that it would not be advantageous for the player to trade his Pokémon from rare encounters by a competitive Pokémon.

But if breeding Pokémon are (supposedly by you, in your second example) more "annoying" to get to these peoples than the rare encounter's Pokémon, why would not that be advantageous?

You're assuming that those dungeons would be poorly implemented, when there's no reason to think so. Minya gave examples from Pokemon games, do does routes look "like a poorly developed MMO"?

The Minya's example of Bagon and Gible would not require even half the time spent on some rare encounters (such as Snubull on HGSS).

To be a equivalent challenge, they would have to be giant dungeons. That's what I'm saying from the beginning.

That's an argument for adding extra areas to routes, not against. The world doesn't naturally carve itself into one path with nothing on the sides, offshoots and hidden locations can be found all the time.

Yeah, but as I said, to be equivalent, they would have to be giant dungeons. And in the example I was using (in the case of games like XY) would have to be giant dungeons everywhere, and that would be unnatural.

And if you look through this thread, you'll see plenty more people in the latter category.

And that means nothing. As I said to prog rocker previously in this thread: "That's a totally individualistic thought, and can be destructive to the industry. "I don't like it, so they should remove or totally replace it for something else", that's not how things works. Games aren't made just for you.

You have to think:
"Is this a recurring feature/a characteristic of the genre of this game I'm playing (maybe you don't like the genre)?"
"Is this a recurring feature/a characteristic of this series I'm playing (maybe you don't like the series)?"
"Does that add anything to the game?"
"Is that able to please to others players?"
"Does that keeping me from progressing in the game?"
"Are there ways to get around this?"

And then come to a conclusion."

I just added the bold part. Things should not be removed or totally replaced in games only and exclusively because some players don't like it. There are other things to take into consideration before making such a judgment. But as I said, regarding it, there is no conflict between our ideas, I think.
 
Last edited:
Of course, it is (a new chance to find the desired Pokémon). At each new encounter (or spawn if we were talking about Pokémon appearing in the overworld), it is a new chance for the Pokémon to appear.
And when the player doesn't encounter the intended Pokemon, they've received nothing.
It would be the same thing as going to a Mexican restaurant and asking them to remove the Mexican foods from the menu.
This is a terrible analogy. Mexican restaurants advertise their Mexican food as their main feature, while Pokemon games don't announce grinding/encounter spamming as their main appeal. And in a restaurant, people can ask for their food without an extra condiment/ingredient that they don't want, or even with something added to it. That doesn't mean it gets taken off the menu, just that they have the choice. People are asking for a similar thing here-the ability to encounter a Pokemon without a gameplay mechanic they don't want.
I have already explained why, in the case of XY, the game would be convoluted by Minya's suggestion (if you are referring to that example).
That's exactly my point.
  • When it comes to low encounter rates, you say that it adds "depth", and an extra, optional way to play, and that it's therefore a good thing, regardless of whether or not people like it.
  • When it comes to adding extra spaces to explore in routes, which would also add depth to route designs, and an extra, optional way to play, you say that it would be too convoluted, and that it's therefore a bad thing.
You're contradicting yourself. You can't say that adding depth and optional gameplay is inherently good with one thing and say it's a problem with another.
By your logic, could we say that competitive battles have no depth if I don't like them? That not how it works.
I never said this disproved the idea of the mechanics having depth. What I said was that you were contradicting yourself. You said that the depth was added because it appealed to more players, but then you said that depth was there regardless of whether people liked it.
It adds depth in the sense of expanding the demographic target and being able to please both casual and hardcore players.
The fact of it being depth and the fact that some hardcores players may don't like it at all, have no direct relationship to each other.
You can't say that depth is added by pleasing players and then say that depth is there regardless of players' opinions.
In the same way, regarding the other example, we could think: "if they are rare, why are there so many of them here in this place?"
Because that's where they would be more commonly found? It's just like the rarity of animals in real life. It's rare to see some animals in places where humans typically are, but if someone were to go into an area more inhabited by them, they'd find more animals, even if they were considered rare. (This is especially true for animals that move in a pack)

In fact, it's pretty much the same scenario as "a higher encounter rate later in the game", which you've been saying is a perfectly fine solution for people who don't want to run in the grass for hours. So why does it stop making sense now?
And all that could be said about a total replacement of rare encounters by Minya's suggestion as well.
A challenge that takes twenty minutes to explore through is not as time-consuming as an encounter rate that takes hours.
Also, as I said, there would be people who like grinding (as the user that said him find it relaxing) and that would find the giant dungeons/quests tiresome, as well.
And as I've said, repeatedly, I am asking for an added alternative, not a complete replacement.

And I already explain that, the two cases have absolutely nothing to do with game design, at all. They are external factors, that's why.
That does nothing to answer my question. My question is why the external factor is relevant here. When bringing the external factor into difficulty, there's a difference in the resulting challenge. But when bringing the external factor into surprise, the result is the same: the player doesn't know what they've encountered until a certain point. My question is why the external factor is an issue when it doesn't affect the result.

As I said, it's was just a rhetorical question. But it was you who quoted me first while I was answering to someone else about why I think it would be wrong to remove the rare encounters just because he thinks it is "annoying." And that's how the discussion started.
My quote was only in reference to the fact that running around in a patch of grass is not the same as exploring. That was all I said in the post. There's no reason to assume that I'm implying that I want a total removal of rare encounters just because I argued with one of your points.

But if the rare encounters' Pokémon are (supposedly by you) more "annoying" to get to these peoples than the competitives Pokémon
At this point, it's looking like you're not even reading my post all the way.

It seems then that Pokémon with good Natures, IVs and Abilities are harder to obtain, then?
Yes. I never said they weren't,

I said exactly the opposite of that.
Right. Just a note: time-consuming is usually the imposition that developers use to add challenges to the things.

That is universal, because you can't measure the exaclty energy expended by the player on the other side of the screen, or something like that. Therefore, higher (and hence higher rewarding) achievements will take more time to be made in games.

So obviously players who invest more time playing it, usually (when the game isn't pay to win) will be rewarded for it.
If that's the case, why aren't most of the game achievements based on time spent? A player who speedruns to the championship is given the same reward as a player who spends months progressing through the story. A player who spends hours rebattling a gym leader is given the same badge as a player who beats them in the first try. A player who takes 50 attempts to beat the Elite 4 gets the same title as a player who beats them in their first try.
But I hope that with "improvements" you're not saying just "more facilities". Because even in that aspect (of Breeding) the game is already more than easy.
Really? Walking back and forth repeatedly for hours, acquiring good IVs in the parents by chance, acquiring Natures in the parents by chance (even if Synchronize was used, the player had to rely on chance to get the Synchronize Pokemon in the first place), and still repeatedly trying to get those traits to pass down, even if you have the items used to better your odds, all while never being told what egg groups are, how IVs are passed down, what specific IVs you have, how Natures are passed down, or how Synchronize works in the game itself....is "more than easy"?
In your second example, unlike the first, you impled that it would not be advantageous for the player to trade his Pokémon from rare encounters by a competitive Pokémon.

But if breeding Pokémon are (supposedly by you, in your second example) more "annoying" to get to these peoples than the rare encounter's Pokémon, why would not that be advantageous?
I didn't say it wouldn't be good for the player to trade a rare Pokemon for a competitive one. What I said was that both competitive and rare Pokemon involved repetitive work for the player to obtain. My example of a rare Pokemon being traded for a lesser value Pokemon was for the cases of trades that are more like gifts, such as the giveaways Bulbagarden has, or players that have breedjects they intend to hand out. I gave that as an example because it's another case of "devaluing" Pokemon, which you've been opposed to. But despite being against devaluing Pokemon, you suggest trades as an alternative way to get rare Pokemon. This is why I listed these two examples.
  • In a case where a player trades a competitive Pokemon for a rare Pokemon, both players had to be involved in repetitive tasks of some sort.
  • In a case where a player trades a weak or common Pokemon for a rare Pokemon, the rare Pokemon is being "devalued", which you've said is a bad thing.
If you argue that Pokemon should still have "trading value", and you argue that people should have the option to choose not to do a repetitive task, then trading can't be the only option to obtain a rare Pokemon. (You've listed a later encounter as another way to obtain the Pokemon, but not all Pokemon have higher encounters later in the game)
The Minya's example of Bagon and Gible would not require even half the time spent on some rare encounters (such as Snubull on HGSS).

To be a equivalent challenge, they would have to be giant dungeons. That's what I'm saying from the beginning.
But nobody is asking to have to spend hours searching for Pokemon. They're asking to have the opportunity to actively seek out Pokemon.
And that means nothing. As I said to prog rocker previously in this thread: "That's a totally individualistic thought, and can be destructive to the industry. "I don't like it, so they should remove or totally replace it for something else", that's not how things works. Games aren't made just for you.

You have to think:
"Is this a recurring feature/a characteristic of the genre of this game I'm playing (maybe you don't like the genre)?"
"Is this a recurring feature/a characteristic of this series I'm playing (maybe you don't like the series)?"
"Does that add anything to the game?"
"Is that able to please to others players?"
"Does that keeping me from progressing in the game?"
"Are there ways to get around this?"

And then come to a conclusion."

I just added the bold part. Things should not be removed or totally replaced in games only and exclusively because some players didn't like it. There are other things to take into consideration before making such a judgment.
For what seems to be the fifth time in this post, I am asking for an addition, not a total replacement. You yourself just gave the example of one user who liked grinding as a reason to keep rare encounters. I gave the example of people who didn't like grinding and preferred exploration as reasons to add the option of exploring to find a rare Pokemon, not as reasons to remove rare encounters altogether.
 
And when the player doesn't encounter the intended Pokemon, they've received nothing.

Yeah, but like in my previous example of a player in other game that is looking to drop a rare item by breaking objects, until he actually gets it, he isn't getting anything else either.

Of course, there are examples of games where break items grants experience or some equivalent to it, or that depending on the broken object, can drop other items, other than the one the player wants, but my example specifically was just to show you that it's is also grinding.

This is a terrible analogy. Mexican restaurants advertise their Mexican food as their main feature, while Pokemon games don't announce grinding/encounter spamming as their main appeal.

The main Pokémon series has always been known and released as JRPG's games.

And in a restaurant, people can ask for their food without an extra condiment/ingredient that they don't want, or even with something added to it. That doesn't mean it gets taken off the menu, just that they have the choice. People are asking for a similar thing here-the ability to encounter a Pokemon without a gameplay mechanic they don't want.

People can already pass through the route without capturing the rare Pokémon if they don't want to "waste their time" doing so.

It will not stop them from progressing in their games. Also, they can still get the Pokémon, actually.

By the GTS, by Wonder Trade, through breeding, with a common trade with a friend. Or, like many other times, in the game itself, in a later place in the story with bigger chances rates of encounter, just like Mawile in Pokémon XY.

Or even by other means that I'm not even considering here, like Eevee in B2W2 (also obtained through Dream World).

But, if people still want to have more options, I'm also in favor of that, as I said. Other options would be good.

Completely remove the system from rare encounters of the game is what I'm against. (I already understood that it's not your point. I'm just pointing it out.)

Going to a Mexican restaurant and demand that they should remove the Mexican dishes from the menu, only exclusively because you don't like them (look, there may have even been other reasons for that, which may be acceptable or not) is what doesn't make any sense. If that bothers you that way, you should not go to a Mexican restaurant.

That's exactly my point.
  • When it comes to low encounter rates, you say that it adds "depth", and an extra, optional way to play, and that it's therefore a good thing, regardless of whether or not people like it.
  • When it comes to adding extra spaces to explore in routes, which would also add depth to route designs, and an extra, optional way to play, you say that it would be too convoluted, and that it's therefore a bad thing.
You're contradicting yourself. You can't say that adding depth and optional gameplay is inherently good with one thing and say it's a problem with another.

Sorry, it was a language barrier, I was using the wrong word.

By convoluted I wanted to meant soggy, overpolluted, overflowing, oversaturated.

A rare encounter on each route doesn't disrupt the game environment and doesn't interfere with the player's immersion. A giant and complex dungeon on every each route, on the other hand, would look unnatural.

I never said this disproved the idea of the mechanics having depth. What I said was that you were contradicting yourself. You said that the depth was added because it appealed to more players, but then you said that depth was there regardless of whether people liked it.

You can't say that depth is added by pleasing players and then say that depth is there regardless of players' opinions.

I wasn't contradicting myself. There is the mechanic of random encounters, and it is based on percentages. The developers added more difficult encounters, because by doint that - independent of any subjective opinion of anyone - it would adds depth to the mechanic.

By doing so, the challenge has been hardened (or "hampered"). And consequently, it would potentially please to hardcores players.

But in practice, it can also don't please any of them, or don't please to all of them. Taste is subjective.

Even in a hypothetical scenario, where all the hardcore players for some reason haven't liked it, it would still have added depth to it.

Because that's where they would be more commonly found? It's just like the rarity of animals in real life. It's rare to see some animals in places where humans typically are, but if someone were to go into an area more inhabited by them, they'd find more animals, even if they were considered rare. (This is especially true for animals that move in a pack)

In fact, it's pretty much the same scenario as "a higher encounter rate later in the game", which you've been saying is a perfectly fine solution for people who don't want to run in the grass for hours. So why does it stop making sense now?

But I didn't say that it stopped to making sense. It was just my answer to your argument, that says that if a rare creature has a small chance of appearing anywhere, it isn't really rare, which isn't true, at all. So, I used that example to show you that you were only seeing the two examples (mine and yours) from different reference points.

The two creatures are rare, even if they appear in large quantities in a small place, or even if they have minimal chances of appears anywhere.

A challenge that takes twenty minutes to explore through is not as time-consuming as an encounter rate that takes hours.

But then you'd be running away from what I was addressing there at the very beginning of the discussion.

I think that rare encounters can be totally replaced by Minya's suggestion if they maintain the same time investment requirements of rare encounters. That's what I said.

And as I've said, repeatedly, I am asking for an added alternative, not a complete replacement.

Ok, And as I said, I'm in favor of that, as well.

That does nothing to answer my question. My question is why the external factor is relevant here. When bringing the external factor into difficulty, there's a difference in the resulting challenge. But when bringing the external factor into surprise, the result is the same: the player doesn't know what they've encountered until a certain point. My question is why the external factor is an issue when it doesn't affect the result.

Because both of them have nothing to do with game design.

Sorry, but I've read and reread it several times, and I still can't figure out the communication problem here. Are you really telling me, in a discussion about game design, that if players want to be surprised in games, they have to close their eyes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

My quote was only in reference to the fact that running around in a patch of grass is not the same as exploring. That was all I said in the post. There's no reason to assume that I'm implying that I want a total removal of rare encounters just because I argued with one of your points.

Ok, I got it. I wasn't saying that you had implicated that, by the way. It was just a rhetorical question to instigate the reflection on the subject.

At this point, it's looking like you're not even reading my post all the way.

I said exactly the opposite of that.

No, that is wrong. I'm reading everything very carefully.

I was referring to this sentence:

When someone's trading, they either supply a Pokemon with a good nature/Ability/IVs, which requires more grinding on their part, or the person trading the rare Pokemon is willing to give it up for a lesser value Pokemon, which already devalues them.

My mistake was said "more annoying Pokémon to get". When I should have said "more value Pokémon". I mixed up the words, but the idea of the question remains the same:

If the rare encounters' Pokémon are (supposedly by you) more value to these peoples than the competitives Pokémon, why would they only require competitive Pokémon in the trades? And not the rare encounters ones?

Also, basically, my initial argument was that players rarely adds to each other to trade Pokemon with just small encounter rates. Which means, that they aren't such a big problem, taking into consideration the multiplayer, of course.

And analyzing your answer to it one more time now, I really may have mixed up a few things, but you basically confirmed what I said. That competitive Pokémon are the most required, not the ones with small encounter rates.

If that's the case, why aren't most of the game achievements based on time spent? A player who speedruns to the championship is given the same reward as a player who spends months progressing through the story. A player who spends hours rebattling a gym leader is given the same badge as a player who beats them in the first try. A player who takes 50 attempts to beat the Elite 4 gets the same title as a player who beats them in their first try.

But now you're the one mixing things up.

Speedruns are what they are: speedruns. And that only adds to my point: the fastest player is the better speedrunner. It is totally time related. Developers have placed demands on investment of time in the game, and players who manage to pass through these impositions faster than others celebrates their achievement.

And about the other two examples, both players, both who beat the gym leader, and both who beat the Elite 4, had to play the rest of the game to get there, and this was an imposition of time to conquer achievements.

In addition, players who have gone through with it with one try are probably the ones who have the most knowledge of the game, and therefore were probably the ones who invested the most time in the series.

But of course, this isn't a rule. If you stay relativizing things or looking for examples, like you did, you'll certainly find out different cases.

Really? Walking back and forth repeatedly for hours, acquiring good IVs in the parents by chance, acquiring Natures in the parents by chance (even if Synchronize was used, the player had to rely on chance to get the Synchronize Pokemon in the first place), and still repeatedly trying to get those traits to pass down, even if you have the items used to better your odds, all while never being told what egg groups are, how IVs are passed down, what specific IVs you have, how Natures are passed down, or how Synchronize works in the game itself....is "more than easy"?

Yes, it is already pretty easy (of course, once you figure out how it works). But it can be improved by adding some things that you have mentioned.

I didn't say it wouldn't be good for the player to trade a rare Pokemon for a competitive one. What I said was that both competitive and rare Pokemon involved repetitive work for the player to obtain. My example of a rare Pokemon being traded for a lesser value Pokemon was for the cases of trades that are more like gifts, such as the giveaways Bulbagarden has, or players that have breedjects they intend to hand out. I gave that as an example because it's another case of "devaluing" Pokemon, which you've been opposed to. But despite being against devaluing Pokemon, you suggest trades as an alternative way to get rare Pokemon. This is why I listed these two examples.
  • In a case where a player trades a competitive Pokemon for a rare Pokemon, both players had to be involved in repetitive tasks of some sort.
  • In a case where a player trades a weak or common Pokemon for a rare Pokemon, the rare Pokemon is being "devalued", which you've said is a bad thing.
If you argue that Pokemon should still have "trading value", and you argue that people should have the option to choose not to do a repetitive task, then trading can't be the only option to obtain a rare Pokemon. (You've listed a later encounter as another way to obtain the Pokemon, but not all Pokemon have higher encounters later in the game)

I got it. And I really mixed up things with those two examples.

But in my initial argument, I meant that although some people find the grinding aspect of rare encounters "annoying", I rarely see anyone going to trading-communities and requiring these rare Pokémon, when in fact, I see many of them requiring only competitive Pokémon.

Thats leads me to believe that even Pokémon with 5% or less of chance of encounter, aren't being such a big problem to get, even to them, after all, taking also into account the multiplayer factor. Otherwise, the demand for them would be greater.

But nobody is asking to have to spend hours searching for Pokemon. They're asking to have the opportunity to actively seek out Pokemon.

Right. I'm the one asking the first, actually.

If would be to add new options, I would be in favor of that, as well.

If would be to totally replace the rare encounters by the previously suggested system, I would like to have a equivalent challenge to play. (Again, I already understood that it's not your point. I'm just pointing it out.)

For what seems to be the fifth time in this post, I am asking for an addition, not a total replacement. You yourself just gave the example of one user who liked grinding as a reason to keep rare encounters. I gave the example of people who didn't like grinding and preferred exploration as reasons to add the option of exploring to find a rare Pokemon, not as reasons to remove rare encounters altogether.

I just wanted to point out that the fact of some players don't liking grinding - solely - means nothing. Because, you keep pointing that out.

But if you're just talking about adding options, not removals, we're in agreement. I don't see any problem here. That's why I said:

...And then come to a conclusion.

I just added the bold part. Things should not be removed or totally replaced in games only and exclusively because some players don't like it. There are other things to take into consideration before making such a judgment. But as I said, regarding it, there is no conflict between our ideas, I think.


Edit
(Corrected major english erros...hampered*...that's what I said*)
 
Last edited:
The Miracle Twin reference could refer to a similar situation to Gen 4/5, where both box legends are required to fulfill some kind of prophecy or achieve some kind of effect. Leaning towards Gen 4 style, since the myth refers to two opposing forces acting together to create a miracle.

It could easily just be something to do with TCG or a peripheral, but it's still fun to think about.
 
Has anyone looked at Junichi Masuda or even Shigeru Ohmori's twitter lately? they always give hints to the main pokemon games on their twitters before they reveal them. Maybe some pictures on their twitter can give us a hint what the next region will be or even the titles of the games?

Ohmori also tweeted a picture of a stuffed turtle and said something along the lines of: "There are cow spots on the shell of this turtle". I might be misunderstanding the context, but people in the replies seem to be confused too.

Edit: I think he is pointing out that the stuffed animal isn't accurate to a real turtle. The picture is of the stomach of the shell, but those types of spots should only be on the back.

Edit2: for clarification, Ohmori does say the spots are on the stomach; not on the shell.
 
Last edited:
They could have us complete some kind of puzzle or boss dungeon that boosts species/type encounter rates either permanently or for a set time. That's another option. It's like the tile puzzles that activate the Unown in Gen 2.

I got a shiny Magikarp before I could get a Dratini in SM. And they had the nerve to hide the thing as a 1% encounter in the bubbling spots only, then in a specific cave, so you had to keep going in and out of the cave in order to have another chance to fish for it. And not just flipping in and out of the door. You had to surf all the way to the back of the cave for the single patch it could appear on, then surf all the way back to the door to reactivate the spot. That's not fun by any stretch of the imagination. I know it's there, and I've put in the work to get it, but in the end, I have to just wait on the game to give it to me. Contrast Wimpod who, while definitely annoying, required a single tool (Tauros's run) and plain skill to encounter. If you flubbed, you got a consolation prize from it in the form of a Nugget, so you didn't have to walk away empty handed.

I don't have a problem with a rarity level on par with Nidoran-F vs. Nidoran-M, or Clefairy, or Abra, or something along those lines. You scrounge around in the grass for a while, and you eventually come across it. The 1% stuff that they've been doing lately is pretty rough, and the 1% under a special condition is just trolling. If the failed encounters gave you a Potion or 3 Pokedollars or something, the dead time could count as productive. A boost tool, more creative encounter styles, puzzles, sidequests, or anything to allow the player to either control or influence that encounter rate would be beneficial. I'm all for secret areas that just have the creature relatively openly available, too. Heck, Ultra Space was better than just running around waiting for a 1% proc.

The Gambler's Fallacy is important to note here, I feel. You don't get closer to a proc just because you activate a billion encounters. Each one is still 1%. GF has been trying to come up with ways to put padding between those 1% encounters though, which makes things more tedious than necessary. They need to focus on more creative ways to encounter special Pokemon than just dumping them on the 1% end of an encounter list, then making it take longer and longer to sift through encounters. Spiritomb was an interesting attempt. Talk to 100 people online or something. Not entirely viable for every player, but it made the rare Pokemon unique. Headbutting/slathering trees was interesting, especially since headbutting caused the encounter to start with the Pokemon asleep, giving you an advantage with the capture. (Slathering needed to take less than 6 hours, because good lord.) Rotom in the TV in the haunted house was good. Bagon at the top of the waterfall was good. The Elgyem becoming more common the higher you climbed the tower. The Clamperl on the seafloor. These are things that build up the world and stick in your mind in a positive manner. (Well, IMO.) Spending 2 days trying to catch Milotic in a rippling water spot is not.

Every encounter doesn't need to be 30%-50%, but I strongly feel that 1% is a bit overkill. If they stop the padded 1% encounters alone, I'll be overjoyed.
I forgot they have 1% Pokémon. I kinda have luck with Dunsparce in the Dark Cave (that's 1%, right?), although the high Zubat encounters is still draining. Lapras on the Icefall Cave, on the other hand, was ridiculous. I know it's on that room were you team up with Lorelei, but the encounter rate is so low and the other Pokémon you can find there is Tentacool, so it was not fun and I gave up, which makes me glad for the free one you get at Silph Co. Bagon in Alola was also pretty bad (took two hours for one *sigh*). 5% is something I can accept since they come in less than 30min if I'm lucky, but the 1% thing is unneeded. I just hope they don't pull a Sword of Kings* and make a rare Pokémon that can only spawn in an area you can only visit once or where wild battles disappear once you beat the boss.

*EarthBound players will get what I mean.

EDIT: By the way, Myth, you got me wrong completely: What I want is for them to remove the ridiculously unnecessary 1% percent Pokémon that take a whole afternoon to catch. Specially since most of the time:
a) It's a Pokémon I already know so there's 0 element of surprise (e.g.: Bagon and Eevee). In fact, I don't even think Alola had any rare Pokémon I didn't know beforehand.
b) I'm not even planning of using those Pokémon.
c) it's completely unsatisfactory to go through hordes of wild Pokémon that I'm not battling since I'm at a level I'm comfortable with and knowing how Pokémon works, that's pretty easy to reach.

The solution of adding areas where they are more common (not necessary 30-50%, just 10-15% would be enough) is actually kind of interesting and actually add depth, and the comparison you did of calling that "bad MMO dungeons" or something like that: I have played MMOs, and as far from what I have seen, they are almost completely linear, like Pokémon dungeons now, so, no, your comparison doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I've just noticed this:
They could have us complete some kind of puzzle or boss dungeon that boosts species/type encounter rates either permanently or for a set time. That's another option. It's like the tile puzzles that activate the Unown in Gen 2.

I got a shiny Magikarp before I could get a Dratini in SM. And they had the nerve to hide the thing as a 1% encounter in the bubbling spots only, then in a specific cave, so you had to keep going in and out of the cave in order to have another chance to fish for it. And not just flipping in and out of the door. You had to surf all the way to the back of the cave for the single patch it could appear on, then surf all the way back to the door to reactivate the spot. That's not fun by any stretch of the imagination. I know it's there, and I've put in the work to get it, but in the end, I have to just wait on the game to give it to me. Contrast Wimpod who, while definitely annoying, required a single tool (Tauros's run) and plain skill to encounter. If you flubbed, you got a consolation prize from it in the form of a Nugget, so you didn't have to walk away empty handed.

I don't have a problem with a rarity level on par with Nidoran-F vs. Nidoran-M, or Clefairy, or Abra, or something along those lines. You scrounge around in the grass for a while, and you eventually come across it. The 1% stuff that they've been doing lately is pretty rough, and the 1% under a special condition is just trolling. If the failed encounters gave you a Potion or 3 Pokedollars or something, the dead time could count as productive. A boost tool, more creative encounter styles, puzzles, sidequests, or anything to allow the player to either control or influence that encounter rate would be beneficial. I'm all for secret areas that just have the creature relatively openly available, too. Heck, Ultra Space was better than just running around waiting for a 1% proc.

The Gambler's Fallacy is important to note here, I feel. You don't get closer to a proc just because you activate a billion encounters. Each one is still 1%. GF has been trying to come up with ways to put padding between those 1% encounters though, which makes things more tedious than necessary. They need to focus on more creative ways to encounter special Pokemon than just dumping them on the 1% end of an encounter list, then making it take longer and longer to sift through encounters. Spiritomb was an interesting attempt. Talk to 100 people online or something. Not entirely viable for every player, but it made the rare Pokemon unique. Headbutting/slathering trees was interesting, especially since headbutting caused the encounter to start with the Pokemon asleep, giving you an advantage with the capture. (Slathering needed to take less than 6 hours, because good lord.) Rotom in the TV in the haunted house was good. Bagon at the top of the waterfall was good. The Elgyem becoming more common the higher you climbed the tower. The Clamperl on the seafloor. These are things that build up the world and stick in your mind in a positive manner. (Well, IMO.) Spending 2 days trying to catch Milotic in a rippling water spot is not.

Every encounter doesn't need to be 30%-50%, but I strongly feel that 1% is a bit overkill. If they stop the padded 1% encounters alone, I'll be overjoyed.

Very good examples and suggestions.

I usually don't like to mention the Gambler's Fallacy example, because many people misinterpret it. I mean, it explains that all events are individually independent, and that therefore a succession of unsuccessful cases would not increase the chances of the next being successful, and the opposite can also be said. But usually, people erroneously interpretate it by thinking that the number of attempts doesn't change the overall probability of success.

About the suggestions, I think it would be even simpler if they added side effects like the ones from Magnet Pull and Static to more abilities (Flame Body could increase the chances of encountering fire type Pokémon. Aroma Veil could increase the chances of encountering fairy type Pokémon. Ice Body could increase the chances of encountering ice type Pokémon. Liquid Ooze could increase the chances of encountering poison type Pokémon. Sap Sipper could increase the chances of encountering bug type Pokémon, and so on). Or even better: add "Pass powers", "O-powers", "Rotom powers" - or whatever they will to call it next time - that alsos increase the chances of encounters for each one of the types. And impose their obtaining behind quests that relate to the specific type-power boost.

About Dratini in SM, it doesn't has a 1% chance of encounter in bubble spots only, it has a 1% chance of encounter on common fishing spots, and then if they are with bubbles, it will has a 10% chance of encounter, actually!

I caught a lot of Dratini on Sun, too, and it can be quite easy. There is a common fishing spot right at the entrance of Poni Meadow, so if you don't want to fish normally until that the bubbles appears and it has a 10% of chance of encounter again, you just have to keep going back and forth at that little point (between Poni Meadow's entrance and Poni Plains), and will get a lot of Dratini! I caught a lot of them this way!

Oh, and you mentioned the hunt for Wimpods and the Nuggets, I think you should try to fish normally (no "cheating" :p) more often too, good items come out of them too, actually, I got a lot of Bottles Caps.

And I don't remember of any one with 1% chance of encounter and at the same time under a special condition off the top of my head. But if you're talking about Dratini, it's 10% on the buble spots, actually!

More creative encounter styles are something they should definitely implement if they will keep the system of wild Pokémon appearing in overworld of Let's Go. I think something like Yokai Watch (which I quoted a few pages ago), with Pokémon hiding in the trees, in fallen logs , and under cars would be pretty cool.

The Spiritomb quest was interesting, the problem is that it (as well as the bubbles fishing spots) could also be cheated. I also didn't find it very well developed, but the concept certainly was quite interesting.

About Headbutt, I think that it should come back and be added along with the system that I quoted from Yokai Watch. The player should comes close to the tree and interacts with it, so the camera should switch to first person, and the player could see which Pokémon is there between the leaves (assuming they have kept the overworld's wild Pokémon system from Let's Go), and then the player has the option of: 1) Use Headbutt and enter into a battle with the Pokémon that is there. 2) Exit and simply go look at another tree. That would keep the "encounters" surprise in a way, and would be something much more interactive and immersive of doing so.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I've just noticed this:


Very good examples and suggestions.

I usually don't like to mention the Gambler's Fallacy example, because many people misinterpret it. I mean, it explains that all events are individually independent, and that therefore a succession of unsuccessful cases would not increase the chances of the next being successful, and the opposite can also be said. But usually, people interpretate it by thinking that the number of attempts doesn't change the overall probability of success.

About the suggestions, I think it would be even simpler if they added side effects like the ones from Magnet Pull and Static to more abilities (Flame Body could increase the chances of encountering fire type Pokémon. Aroma Veil could increase the chances of encountering fairy type Pokémon. Ice Body could increase the chances of encountering ice type Pokémon. Liquid Ooze could increase the chances of encountering poison type Pokémon. Sap Sipper could increase the chances of encountering bug type Pokémon, and so on). Or even better: add "Pass powers", "O-powers", "Rotom powers" - or whatever they will to call it next time - that alsos increase the chances of encounters for each one of the types. And impose their obtaining behind quests that relate to the specific type-power boost.

About Dratini in SM, it doesn't has a 1% chance of encounter in bubble spots only, it has a 1% chance of encounter on common fishing spots, and then if they are with bubbles, it will has a 10% chance of encounter, actually!

I caught a lot of Dratini on Sun, too, and it can be quite easy. There is a common fishing spot right at the entrance of Poni Meadow, so if you don't want to fish normally until that the bubbles appears and it has a 10% of chance of encounter again, you just have to keep going back and forth at that little point (between Poni Meadow's entrance and Poni Plains), and will get a lot of Dratini! I caught a lot of them this way!

Oh, and you mentioned the hunt for Wimpods and the Nuggets, I think you should try to fish normally (no "cheating" :p) more often too, good items come out of them too, actually, I got a lot of Bottles Caps.

I don't remember of any one with 1% chance of encounter and under a special condition from the top off my head. But if you're talking about Dratini, it's 10% on the buble spots, actually!

More creative encounter styles are something they should definitely implement if they will keep the system of wild Pokémon appearing in overworld of Let's Go. I think something like Yokai Watch (which I quoted a few pages ago), with Pokémon hiding in the trees, in fallen logs , and under cars would be pretty cool.

The Spiritomb quest was interesting, the problem is that it (as well as the bubbles fishing spots) could also be cheated. I also didn't find it very well developed, but the concept certainly was quite interesting.

About Headbutt, I think that it should come back and be added along with the system that I quoted from Yokai Watch. The player should comes close to the tree and interacts with it, so the camera should switch to first person, and the player could see which Pokémon is there between the leaves (assuming they have kept the overworld's wild Pokémon system from Let's Go), and then the player has the option of: 1) Use Headbutt and enter into a battle with the Pokémon that is there. 2) Exit and simply go look at another tree. That would keep the "encounters" surprise in a way, and would be something much more interactive and immersive of doing so.
This + overworld Pokémon = Me happily hunting Pokémon without being frustrated. It's not nice having an OCD that prevents you for advancing unless you catch every non-evolved Pokémon in each route. Also, yes, there are 1% percent encounters outside of fishing. The only one that comes to my mind is Bagon on Route 3(?) in Alola. I'll post the others once I find them.

EDIT: Here are the Pokémon that have less than 5% in Alola (I won't count most fishing spot Pokémon):

-Bagon at Route 3.
-Butterfree at Route 5 and Melemele Meadow, for some reason.
-Only counting Feebas (SM only) here since it only goes from 1% to 5%. That's not much of a difference, GF. Fixed in USUM where it is at least 10%.
-Kangaskhan at Wela Volcano Park.
-Pinsir at Lush Jungle (USUM only).
-Larvesta at the cave in Lush Jungle (USUM only).

I could have sworn there were more, but most I could find were from fishing spots or Castform, which you can influence if you have weather moves. From other games, I can only remember Nidoran♂ and Nidoran♀ from FRLG, which was weird since they were easier to get in RB.
 
Last edited:
@prog rocker

I think I already had understood you. The problem is that I wasn't referring to random encounters, but rather to rare encounters, and if you pull out the lowest rates of encounters (1%~10%), you're automatically eliminating them.

The surprise factor that was mentioned a few pages ago was referring to the fact that you can suddenly find a Pokémon that isn't common to that route, it wasn't about Pokémon that you don't know and that may surprise you because of it.

I don't see how adding them with bigger taxes rates in more areas would add depth, unless if them have some requiriment to be acessed. But anyway, whether it add depth or not, I'm in favor of options, too. So I think that adding them with higher rates of encounter at later places of the game's story could work. So, those who want to catch the Pokémon sooner will have to try harder.

Or adding them with higher rates of encounter into places with requirements to access, like the examples of this thread, it would also be a good alternative.

About the MMOs thing, you didn't understand what I said. In the cited example, I was talking about a hypothetical situation, which for the reasons quoted on the post, I was guessing a situation where Kalos would has a complex and large dungeon on each route. And I said I'd find it unnatural.

The more dungeons the better, as long as they are placed in a way that doesn't harm the game world environment, they still have to look natural to that world. And it would be bizarre for you, to get out of your room and already find a giant hole in the doorway of your house leading to an underground cave hidden with trainers and items and others stuffs. And then, when you take some little steps, and get on the other route, there it is again, another giant cave. That would not seem natural at all. It would be obvious that they would only be there for external reasons of the developers, that is what I meant.

Oh, and with Pokémon with less than 1% of rate encounter and that under special conditions at the same time, I meant Pokémon that at the same time need special things to "activate" (like fishing spots being bubbled) and that still (even under that gimmick rare condition) has only 1% chance of appear.

I really don't remember of any one like that off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
So a new leak surfaced not too long ago, not sure if it was covered yet. It goes as follows:

  • New Region is based on New Zealand’s North Island.
  • Grass Starter is a cute gastropod with high HP and Defence.
  • Fire Starter is an Ungulate/Goat with a little flame beard and high Speed.
  • Water Starter is a Crab with long, elongated eyes, High Defence and Special Attack.
  • Cover legendaries are a Water/Psychic Maungouroa Shark And Water/Dragon Taniwha.
  • There are around 80 new Pokémon including Yungoos as the regional rodent, and a Normal/Ground Kiwi as the regional bird.
  • Very diverse environment, the enemy teams plot is based on the misuse of land, deforestation, polluting the water, etc.
  • The professor studies geological formations and is a fossil enthusiast who is friends with campion Daigo (Steve).
  • You have to Find, Battle, and Recruit 4 strong trainers (out of 8) to form the Elite 4.
  • The Pokémon league is now based on rounds like the Pokémon World Tournament where you must fight Ace Trainers and your Rivals.
  • There are 2 rivals in the game. One is your childhood friend with a team focused on speed and power. The other rival is the opposite Protagonist who happens to be the little sibling of the professor. Their team is focused on status and boosting.
  • A new version of the PSS will be implemented in this game.
  • There are new Pokerides in the game. We get Dewgong instead of Lapras, Fearow instead of Charizard, Rhydon instead of Machamp, and Bouffalant instead of Tauros.

The only red flag I see here is the mention of Yungoos in New Zealand because New Zealand actually has laws against Mongoose being in the country.
 
Apparently the Eevee Tamagotchi is hinting at new Eeveelutions
 

Attachments

  • eeveetamagotchi2.jpg
    eeveetamagotchi2.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 90
The main Pokémon series has always been known and released as JRPG's games..
And grinding is not the main feature of an RPG game.

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on RPG games. Grinding is never even mentioned as one of the main characteristics of an RPG.

By the GTS, by Wonder Trade, through breeding, with a common trade with a friend.

Or, like many other times, in the game itself, in a later place in the story with bigger chances rates of encounter, just like Mawile in Pokémon XY.

Or even by other means that I'm not even considering here, like Eevee in B2W2 (also obtained through Dream World).
And, as I stated before, this is not always an option. Look at Dhelmise in SuMo-only one location with a 1% encounter rate. There was no alternate way to obtain it beyond trading.

Completely remove the system from rare encounters of the game is what I'm against. (I already understood that it's not your point. I'm just pointing it out.)

Going to a Mexican restaurant and demand that they should remove the Mexican dishes from the menu, only exclusively because you don't like them (look, there may have even been other reasons for that, which may be acceptable or not) is what doesn't make any sense. If that bothers you that way, you should not go to a Mexican restaurant.
If you understand that my point isn't to argue for the total removal, why do you keep replying to me as if I am? You've already "just pointed it out" dozens of times. Nobody has responded to these posts and said that they should be removed entirely. What difference is it going to make to say it again?
Sorry, it was a language barrier, I was using the wrong word.

By convoluted I wanted to meant soggy, overpolluted, overflowing, oversaturated.
I understand that's what you meant. My point is that you're arguing against the idea of having extra places to explore on routes because they would be too much. But you've said that rare encounter rates should be included, even if nobody is pleased by them, because they add depth, and you say that this depth comes from the potential to please.

By doing so, the challenge has been hardened (or "hampered"). And consequently, it would potentially please to hardcores players.

But in practice, it can also don't please any of them, or don't please to all of them. Taste is subjective.

Even in a hypothetical scenario, where all the hardcore players for some reason haven't liked it, it would still have added depth to it.
By the same logic, adding places to explore in routes would also add depth, because even if you don't like it, it still has the potential to please players.

This is what seems to be a contradiction to me.
  • You say that rare encounters are good because they have the potential to please players, and so they add depth. Even when other players dislike it, because they can choose not to spend hours trying to get a specific Pokemon (and not get that Pokemon as a result),
  • But you say that adding dungeons would be bad because they would oversaturate the world, even though they would also be optional and have the potential to please players.
You keep saying that the potential to please means that encounter rates should stay, even if they have elements other players dislike, but you say that extra places to explore shouldn't be added even though they have the potential to please, because they have some elements that you don't like.
But then you'd be running away from what I was addressing there at the very beginning of the discussion.

I think that rare encounters can be totally replaced by Minya's suggestion if they maintain the same time investment requirements of rare encounters. That's what I said.
You are the only one advocating for the time investment to be the main issue. Nobody else here is asking for that. You can't argue against people
Because both of them have nothing to do with game design.

Sorry, but I've read and reread it several times, and I still can't figure out the communication problem here. Are you really telling me, in a discussion about game design, that if players want to be surprised in games, they have to close their eyes? It doesn't make any sense to me.
You're still not answering my question. My question is that if something unrelated to game design can produce the same result, why should the fact that it's unrelated to game design be a problem? "Because it's not about game design" doesn't answer that at all.

A rare encounter on each route doesn't disrupt the game environment and doesn't interfere with the player's immersion. A giant and complex dungeon on every each route, on the other hand, would look unnatural.
It makes more sense for the world to naturally be shaped like a straight line than it does for it to have areas off the beaten path? Have you ever been in a forest of any kind?


If the rare encounters' Pokémon are (supposedly by you) more value to these peoples than the competitives Pokémon
I already said that I think competitive Pokemon are harder to get than those with low encounter rates. You said that I thought the opposite, and I quoted exactly where I said that competitives were harder to get, and asked if you read my post all the way. Then you say that you had read my post carefully, and still say that I'm suggesting low encounter rates are harder to find than competitives, even when I already said that I believed the exact opposite?

Speedruns are what they are: speedruns. And that only adds to my point: the fastest player is the better speedrunner. It is totally time related. Developers have placed demands on investment of time in the game, and players who manage to pass through these impositions faster than others celebrates their achievement.
And it's an achievement totally separate from the game. The game itself gave no reward to the player for getting through faster than others.

And about the other two examples, both players, both who beat the gym leader, and both who beat the Elite 4, had to play the rest of the game to get there, and this was an imposition of time to conquer achievements.
The rest of the game wasn't just about the time invested, it was about the battles the player won. If it was primarily about time investment, then time would be the more important factor.

In addition, players who have gone through with it with one try are probably the ones who have the most knowledge of the game, and therefore were probably the ones who invested the most time in the series.
Then we can take an example of a new player who beat a gym leader in three tries, and another new player who beat them in five. It's not the specific outcome that I'm referring to, it's the fact that a longer playtime has no in-game benefits.

Yes, it is already pretty easy (of course, once you figure out how it works). But it can be improved by adding some things that you have mentioned.
You've been arguing that time investment is the main way that difficulty is implemented-have you not heard of how long breeding takes?

But in my initial argument, I meant that although some people find the grinding aspect of rare encounters "annoying", I rarely see anyone going to trading-communities and requiring these rare Pokémon, when in fact, I see many of them requiring only competitive Pokémon.

Thats leads me to believe that even Pokémon with 5% or less of chance of encounter, aren't being such a big problem to get, even to them, after all, taking also into account the multiplayer factor. Otherwise, the demand for them would be greater.
Nobody's said it's as hard as finding competitive Pokemon, just that it's frustrating.
I just wanted to point out that the fact of some players don't liking grinding - solely - means nothing. Because, you keep pointing that out.
It means that they dislike the only methods of gameplay they have available. Why is that irrelevant to the subject of adding another way to play?




There are around 80 new Pokémon including Yungoos as the regional rodent, and a Normal/Ground Kiwi as the regional bird.
80 new Pokemon, including Yungoos, who isn't new?
  • You have to Find, Battle, and Recruit 4 strong trainers (out of 8) to form the Elite 4.

  • The Pokémon league is now based on rounds like the Pokémon World Tournament where you must fight Ace Trainers and your Rivals.
You form the Elite 4, but the Elite 4 isn't the Pokemon League anymore? What are they, then?
 
80 new Pokemon, including Yungoos, who isn't new?

You form the Elite 4, but the Elite 4 isn't the Pokemon League anymore? What are they, then?
No I just rewrote the leak to make it neater, the Yungoos, And 80 New Pokémon, are on different lines in the original leak.

About the Elite 4 thing, it could be similar to the whole “Forming the Pokémon League” thing in Sun/Moon but different. Or a mistranslation, I’d the leak is to be believed.
 
@Seraphen47 Not again! We got from "Hoenn comfirmed! to "Eeveelution comfirmed!". I know that last time it was our fault, but I don't want to get my hopes up again.

@VelVoxelRaptor Thanks for the leak! However, the fact they mention starter stats and the separation of Elite Four and the League is suspicious, it sounds like it is taking inspiration for the anime. Also, why would the League tournament only use Ace Trainers? That sounds boring. If they added the rest of the Trainer classes from this game it would at least be more varied.
 
Apparently the Eevee Tamagotchi is hinting at new Eeveelutions

Three new eeveelutions seems too good to be true. For now, I choose to believe that there is a rare chance of hatching a Pichu.

Alternatively, I thought it was already said that there's a team rocket Eevee and a ditto Eevee in the game. Could the mystery squares be referring to these?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom