• 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.
  • Pronoun field selections have been updated! To ensure they show up correctly, please reselect your preferred option(s) in the Account details page. Click here for more information.

Official Pokémon Sword and Shield speculation thread (Updated June 5th, 2019)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lillie Blossoms

Active Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
332
Reaction score
609
The problem: what does "higher difficulty" even mean?

How do you make Pokemon appropriately challenging? All Challenge Mode does is increase the level of the Gym Leaders and the Elite Four by 1-5. That's not really challenging for the most part if you're willing to invest a little extra time in level grinding. Totem Pokemon were more challenging and you could still theoretically make every single Totem Pokemon a joke by having a Malamar in your team.

Some people thought Ultra Necrozma was challenging. But Zoroark and Malamar laugh at Ultra Necro's face. Does having an effective strategy/gimmick mean those battles are inherently less challenging? I dunno, I just don't think there's an effective way to implement any sort of difficulty options that most people with a little extra time on their hands won't exploit in some fashion or manner.

Difficulty Modes likely won't work in Pokemon because there isn't a good (emphasis on this) way to make it work in such a way that it's appropriately challenging.
Its still is a great attempt for people that want something more which it did as others mentioned above.
 

Oriden

May not return
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
8,113
Reaction score
24,605
The problem: what does "higher difficulty" even mean?

How do you make Pokemon appropriately challenging? All Challenge Mode does is increase the level of the Gym Leaders and the Elite Four by 1-5. That's not really challenging for the most part if you're willing to invest a little extra time in level grinding.
If the game is forcing you to grind for levels, then it's already more difficult. Couple that with a smarter trainer AI and that sounds like an appropriate way to implement difficulty to me- anything that makes me spend more time playing the game. Better than making it easy to breeze through so the game is over before you know it.
 

Extroth

Face the Darkness
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
717
Reaction score
1,069
If the game is forcing you to grind for levels, then it's already more difficult. Couple that with a smarter trainer AI and that sounds like an appropriate way to implement difficulty to me- anything that makes me spend more time playing the game. Better than making it easy to breeze through so the game is over before you know it.

That's an interesting way to think about it. I would certainly be happier with more game to play. I also like what B2W2 did where there where optional areas with stronger trainers and high level pokemon to fight. That might be a good way to do it have challenge areas where you can go if you want a challange. The game could warn you that you are entering one of these areas so players who want nothing to do with that could just move forward instead.
 

Oriden

May not return
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
8,113
Reaction score
24,605
I think one of the reasons why people want more post-game is because the main game doesn't slow them down enough- you don't really get your fill of playing by that point. A longer game with increasing difficulty would probably be better, but GameFreak's design philosophy has geared towards the opposite.
 

Shrapnel Stars

Planetary, Intergalactic
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
91
Reaction score
358
Eh, being forced to level grind doesn't cut it as extra challenge or fun to me, just more tedium, but I'm very happy that it does work as challenge for other players. For me, challenge is more like PokeStar, monotype runs, evolution stage locking, BST locking, species locking, and other such things that alter the way one must engage in battle and make decisions. Level grinding is just making sure those decisions have maximum impact. Lv. 2 Water Gun against a Lv. 40 Diglett, versus Lv. 50 Water Gun against a Lv. 40 Diglett, as an example. In both instances, you've made the correct decision, but have a difference in the impact of that correct decision. (As an aside, it's high time they added an "Exp. 0" item for people who want to do low level challenges, which is the functional same as cranking every enemy's level up. You are put at an impact disadvantage, which I'm assuming is the salient point of that style of challenge.)

Something that I very much enjoyed from some of the old facilities and achievements was stuff like limiting the types, numbers, species, etc. of Pokemon you had. The Lv. 40 Diglett isn't as simple if you're locked to all Electric types, but if you planned your team out and brought Lanturn or Stunfisk, you could easily take the Diglett on. Maybe your run locks you to Pokemon like Wobbuffet or Pyukumuku. You learn to keep Toxic and Rocky Helmet on them to get in some chip damage since you can't attack directly. The challenge then comes from strategizing around rule limitations and play style instead of just time investment.

I've played some fan games where literally all the difficulty came from opponents being 10 levels higher and them all having Protect. They were a time sink and nothing more, unfortunately, because the only "hard" part was level grinding a bit more than normal and only getting to attack every other turn. First route trainer of that game was a Lv. 10 Pineco with Protect. Fake difficulty was fake.
 

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
2,555
@Shrapnel Stars
To be honest, people aren't suggesting only increased levels, but also AI improvements, better movesets and better developed teams (level scaling was also suggested). The argument about level grinding only came about because some people said that a difficulty setting option would be useless if you could grind and overlevel the NPC. What isn't true, for all the reasons previously quoted. That's where the argument about grinding came from.

About the later, personally I'm not a fan the idea of imposing limitations on the main run. Pokémon is a game about choices. Imposing limitations, and therefore limiting those choices, doesn't seem to me congruent with what the series proposes at all. That would also affect the replay factor of the game. I think players should choose to play the way they want to, using whatever Pokémon they want to. That's a staple of Pokémon series. Should not be changed, imo.
 

Knightwolf09

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
7,399
You know. Steel types should be super effective against Dragon types. I mean why not, they already resist them, plus in a sense the sword slays the dragon
 

IncineROAR

Darth Ignis
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
2,245
Reaction score
1,916
You know. Steel types should be super effective against Dragon types. I mean why not, they already resist them, plus in a sense the sword slays the dragon

I think that would make Steel too powerful in all honest. Steel is already one of only two types that are super effective against Fairy, and Rock and Ice types are also already weak against the Steel type. Pokemon that are pure Steel type have increased resistance to several types on top of it all.
 

Knightwolf09

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
7,399
I think that would make Steel too powerful in all honest. Steel is already one of only two types that are super effective against Fairy, and Rock and Ice types are also already weak against the Steel type. Pokemon that are pure Steel type have increased resistance to several types on top of it all.
I mean since steel already resist them, and dragons are still really powerful, Why not? Plus most dragons have Fire for coverage, so that at least helps
 

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
2,555
A bit off-topic, but a new Yokai Watch 4 trailer just came out these days (I just noticed it now):



I found it very exciting. This is a good year for Switch, for sure. I wonder when we'll get a SwSh trailer like this (or like that "legendaries trailer" from Sun and Moon, that was pretty exciting back on sm pre-release too). Probably not by now. But I'm looking forward to the possible trailer that can come out in about a week either way. Remembering of SM, I hope they have as many big and mind-blowing innovations (like Z-moves, Alola Forms, UBs, Trials, Totems etc.) to be revealed this time too.
 
Last edited:

Joker901

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
3,743
Reaction score
8,237
I did a small research for you guys. This is when we got news in May for the last three gens games.

B/W: May 7th - starters sihlouettes, then revealed on corocoro on the 12th (leak). Legends on the 28th.
B2/W2: May 12th (but 15th officially) - Corocoro.
X/Y: May 11th (but 15th officially) - Corocoro.
OR/AS: May 7th - Announcement.
S/M: May 10th - Trailer with starters, region and legends.
US/UM: Nothing. Announced in June.
Let's Go: May 30th - Announcement trailer.

Now, considering the past, we can expect something in the week from the 6th to the 12th or something during the last week of May, most likely the first option, considering all other main gen games had news during that week even if just through a leak.
Two months have passed since the announcement. We can now say that the worst (even if expected) of this marketing campaign is almost over. Just a week to go.
 
Last edited:

colours

ꜰʟᴏᴡᴇʀ ꜰɪᴇʟᴅꜱ ❀
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
3,440
Pronouns
  1. She/Her
Well, but then you would not be talking about any inherent advantage, since you're ignoring my numerical advantage example. But let's use "your" example then, even if the player uses 4 of the best Pokémon, and prepare their team to counter that particular gym leader team, it's worth taking into consideration that:

If I'm not addressing a certain point, feel free to point it out to me. I'm going to respectfully ask, however, that you cut out the assumptions (re: the bold) because it's not helping your argument at all. I don't intentionally ignore points and to be honest, we've been back and fourth with this for the past day or two, so forgive me if I forget to acknowledge every single detail.
  • [*]They still had to prepare the team for that specific challenge (looking for specific Pokémon, training them, etc.);
    [*]That would not mean that the battle would not be challenging at all (it might not be).
    [*]
It might not be. Again, significantly less challenging does not equal hard mode. That's... normal mode in most games.

But, personally speaking, a hard mode that makes the player having to prepare their teams for the gyms, and/or that make them having to do something other than just press A continuously in battles (like you had to think about a way to win the Chikorita vs Falkner's case), would be a good start to begin with, and satisfactory in my opinion. .

The problem here is that the reason I had to strategize in the situation regarding Chikorita vs Falkner is because I was at a disadvantage from the start. Because Chikorita/Bayleef are weak to Flying-types, it takes more than just spamming one attack to win; it takes thinking creatively. The same can be said with Bugsy. When you're at a disadvantage, you have to strategize and think of ways to give you a proper advantage and turn the match in your favour. This goes full circle to what I mentioned before in regards to limitations on the player. The player may not intentionally limit themselves, but by the time they face Falkner or Bugsy they will likely only rely on their Grass starter for the heavy lifting, leading to more of a challenging feeling due to, again, being at a disadvantage from the start.

FIrstly, obviously, I know you're not "daft", and I only persisted at that point because it was the point that you've persisted in the previous answers. You've said several times that "there would be no challenge if my Pokémon had x levels over",

There would be no challenge if, again, hard mode was implemented through incremental level increases in the same manner that B2W2 implemented. That's the entire reason I brought up the level argument in the first place.

"there would be no challenge if npc y still uses a monotype team" etc. And I was reminding you that those statements aren't true.

If you can still hit the A button and spam (insert super-effective move) on Gym Leaders, then please do tell where the challenge is?

I kind of see the point you're trying to make here, but yeah, I'm still leaning pretty strongly towards the "yes". And yeah, we can agree to disagree, then.

Glad we got that cleared up, then. It's pretty clear you see difficulty in a different lens than I do. From the way I see things, there is no difficulty if the game is handholding me. You seem to think that is still the case, so we'll just leave it be.

Just a note (you can add to this if you want to): They always do that. How you can also get Mareep before facing Falkner, Timburr before facing Lenora etc. It's a good decision regarding level design, I think. I kind of understand the point you're trying to make here: "They always put these Pokémon there so that players who wish to, can get through the gyms more easily. This is a staple of Pokémon games and the way they are built. And to make a proper hard mode, the way I see it, that would have to be restructured. " - Right? (I hope I'm not misreading your point).

Yes, players can obtain these Pokemon if they wish to, that way they would have a significantly easier time later on in the game. These are elements intentionally placed by Game Freak to make the challenge easier. Does the challenge exist at all? I believe you still argue yes, but I would still firmly disagree in that. You can ignore getting a Mareep, place a limitation on yourself that you're not going to rely on a Pokemon pretty much thrown at you to make the first Gym Battle easier and place yourself at an intentionally disadvantage, therefore creating that challenge.

The challenge... just isn't there (or rather, isn't as present) if you're utilizing the options the games give you to make that challenge easier. If you have an inherent advantage, that's no longer hard mode in my eyes. That's essentially Easy/Normal mode, but you may see things differently than I do, here.


As I said in the previous answer, I think that a scenario where the player has to do something other than just go to the gyms and press A continuously is already good to start with. But you are separating things in black and white only (or it's a very challenging battle where you are at a lot of disadvantage, or it's totally easy where you have total advantage), and ignoring the whole gray part of the spectrum.

Again, if there's a point I'm not acknowledging here, feel free to explain it, but it's really not helping your argument at all to assume I'm glazing over details intentionally.

I've already addressed this up above anyway.


Ok, as I said, I don't think the game needs to do both (up the monster and handicap the player) to do well in scaling up the difficulty. I think that just makes things harder (generally). But we can agree to disagree here if you feel like.

Sure. I see things differently. Post-game battle facilities iirc (I know Maison does this, at least. Idk about Battle Tree) buff up the Pokemon themselves by giving them max EVs, IVs, and a perfect nature on top of that. Both parties are handicapped at three Pokemon, no Potions, etc, to ensure more of a fair (key word here) challenge.

I really think it's. I'm talking about the game structure solely (revolves around grinding, turn-based combat system etc.) So let's just agree to disagree here if you feel like.

I still think it's not and if I may be honest I feel like metaphorically you're comparing apples to pineapples and justifying the such because they both have "apple" a part of their names.

Yes, Pokemon is a grindy, turn-based JRPG. No, it is not like any other turn-based, grindy RPG because again, Pokemon follows its own rules.


Again, I think you're just overestimating the situation, and separating things in black and white only. And again, I don't think Game Freak doesn't have the same flexibility as you say. I've given many examples to try and show you that, so I'll stop here so I don't get repetitive. Again we can agree to disagree if you feel like.

The only example which you've given that's plausible that would make the game in any sense remotely challenging is level scaling, and that's pretty standard fare for... most difficulties in RPGs, iirc. The complex dungeon thing I don't really care about nor does that have anything to do with making battles themselves easier or harder (I mean, you mention ditching trainer healing, but I mean, what's stopping me from using a Super Potion instead?).


I'm considering what they're able to do, not only what they are used to. Even so, less of a challenge, is still a challenge though.

Less of a challenge is not hard mode, it's normal mode.

The problem I see with AI of the battles facilities is that they rely a lot on luck, isn't exactly what I had in mind.

...?? Wait, what??

ok now this went way over my head. The player and the AI are scaled so that they're equal to each other in level, they have max EVs, IVs, and +natures (nothing's stopping the player from accomplishing the very same thing), and you're... bringing luck in the equation for some reason? I'm massively confused now.

As you yourself said, Natures can make a difference in some cases, so can items. In a hypothetical hard mode, if the gym leader uses a choice item, and you're stuck with an Amulet Coin, it can make a difference.

Depends. Let's get into the details, shall we?

  • Since we're talking about Gym Leaders, let's assume this is late game we're talking about here. I can send my Pokemon with an Amulet Coin first, likely a Pokemon that wouldn't matter too much if it fainted. I can weaken the Gym Leader's Pokemon and send in my strongest Pokemon later to basically finish the job.
  • If all of the Gym Leader's Pokemon were level-scaled such that they all matched the level of my strongest Pokemon, then this would be a much riskier strategy to pull off. But the thing about it is, with the first bullet point, I can act a bit recklessly under the assumption that I have that advantage to start with and I can just click A all night and day.
Wait, I said that "I don't think the game needs to do both (up the monster and debuff the player) to do well in scaling up the difficulty. I think that just makes things harder (generally)." With both you can make something hard even harder. But I meant that I don't believe you necessarily need both to generate a challenge. That's what I meant. I'm wasn't saying I'm necessarily against doing both or anything.

I'm personally not a fan of challenges that are too one-sided, but that's just me.

But we have already discussed this. Handicaps can also be surpassed, so seeing things the way you are doing, I don't see the difference. And of course, it depends on the buff.

It depends on the handicap, does it?

That doesn't make sense. The very fact that the player has to prepare their team for that occasion should makes them feel it. For example, just because the player has the possibility of grind and overcome handicaps, doesn't mean that the handicaps aren't there or that they should not be there anymore.

Disagree here. If I take a Water type from my PC to put in my team (using your words "prepare his/her team for that occasion") just to click A on Surf for all of maybe 15 seconds against a Fire-type Gym Leader, then I fail to see where the challenge lies. You prepare your team to make the challenge easier, to eliminate as much of that challenge as possible, therefore the challenge is barely there to the point of where it might as well not be a challenge at all.


No, because what Game Freak has done in the most recent games was to ignore a portion of the players (regarding difficulty).

Game Freak has introduced difficult elements in Pokemon games, and this is more evident in SM/USUM more than any other game prior with the implementation of Totem Pokemon, Island Kahuna matches, and Elite Four battles. It seems to me that you're not satisfied with the "challenge" that Game Freak has offered players so far, so from the best of my understanding, you would like a hard mode such that you would intentionally be placed at a disadvantage (debuffing the player or buffing the AI in this context doesn't matter because you'd be starting at a disadvantage either way). Which is.... essentially my whole perspective regarding difficulty. Game Freak implements it poorly to try to get players at a disadvantage by focusing more on level and altering movesets, but the player can overcome this difficulty rather easily making the difficulty pretty much negligible.



"If it's not intended, then it wouldn't available as an option." I disagree. In various games there are available options to do things in a different way from the one that it was designed to be done. Regarding Pokémon games, you get totally random EVs in main game battles, it's totally hard to find a perfect IV wild Pokémon, and Stats Judge are a post-game thing only, among other limitations. You can transfer it from another game, you can get a perfect Pokémon and train it with correct EVs anyway, it's an available option (and I think it's a good thing to have that option), but clearly it is not how they intended it to be played. They are different things.

Considering that Game Freak intentionally allows players to EV train early if they so desired as a part of game design, I'd argue otherwise. Sure, you can botch up EVs pretty easily given multiple trainer battles,, but that's far past the point. Why is it then, that Game Freak doesn't flat-out introduce a mechanic that forbids your Pokemon from gaining EVs at all until post-game? If it's something that Game Freak truly did not intend, then why didn't they go out of their way to prevent it, then?

The initial question was about your concept of difficulty in video games (objectively speaking). You answered "handicaps", but don't you think there are very difficult games that don't make use of it (not only, but also of several other genres)? So, that would lead to how games are structured, and why the "problem" you pointed out happens in other similar games too. Like, I remember a speech from Miyamoto that talks about RPGs in general and that fits here:

"Interviewer: Lastly, what do you feel an RPG should be like?

Miyamoto: Let’s say you tie someone completely up – even their individual fingers – and then wait a while. Then, if you start to untie the ropes one by one, they’ll of course be happy. Anyone would. The method of sticking someone in an incredibly tight situation then untightening it little by little and then saying, “There! Aren’t you happy now?” becomes very boring as soon as it becomes evident. So, instead of that, my personal theme when making RPG-like games is, “What can I do?” I don’t think creating happiness comes from starting from a negative and returning to zero. It’s starting from zero and ending at one hundred, and I try to think of ways to allow that.
"

But it ended up going to a more personal side. You should not focus so much on my assumption. But okay, I understand you like handicaps. And it's true that HGSS difficulty rely too much on the level curve. So I can see why you didn't find it difficult personally.

Sure. As a huge RPG player, there are tons of difficult games that don't make use of handicaps per se. Here, I'll list them for you:
  • Chrono Trigger
  • Xenosaga Series
  • Wild Arms Series
  • Dragon Quest (more specifically, VIII)
  • Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series (depending on the situation but can be difficult
  • Some Final Fantasy games
My gaming livelihood doesn't revolve around handicaps, despite what you seem to be implying. I just think that would be a better route for Game Freak to take in the implementation of better difficulty as a whole, but it won't happen, so I feel it's kind of pointless to argue about.

Ok, I disagree, let's just agree to disagree.

Sure.

It's okay, but that was what you were talking about at the beginning? Like, you even have said "...No matter how "smart" you make the AI, there's not much it can do if it's like 5-10 levels below your team. " And then now you're kind of changing the goal, and making of AI a big deal (see the previous quote)...But okay, let's just get over it.

.... Because I was talking about B2W2's challenge mode and how that's not a good way of implementing difficulty. For some strange reason you assumed that was my core point against difficulty as a whole, when it isn't.


I agree, we should not see things just as black and white, because they are not like that. I was just saying that if it was to see things the way you were looking at it, there would be no difference between them.

Incremental level gains, not level scaling. Keep that in mind whenever I argue "overleveling".

Like I said, if the player is using extremely specific Pokémon for each gym leader and each elite 4 member, it will cause them to have to train many at the same time, and some getting underleveled by consequently.

Training multiple Pokemon is a element of what Pokemon games are. It doesn't say anything either way about difficulty whatsoever.

Rapidash can handle a Focus Sash? Or a Shuca Berry? If she holds a Petaya Berry and has some def investment that makes her survive you will be forced to switch, huh?

Gastrodon will not be able do much if others Pokémon have similar Rapidash-type movesets (which is just the point of my suggestion, better teams with better movesets).

Of course, you can say: "my Hippowdon takes the damage, survive, and knocks out Rapidash later...My Hippowdon holds a Rindo Berry..." etc. And we could stay here forever.

As I said, I don't think this specific example proves anything to either side, I only did it for fun. But if you want to know, even if you prepare yourself in every possible way, and if you win the battle, and personally find it to be easy, I think the fact that you had to do something other than just getting into the gym and pressing A continuously to be a positive thing regarding a hard mode.

I mean, that's possible, but I took your statement more from face value.

Sorry, but honestly, that's how you sounded at the beginning. And even now, that you brought new points, I still respectfully disagree with you on the majority of them.

And I respectfully disagree with you on most of yours. As I've mentioned, we see difficulty through a different lens and there's nothing wrong with that. We just have different ideas of what good implemented difficulty consists of and that's fine.


As said, I'm not discussing only what they are used to do, but also what they are able to. I find your preference for handicaps to be something personal and subjective, honestly. It doesn't mean it would not work without them, just that you would not like it?

Your entire preference of how Game Freak should implement difficulty period is subjective. We're simply arguing from different angles.

And no, it's not personal.

Sure, I don't see why they can't use level scaling (and we seem to agree on this). Although, I don't see a problem at just incremental levels either.

Pokemon games already do incremental levels gains, that's how Pokemon games have always worked. Each Gym Leader is progressively stronger than the last, each Gym Trainer as you go further in Routes are usually stronger than the ones in the routes before, etc. The problem here lies (at least, from my perspective), is that Game Freak's current implementation of incremental levels is not satisfactory to those arguing for more difficulty. But it becomes a circular problem because then if Game Freak increases the level even more, then who's to say that won't be enough? There's a fine line between a proper challenge and flatout being unfair to the player. If Game Freak took B2W2's challenge mode, put it in steroids and doubled the level of every Gym Leader from the last, that would by all technicalities be a "challenge", but it would be an unfair one. There's a balance to be had here and incremental leveling is just not it.


I think it's enough. This is okay, but I think we didn't reach a consensus in anything. Feel free to add any final considerations if you feel like doing it.

Its still is a great attempt for people that want something more which it did as others mentioned above.
If the game is forcing you to grind for levels, then it's already more difficult. Couple that with a smarter trainer AI and that sounds like an appropriate way to implement difficulty to me- anything that makes me spend more time playing the game. Better than making it easy to breeze through so the game is over before you know it.

I'll reply to all three of you in this same point I want to make

Personally, I still do maintain the perspective that it's difficult for Game Freak to implement stricter difficulty beyond B2W2 for standard play. That's not to say that it's impossible, I just maintain my skepticism. To me, grinding is part of what Pokemon is, in the same vein that grinding is a part of like... every level-grindy RPG ever. Perhaps you play Pokemon in a different style than I do and that too, is fine. I enter Pokemon games with the mentality that the goal is to always grind, because that's the point (and it's fun for me, so there's that!). It doesn't speak for any kind of difficulty and I disagree that it does. Perhaps I'm just used to how RPGs in general are over the years, because the point is to always grind in preparation for the next boss. You grind as part of the level and game design, and the difficulty comes in part of the battle itself. What is the boss' strategy? What are the weaknesses and resistances? How powerful is the boss and how much damage and I doing relative to how much damage the boss is doing to me? There's so many factors to consider in regards to difficultly that I don't think it's accurate to pin difficulty solely on the grinding experience.

I would agree with a more intelligent AI, however.

edit:

The argument about level grinding only came about because some people said that a difficulty setting option would be useless if you could grind and overlevel the NPC. What isn't true,

one thing:

- Again, overleveling the NPC is an argument against B2W2's Challenge Mode and arguing why it's a poor implementation of difficulty in general. There's a difference between you personally disagree with me and it not being true as a matter of objective fact. You personally disagree with me, which is fine, but your opinion is not a matter of objective fact and I appreciate it if you would stop insinuating as such. I would like to think I'm not spouting falsities and simply expressing my personal belief of difficulty modes not meshing well with Pokemon games, so the implication that I am is fairly offensive, if I'm going to be honest.

Disagree with me all you'd like. That's fine, everyone has a different ideas and approaches in regards to Pokemon games and I think that's what makes discussions like these very interesting. It starts getting into unnecessary territory when you imply or claim that one side is spouting falsities so I'm going to respectfully ask you to refrain from such terminology. If you disagree with me personally, you can say explicitly as such.

edit 2:

whew this is starting to get way past the point of this thread -- i have a good feeling this may go on for a while so @Myth if you want, we can continue this in PM or drop it altogether but at this point I feel like we're clogging up the thread. Let's just leave it at you have your personal perspectives about difficulty and I have mine.
 
Last edited:

IncineROAR

Darth Ignis
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
2,245
Reaction score
1,916
I mean since steel already resist them, and dragons are still really powerful, Why not? Plus most dragons have Fire for coverage, so that at least helps

There are very few pure dragon type Pokemon, most of them are dual type. Dragon/Flying are weak against Rock, Ice (with a 4x weakness), Fairy, and Dragon. Dragon types are also not very accessible in the game period. I think we are good with them not having an addiitonal weakness to Steel..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom