• 4chan is an 18+ website, and as such we do not want to expose our underage users to that site.

    You may post screen shots and text from 4chan, but direct linking to the site, or it's archival sites is not allowed.

    Thanks.

  • Hello all! The forum staff have introduced a new rule set. We've reduced the number of rules, made trick language easier to understand, and have hopefully simplified the rules to make understanding them easier. Please have a read over the new forum rules here.
  • Hey guys! Have you heard? We now have popup
    Yes, Popups!
    messages for your forum posts. Learn more about it here!
  • Hey everyone, if you hadn't heard, information about Sword and Shield has been leaking. Outside of the designated threads in our Current Events section, please keep all unrevealed Pokemon, names, or any other information in spoiler tags. This policy will be in effect until January 3rd. This is an exciting time for Pokémon fans, enjoy yourselves!
  • Recently, some of our fellow Pokémon fan sites have received legal requests to take down leaked Sword and Shield images. We have not received one of these requests yet, but we are taking some preemptive measures to stay on the safe side. We ask that from now until the games release (November 15th) that you do not post any new leaked images anywhere on the forums.

    For more information, see this thread

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
2,400
I think Pokémon Z and having Zygarde as a box legend is wishful thinking. Also, what would be the business rationale to include it in a Gen 8 game?
 
Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
5,130
Reaction score
6,273
I think Pokémon Z and having Zygarde as a box legend is wishful thinking. Also, what would be the business rationale to include it in a Gen 8 game?
Yeah. I'd rather have the upcoming games focus on a completely new region rather than trying to salvage Gen 6. I'm upset that some people are still salty that we never got a Z version.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
9,136
The issue is that people usually only use the term "grinding" just for when they are "levelling". That's wrong. I took this citation from Wikipedia:

"In video gaming, grinding is performing repetitive tasks for gameplay advantage. Many video games use different tactics to implement, or reduce the amount of grinding in play. The general use of grinding is for "experience points", or to improve the characters level. However, the behavior is sometimes referred to as pushing the bar, farming or catassing."
When grinding for levels/gold/etc, each battle contributes some amount of what the player is wanting. But in the example of trying to find a rare Pokemon, the repetitive task isn't give you any advantage. Triggering an encounter with a Pokemon they don't want hasn't brought the player any closer to the Pokemon they're wanting. It's only the encounter that gives them the Pokemon they want that's giving them an advantage, and the chance for it isn't increased by the other battles with unrelated Pokemon.
It would not make sense to remove them because of that reason, because, in addition of having others peoples that not find it annoying but funnny instead, it is also a characteristic of the genre. If some people don't like it that much, to the point of not playing the game because of its existence, we can certainly say that the said person simply doesn't like the genre, and that should not even have bought the game, to begin with (just to make it clear, I'm using just a random example.)
While grinding often appears in in RPG games, that doesn't mean it's essential to the gameplay. There's plenty of games that can be played without requiring the player to grind. Saying that people should just not play the game if they don't like grinding is restricting options of gameplay way more than adding an additional way to find rare Pokemon.
I repeat the question I asked Oriden: It's a JRPG collecting game. How would rare encounters not add depth to it, after all?
And I'll repeat my question-how is running around in the same patch of grass adding depth?
But using a totally imaginary practical example, of two kind of players who are playing the game for the first time, and want to play through the main story by completing the Pokédex as well:

Players on the "most casual side of the spectrum" will go through the routes without catching these rare Pokémon (perhaps one or other by luck).

Players on the "most hardcore side of the spectrum" will go through the routes catching them all.

The two of them played the same game, and had fun with it. The difference of the game used by the example from other games, is that it is able to please the two audiences, because it has depth in it.
That assumes that the hardcore player genuinely enjoyed running around the grass repeatedly. Judging by the complaints of grinding in this thread, that is not always the case.
I don't defend the permanence of rare Pokemon encounters in the game just by the possible surprise factor that it can provide. I was just answering the Minya_Nouvelle question.
Then what other value is there in it? The only reasons I've heard are surprise, people enjoying the repetition, and immersion in the world. Repetition can still be found in other elements of the game (or just by repeating anything in the game, really), and world immersion still happens when rare Pokemon are more likely to be discovered in certain areas. (I'd argue it's more immersive than finding a rare Pokemon by running around in the grass repeatedly)
Also, your example of simply "closing your eyes" is totally unaffordable to the situation. It's the same as saying people asking for a difficulty setting option: "if you just want a more difficult game, try playing without your hands" or things like that, it just doesn't make any sense.
When people are asking for a difficulty option, they're asking for ways to strategize more in battle, so suggesting difficulty added from things unrelated to the battle itself doesn't help. But when people are asking for a surprise, all they're asking for is that information be withheld from them until a certain point. So why can't closing their eyes work just as well?
I really don't see the practical difference between the two (regarding the subject of this discussion, of course).
I don't understand how you don't see the difference when the next thing you say is this:
Being improved is different from being removed.

The first is a grinding characteristic, consists of repetitive actions of the player. Also, is something that doesn't require much attention from the player.

The other is a feature more tied to games that focus more on exploration, and requires a high spawn of the attention by the player all the time.

I like both. And as I said, I would like them to add more features as the later example in the games (after all, the games of Pokémon also has "adventure" in its genre). So adding the two, even if it would be for the same Pokémon, would be the ideal scenary.
And that's exactly what's I suggested?
It's the same thing here. Nobody's asking to remove the concept of rarities entirely, just to make it more engaging rather than purely a game of chance. The examples that Minya_Nouvelle gave still had their Pokemon appear in an easy-to-reach location that someone could repeatedly trigger an encounter in if they really loved the feeling of hours of comMons before the one they were looking for. Letting rare Pokemon become easier to find in another location just makes it to where it's not a requirement.
The Pokémon nowadays are already more than devalued. Even with extremely rare encounters, you rarely see anyone interested in adding another person on the 3DS as a friend just to exchange common Pokémon, other than thoses with specific Natures or specific Abilities, for example.
I rarely see anyone friending someone just for the sake of a rare Pokemon at all, because people won't usually trade for a Pokemon that they can catch themselves. 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.
In games like Kalos, where almost in every route has a Pokémon with a rare chance of encounter, it would be simply impossible to substitute it by the mentioned suggested system and still maintain the same difficulty and challenge. Because all the routes would need to be complex and it would totally convolute the game.
I don't understand your logic here. You say that low-chance encounters in routes are a positive, because they "add depth" and are an optional way to play. But the suggestion of adding extra areas to routes, which would add depth to route design and an optional place to explore, would be a problem?
It would be like all the routes were a dungeon. I don't see that happening, and don't want it to, because it would ruin the game's enviroment and immersion. It would look like a bad MMO or something, rather than like a realistic Pokemon world.
It's more immersive to not have extra places to explore?
Also, if the rare encounters were completely replaced by Minya's suggestion, many people would not like to go until the end of the dungeon/quest as well, and these people would also have to deal with it by looking for someone else in the GTS, in the same way.
I think the number of players who aren't willing to explore to the end of a dungeon or quest is probably smaller than the number of players who don't want to grind.
 
Here to ride the rumor train.
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
5,474
Reaction score
19,347
So basically Kiloude City?

That would be terrible. I really love Kalos and only seeing a part would make me want the rest. It would be like making a delicious meal, but you may only have a taste. The rest would be unaccessible.
When people say “southern Kalos”, they usually mean the big chunk of southern France that’s not used in Kalos at all.
Yeah, that is exactly what I meant with the unused part of France. It could include Kiloude City, of course, as a part that would be familiar, but if we were to visit Kalos at all, I feel like only including the southern part of France could be the best way to do it. This way, it would be more interesting as we would be exploring part of a region that we never got to see before, and it would allow for the games to focus more on the new region and not on making the old one worth revisiting in its entirety. Gen 6 is still pretty recent, after all.
 
On a journey to become whole again.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,012
Reaction score
3,862
I'm completely okay with having a Kalos remake (way too soon btw) as long as no older region prior to that is skipped out from its remake.
 
Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,064
Reaction score
2,396
When grinding for levels/gold/etc, each battle contributes some amount of what the player is wanting. But in the example of trying to find a rare Pokemon, the repetitive task isn't give you any advantage. Triggering an encounter with a Pokemon they don't want hasn't brought the player any closer to the Pokemon they're wanting. It's only the encounter that gives them the Pokemon they want that's giving them an advantage, and the chance for it isn't increased by the other battles with unrelated Pokemon.
Yes, but the use of the term is correct. We have a similar example in some games where there are activities where players break things or kill monsters looking for droping an especific item with a small chance of drop. And even though it may seem that they aren't "progressing" from a practical point of view, in a subjective sense they are progressing little by little in pursuit of their goal (drop a particular rare item from the monster or the object), because the more monsters the player kills or the more objects the player breaks, the more likely they are to drop the desired item.

With the wild battles it is no different. With each new encounter is a new chance to find the desired Pokémon, you are progressing little by little in the repetitive task in pursuit of your goal, this is grinding, as well.

While grinding often appears in in RPG games, that doesn't mean it's essential to the gameplay. There's plenty of games that can be played without requiring the player to grind.
I know that, but I wasn't talking about those others games, I was talking about JRPGs.

Saying that people should just not play the game if they don't like grinding is restricting options of gameplay way more than adding an additional way to find rare Pokemon.
I didn't say people should not play the game if they don't like grinding. I said that, if it is a characteristic of the genre, they should not expect that it would be removed just because they don't like it.

As I had said between the parentheses, that was just one random example that I used. The person may not like grinding and still playing it, it is up to the person to decide it. I don't have anything to do with it.

Also, adding an additional way to find rare Pokemon is different from totally removing the rare encounters. I'm in favor of something like that.

And I'll repeat my question-how is running around in the same patch of grass adding depth?
Rare encounters adds depth to the encounters' mechanics, specifically. It adds depth in the sense of expanding the demographic target and being able to please both casual and hardcore players.

And wait, I'm not just talking about random encounters solely. You already noticed that, right?

I agree that the system of random encounters can be replaced by the system of Pokémon appearing in the overworld, but it would need to be better developed than the Let's Go system, as I said a few pages ago. But still, I think there should still be "rare encounters". Pokémon with little chances of spawns.

That assumes that the hardcore player genuinely enjoyed running around the grass repeatedly. Judging by the complaints of grinding in this thread, that is not always the case.
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.

The depth is there. Grinding is an essential part of JRPGs. Whether people like it or not.

Then what other value is there in it? The only reasons I've heard are surprise, people enjoying the repetition, and immersion in the world. Repetition can still be found in other elements of the game (or just by repeating anything in the game, really), and world immersion still happens when rare Pokemon are more likely to be discovered in certain areas. (I'd argue it's more immersive than finding a rare Pokemon by running around in the grass repeatedly)
About rare encounters?

I already said many of them:

Adds depth to every route in the game.
Adds rarity value to some Pokémon.
It increases the game world. It is expected to have rare creatures everywhere, and not only in difficult places to access.
Adds to the surprise factor of the game.

But well, to begin with, whoever is asking to remove it is the ones who should be showing reasons for doing so.

And the only reason I have seen so far is that some players may find the grinding aspect of it "annoying".

Even through grinding being a characteristic of JRPGs and of the Pokémon series.

I showed you many values, now can you show me the cons? Besides someone finding it "annoying"?

When people are asking for a difficulty option, they're asking for ways to strategize more in battle, so suggesting difficulty added from things unrelated to the battle itself doesn't help. But when people are asking for a surprise, all they're asking for is that information be withheld from them until a certain point. So why can't closing their eyes work just as well?
No, you know that's not how it works.

The two cases (of telling people who want more difficulty to play without their hands, and of telling people who want more "surprise" to play with their eyes closed) are equally flawed arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with game design, at all.

I don't understand how you don't see the difference when the next thing you say is this:
Masuda scraped the Battle Frontier because he thought that some players would not have time or patience for it today.

We were arguing about people who have no patience (find it boring) or time for the rare encounters.

The next generation games, which is what we are discussing, are being developed (in final development, but what I mean is that it has not been released yet), in a hypothetical situation Masuda might also have thought during some part of the development of it that today's people no longer have the patience or time for the rare encounters, and have totally removed them from the next games.

There are two situations, which regarding the subject that we are discussing, have relations with each other. Now let's go to the example below.

You said that: "When people have a problem with a feature, it can be a good thing to examine how it could be improved."

Even though some people were not discussing about improving the rare encounters, but about just removing or totally replacing it. So, I answer to you: "Being improved is different from being removed. Like I said, I'm also totally in favor of improvements, as well."

What does that have to do with the fact that I don't see practical difference in the Masuda's case? Sorry, I didn't understand the correlation. Were totally different things, to me.

And that's exactly what's I suggested?
Yeah, but as I said, that wasn't what was being said on the previous pages. Some people would like it to be removed and replaced, or just removed. Not to be improved.

I rarely see anyone friending someone just for the sake of a rare Pokemon at all, because people won't usually trade for a Pokemon that they can catch themselves. When someone's trading, they either supply a Pokemon with a good nature/Ability/IVs, which requires more grinding on their part,
So, you are contradicting yourself and at the same time reinforcing some of my points.

If "they can catch it themselves", it's because even for people who find grinding "annoying", the rare encounters are not such a serious problem for them, otherwise they would require them in trades, right?

It seems then that Pokémon with good Natures, IVs and Abilities are harder to obtain, then?

So, if anyone finds these systems "annoying" too, can we pull them out of the game as well? (it's just a rhetorical question)

or the person trading the rare Pokemon is willing to give it up for a lesser value Pokemon, which already devalues them.
But you said that Pokémon with good IVs/Natures/Abilities require more grinding. Doesn't that mean that Pokémon that only require griding of the rare encounters are less valuable, and that way, would not it be advantageous for the player you quoted later trading them for competitive Pokémon? (Again, it was just a rhetorical question. But you are contradicting yourself.)

I don't understand your logic here. You say that low-chance encounters in routes are a positive, because they "add depth" and are an optional way to play. But the suggestion of adding extra areas to routes, which would add depth to route design and an optional place to explore, would be a problem?
What I meant is that in a game like XY, where we have on almost all the routes Pokémon with low chances of encounters, replacement it by Minya's suggestion would convolute the game.

Because in the example that I was using, about totally replacing the rare encounters by Minya's suggestion, but still keeping the same requirement of time and energy expended of the rare encounters in it, it would mean that there should be added so many complex giant dungeons in Kalos, everywhere.

That would be convolute the game. I want as many dungeons as possible, but I still want the game world to look natural too, not to look like a world of a poorly developed MMO or something.

It's more immersive to not have extra places to explore?
It's more immersive to play in a natural world, where things (even dungeons) look like natural things of that world. So, if those extra places looks more like natural places of that world: yes, it is.

Playing in a world where you can realize that you are playing in a world in a video game that was built by someone, and not something that looks natural, isn't immersive.

I think the number of players who aren't willing to explore to the end of a dungeon or quest is probably smaller than the number of players who don't want to grind.
I don't know about the numbers, but there will certainly be the two cases: people who like grinding (as the user that said him find it relaxing) and that would find the giant dungeons/quests tiresome, and people who would like giant dungeons/quests and that find the grinding tiresome.

Like I said, I like both. And even from an impersonal point of view, for all the reasons I've mentioned, I think the ideal scenario would be not to remove the rare encounters, or not to not add other options, but to exist both (add other options and not remove the rare encounters).
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2017
Messages
307
Reaction score
69
in other words put argenta challenge nowadays in level of spectrum of fustration and other standards completely droped
but anyways pokemon in this point the product its the result for make accesible easy and family friendly and result of fans

by the way in lets go when you have battle with snorlax have another style i wanted all that way in all the adventure only maybe i m gonna be better for me
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
5,815
Reaction score
7,973
Well, at least this divide didn't cause chaos and in fact had a civic debate unlike a... certain topic that came here (you know the one). In fact, it was curious to see someone in favor of grinding for the first time which made me see the other side of the argument.

EDIT: Erm, what are you talking about Borjitasstoi? What's argenta challenge?
 
On a journey to become whole again.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,012
Reaction score
3,862
There's a new trademark, while it is in Japanese, it translates to Miracle Twin.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
9,136
With the wild battles it is no different. With each new encounter is a new chance to find the desired Pokémon, you are progressing little by little in the repetitive task in pursuit of your goal, this is grinding, as well.
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.

I know that, but I wasn't talking about those others games, I was talking about JRPGs.
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.

Rare encounters adds depth to the encounters' mechanics, specifically.
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.
It adds depth in the sense of expanding the demographic target and being able to please both casual and hardcore players.
But then you say later in your post:
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.

The depth is there. Grinding is an essential part of JRPGs. Whether people like it or not.
You can't say that it pleases both groups and then argue that it doesn't matter that it pleases both groups.
And wait, I'm not just talking about random encounters solely. You already noticed that, right?
Yes, but my question still applies.
It is expected to have rare creatures everywhere, and not only in difficult places to access.
If they're rare, why would they be everywhere and in places easy to access?
I showed you many values, now can you show me the cons? Besides someone finding it "annoying"?
  • 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 becoming less well-known because players don't see them (look at Dhelmise-lots of people didn't know it was in SuMo at all until they saw it in the E4)
  • Because these rare rates are often given to new Pokemon while the common rates are given to old Pokemon, so players are given less of a chance to familiarize themselves with a new Pokemon
No, you know that's not how it works.

The two cases (of telling people who want more difficulty to play without their hands, and of telling people who want more "surprise" to play with their eyes closed) are equally flawed arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with game design, at all.
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.

What does that have to do with the fact that I don't see practical difference in the Masuda's case? Sorry, I didn't understand the correlation. Were totally different things, to me.
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.
Yeah, but as I said, that wasn't what was being said on the previous pages. Some people would like it to be removed and replaced, or just removed. Not to be improved.
Then go quote their posts. I don't see why you would argue with my points to argue against someone else's.
If "they can catch it themselves", it's because even for people who find grinding "annoying", the rare encounters are not such a serious problem for them, otherwise they would require them in trades, right?
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.
It seems then that Pokémon with good Natures, IVs and Abilities are harder to obtain, then?
Yes. I never said they weren't, just that they had been improved on.
So, if anyone finds these systems "annoying" too, can we pull them out of the game as well? (it's just a rhetorical question)
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.
But you said that Pokémon with good IVs/Natures/Abilities require more grinding. Doesn't that mean that Pokémon that only require griding of the rare encounters are less valuable, and that way, would not it be advantageous for the player you quoted later trading them for competitive Pokémon? (Again, it was just a rhetorical question. But you are contradicting yourself.)
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.
What I meant is that in a game like XY, where we have on almost all the routes Pokémon with low chances of encounters, replacement it by Minya's suggestion would convolute the game.

Because in the example that I was using, about totally replacing the rare encounters by Minya's suggestion, but still keeping the same requirement of time and energy expended of the rare encounters in it, it would mean that there should be added so many complex giant dungeons in Kalos, everywhere.

That would be convolute the game. I want as many dungeons as possible, but I still want the game world to look natural too, not to look like a world of a poorly developed MMO or something.
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"?
It's more immersive to play in a natural world, where things (even dungeons) look like natural things of that world. So, if those extra places looks more like natural places of that world: yes, it is.

Playing in a world where you can realize that you are playing in a world in a video game that was built by someone, and not something that looks natural, isn't immersive.
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.
I don't know about the numbers, but there will certainly be the two cases: people who like grinding (as the user that said him find it relaxing) and that would find the giant dungeons/quests tiresome, and people who would like giant dungeons/quests and that find the grinding tiresome.
And if you look through this thread, you'll see plenty more people in the latter category.
 
Last edited:
On a journey to become whole again.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,012
Reaction score
3,862
Doubt it means much. Sounds TCG related. But I am not familiar with the TCG so yeah...

Man, we really need some news even if it's just a silhouette or something.
Poke X Perto on twitter said it was a console related trademark, meaning that this has to do with the games and not the TCG.
 
On a journey to become whole again.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,012
Reaction score
3,862
Honestly, Miracle Twin sounds exactly like Pokemon, if you look up on Twin Miracles google, you'll see that the Pokemon game they might be going for is duality themed, but stronger this time, much like Gen 5 having a stronger duality theme than previous games.
 
Nuzlocke Lover
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
4,149
Some more info:


Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
 
Shiny Hunter
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,369
Reaction score
3,667
Some more info:


Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
So what do we think this means for Pokemon?
 
Here to ride the rumor train.
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
5,474
Reaction score
19,347
Some more info:


Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
Including cards. I can't recall, but haven't the other TCG trademarks fallen into this broad category? I feel like we've pondered on several trademarked terms now because the category didn't just say cards. But trademarks like this usually just turn out to be cards.
 
Planetary, Intergalactic
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
91
Reaction score
358
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.
 
Flame Trainer
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
8,353
Reaction score
16,816
Some more info:


Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
So what do we think this means for Pokemon?
It might be an accessory, a 'twin' to play the game with, kinda like the Pokeball Plus or the Toy Z-Ring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top