• Another scrumptious episode of Bulbacast has been uploaded to YouTube. Watch it here. I hope you don't feel desserted after watching this one.
  • 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

prog rocker

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
5,150
Reaction score
6,957
I wonder if part of my hate towards rare encounters is in part because I have been doing this for 15 years. I mean, it's the only game that I have where I have to do this, so maybe that's affecting me. Doesn't help that none of the Pokémon I got that way have been used in any way, shape or form (aside from evolving them).

EDIT: To put things into perspective, I have played other monster collecting games (Shin Megami Tensei, Digimon, Dragon Quest Monsters, etc.) and, as far as I have played, none of them have encounters that rare.
 
Last edited:

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
8,619
Maybe the champion sees potential in you or you are the “chosen one” like Sun/Moon, and you have to find strong trainers for them.
I think it'd be kinda odd to a Champion with the power to create a Pokemon League like that if it's currently just the winner of a tournament.
And the Chinese Leak said a plot line in the game involves you starting a gym and then the elite 4 appear. But that’s not what happened in Sun/Moon, it was just their own thing.
Which Chinese leak is this? The only ones I know about were about LGPE.
 

prog rocker

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
5,150
Reaction score
6,957
I think he was talking about a Chinese Leak from the start of Gen VII since I recall a leak that was similar. However, I don't know which one.

EDIT: RileyXY1 answered first.
 

Cainhxrst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
3,682
sort of off topic but MAN it's really refreshing being able to speculate knowing that we're getting new starters, a new region, etc vs last year with the whole "what if it's not actually gen 8?" or "what if gen 8 is kanto" speculation that started having me paranoid sjkfskf.

on topic: I loved the random encounters when I was younger. I noticed for gens 6 and 7 that while I enjoyed them, I was unable to sit down and play for a long period of time before getting burnt out. I'm able to binge the hell out of LGPE for hours and I've realized that I probably ended up finding random encounters to be exhausting without realizing it (especially in caves). IMO overworld appearances are so much better and I 100% wish for them to make it to gen 8 as they :

-help the world feel more alive
-let you specifically encounter what you want to encounter
-just feel less tedious and draining lol
 
Last edited:

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
2,376
Even if
And Dhelmise isn't the only example. What about Passimian, Oranguru, Mimykyu, or Jangmo-o? They all have 5% encounter rates and are only found in one location, and they don't have the benefit of bubbling water to boost their rates.
I think they chould have putted them on Island Scan, too.

If you weren't referring to me, why did you quote my posts and respond to them with arguments as if I were asking for the total removal? Who else are you responding to in your post?
I'm not answering to anyone while discussing with you. That's not what I said.

Like I said, I was trying to show you why I had approached such things (questioned by you) previously.

I didn't understand that you knew it wasn't my point because you kept responding to my posts as if it was. What's the point in approaching my argument as if it's a different argument? I already know that you don't want rare encounters removed entirely. I said I wasn't arguing for that multiple times. Why repeat the arguments at all?
Why am I the only one who has to keep turning the pages back, looking for the contexts to explain?

Someones said something that imply about removing rare encounters.
I answered to someone something about why I think that rare encounters should not be removed.
You quoted what I said when I answering to someone and begin to questioning it.
I begin to explain to you why I have said such things previously (because some peoples want it to be removed, not improved).
You begin to say "But I'm not saying that I want it to be removed. Why are you saying such things?"
I try to explain "Yeah, you are not, but people were."
You say "But I'm not. Why are you arguing against something that I'm don't saying?"

If you go back and read everything, you will see that this has happened several and several times. In fact, so far we are still discussing hypothetical situations and examples that I used to answer as to why I don't think that rare encounters should be removed. If you questioning it, I'll try to explain it, even if the argument wasn't for you at first.

You're the one assuming that they're going to look unnatural. Nobody has asked for dungeons to appear and look unnatural.
No, I'm not assuming anything, using the example that brought us here it would be a fact.

(Again, we are still discussing that example of XY.)

And that's exactly my point. You're saying that you don't think it would look natural, and so it shouldn't be implemented. Then you argue that, even though some people dislike running through the grass for Pokemon, it should still be included for the people who do enjoy it, because the complaint of it being annoying isn't enough to remove it.

I'm saying that you should apply the same logic to the idea of expanded areas as you do to the idea of running the grass.

Even though you might dislike how they could look (something that you're saying based totally on how you think it might be implemented), other people would enjoy the added way to obtain Pokemon, and it shouldn't be withheld from people who would enjoy it just because you might not like how it looks.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I've explained why rare encounters add depth to the encounter system, wheter people liked it or not, it would still be adding depth.

The dungeons (in the example we are discussing, which is that the one of XY) would be unnatural to the world, objectively speaking. It's not just my opinion, it's a fact.

The idea of large dungeons everywhere in Kalos came from you. Nobody else was suggesting large dungeons in Kalos, we were discussing hidden areas (that might not even be the size of a dungeon) being implemented in various regions.
It's happening again. See (the bold parts and the pic are the important ones):
Forget rare encounters. Those are their own problem entirely. I once spent approximately an hour and half looking for a Magnemite in the school yard of USUM. That is not a joke; that is actually how long it took (although about a half an hour was probably spent looking at guides on the internet to see if I was doing something wrong). I used to be a proponent of random encounters until that happened. I'm not thrilled about how Let's Go handles over world encounters, but as others have pointed out, in a larger game that has a more natural landscape, it would probably work better. There's also a lot of ways they could improve it like having you perform certain actions to attract different pokemon. For example; spreading honey on trees in the Sinnoh games. Just make it take less time for the effect to take place.
I think rare encounters need to be different than simply a low percent chance to appear, though. They should be more like Bagon and Gible where they are in a place that is hard to find or get to. To me, it feels more rewarding and not like I simply got lucky.
I understand.

But it would not be the same thing...

Since everyone gave examples, I'll give some too.

I took about 1 hour to find Eevee in B2W2 (if I remember well it was in Castelia), 1 hour to find Mawile in Glittering Cave in XY, over 1 hour to fish Feebas in SM, more than 4 hours to find a male Snubull in HGSS, and the list goes on...And you know why I remember them so well? Because it was difficult.

It was exactly the long time spent on those routes, the difficulty in finding them and catching them, which made them special, and very rewarding to use them in the story of the game.

You know, it is part of the good level design of the game, if the player invested more hours into exploring the route, he should be rewarded for it.

And yet, other players can still get these Pokémon by trading on the GTS, or by Wonder Trade, or many times, even in other later areas of the game with a better chance to encounter. The latter is perfect, some players will get the Pokémon in the early game (with no needing to trade), while other players will only get it later.

In addition, it increases the game world. It was expected to have rare creatures everywhere, and not only in difficult places to access.

Removing it would be removing a very fun part of the game to me, and to many other peoples as well. It would take even more depth out of the games.

They are like shinys, finding shinys can be considered "torturous" to some, but it's a fun part of the game for others, and that also adds depth. And as I said, other players can still get these Pokémon trading through the GTS, or through Wonder Trade, or many times, in other later areas of the game. So I'm still totally against the idea of remove them.

What you have suggested would not be the same thing.
I believe that the examples I provided do the same. Bagon, for example, is only accessible after the player gets waterfall. When this happens, some players will remember the waterfall and go back and explore the cave further until they reach the depths and find Bagon. Gible, for example; the secret cave entrance is hinted at by a hiker on the route. Some players will stay on the route and try to find the entrance and as a reward, they will find Gible. In both scenarios some people might not invest the time to backtrack or stay on the route pressing up under the bridge.

The problem I have with rare encounters in an easily accessible area is that:

1. The player could find the rare encounter immediately; they didn't do anything special, they just walked on a route that they had to be on. They simply got lucky.

2. The player typically only knows that the rare encounter is there if they looked up a guide before hand. This is not always the case, of course. If they bring back something similar to the habitat list B2W2 had, I think it would be acceptable. If the player knows that there is one encounter left on the route, they can spend the time trying to find it if they want. I think its unreasonable to ask anyone to spend potentially hours trying to find a rare encounter that may or may not be there.

Even still, I just don't like the random factor to it. I understand the argument that normal routes should have some kind of rare pokemon too, but I've found shinies in less time than it took me to find a pokemon with a 10% encounter rate. There's got to be a better way.
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. You've been saying that people should still have the option to play as they like, but keeping encounters the way they are doesn't give people the opportunity to actively seek out rare Pokemon as opposed to just trying repeatedly in one patch of grass.


The options you gave were GTS and Wonder Trade, which require another player having one of these Pokemon that take hours to get and being willing to give them away, or finding them later in the game, which doesn't always happen.
It wasn't what was being said on the previous pages. Some people would like it to be removed and replaced, or just removed.

And no, they are not the same thing. The example is different.

By doing that, they would not be improving the system like it was done with the IVs, Natures, or any other example that you have mentioned, but removing it and replacing it with another different thing. Although both of them having similar purposes, they are still different, one from the other.

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.

But I don't want to, and I don't see the need to completely remove the rare encounters. 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. Of course, things like power save have made it becomes even worse.

The point is that, even if we don't consider things like power saves, it's still not a real problem to be removed, after all. Even though some people find it boring, some others think it's part of the fun of the game. It's something optional, it will not stop you from progressing on the game. Besides all that, you can still get it through GTS, or Wonder Trade, or like many other times, just catch it in later places of the game with higher odds of encounter (just like Mawile in XY).

I don't see the slightest need to further facilitate it, besides may be adding other catching options (such as Minya's suggestion), or adding more information about the chances of that Pokémon appearing on that spot (as suggested by PurplePegasus and Minya).

And look, even if would be to make a totally replacement of rare encounters by the Minya's suggestion (with the same time and energy requirement of rare encounters, actually, and not just as the Bagon and Gible's example), they are different things as I said, so there would still be issues, like:

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.

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.

Also, there are encounter rates and situations (like my hunt for male Snubull in HGSS) that simply could not be reproduced by the system of the mentioned suggestion. To be able to reproduce it with the same requirements of amount of time and effort spent, it would require huge dungeons or quests, larger than the Bell Tower.

And still, even if they actually did a lot of huge dungeons or quests like we've never seen before (with some ones with 4 hours + of duration), like I said, they would still be different systems (grinding usually doesn't even require that much of attention), so to some people, it would be a lot more tiring to catch these Pokémon by that than just by grinding. (I think I would like it, actually. I loved completing the B2W2 dex to capture Haxorus. But I'm saying for myself only.)

And from that point on, you kept arguing about it, until you get to a part where you simply say, "But why are you guessing and using arguments as if we were discussing a totally replacement or removal of it? I don't defend that. Why are you saying or supposing things like that?"

That's exactly what I said didn't answer my question. If you can't explain further than that, fine, but don't tell me I "know that's not how it works" if you're not going to bother explaining it to me.
To me, it's a simple thing to notice. Developers will not develop the games wondering if the person will play with their eyes closed or without their hands.

I don't know how to explain it in another way, I've already said everything I could have said about it, just that.

In the same post where I said that competitive grinding was more difficult, I also said this:

I made it pretty clear that I was not referring to competitive Pokemon when I said lesser value Pokemon.
Ok, then. But no, it was not in the same. It was 2 posts later. But I got it.

I didn't say that to disprove it, I said that because speedrunning is separate from what the game itself does, and so it doesn't support your starting point.
The fact that speedruners celebrate the fact of doing the action faster, supports my starting point. It proves that the time constraints are there (as of skills too, as you added). And it is precisely because they are able to overcome these impositions so quickly that they celebrate.

If the only way to add difficulty is to require players to run around in circles, I think that raises the question of whether it even needs difficulty at all.
Like I said, whatever it is ("walking in circles" or something like the Pelago "incubator"), I don't see how to add another measure other than time to breeding. If youl have any idea about, I would like to know.

6 IV Dittos
? Those were pretty much impossible to obtain prior to SOS battling, and even with SOS battles, now, they're still incredibly difficult to obtain. You'd need a chain of 30 Pokemon before getting a Ditto with 4 perfect IVs, and then you'd have to catch it to see if it had the remaining two IVs perfect as well. (That's also assuming the goal is perfect IVs-someone who's breeding for a specific Hidden Power has no way of guaranteeing a 30 IV) Getting an Abra with every nature would require catching 21 different Abras (since some natures have the same effect), and checking to see if they had the right nature, which you can only see after you've already caught them. From there, breeding still takes repeated tries, because the Destiny Knot only passes down five of the IVs of both parents, meaning it's still a 50/50 chance that it'll be the desired IV and not the one from the other parent, and that only five IVs are guaranteed. (You could breed two 6 IV parents together and still only have a 1/32 chance of getting a 6 IV child) That's pretty far from easy.
I know how to get 6 IVs Dittos legitimately (otherwise, I would not even haved quoted it), and how breeding works. I agree that get all these aren't easy, but like I said, once you get everything you need, the breeding becomes quite easy.

The point isn't just to avoid frustration, but also to provide an enjoyable way to obtain the Pokemon. Even if a quick trade is simpler, it doesn't mean it's more fun for the player.
By saying "an enjoyable way" is the same as saying that some of these people will find the grinding of the rare encounters boring. However, there is hardly any demand for rare encounters Pokémon. Not even when it's a giveaway (ie for free).

Your response came from your previous post, not the first one. Why are you responding to my post as if I'm asking for a removal if you know that's not the case?
I mean the "first one" where this subject started, which wasn't the previous post...
 
Last edited:

prog rocker

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
5,150
Reaction score
6,957
on topic: I loved the random encounters when I was younger. I noticed that for gens 6 and 7 that while I enjoyed them, I was unable to sit down and play for a long period of time before getting burnt out. I'm able to binge the hell out of LGPE for hours and I've realized that I probably ended up finding random encounters to be exhausting without realizing it (especially in caves). IMO overworld appearances are so much better and I 100% wish for them to make it to gen 8 as they :

-help the world feel more alive
-let you specifically encounter what you want to encounter
-just feel less tedious and draining lol
That's what I was trying to say, but you wrote it better. I guess doing this for years burns you out.
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
8,619
I'm not answering to anyone while discussing with you. That's not what I said.

Like I said, I was trying to show you why I had approached such things (questioned by you) previously.
And my question is why? I already know you don't want rare encounters removed. You've already explained why several times. Why do you continue to repeat your arguments when nobody is opposing them?
You quoted what I said when I answering to someone and begin to questioning it.
I begin to explain to you why I have said such things previously (because some peoples want it to be removed, not improved).
I questioned your claim that running through the same patch of grass repeatedly was exploration. I never questioned your reasoning behind wanting to keep the option to do so (the closest I got was arguing that grinding isn't essential to an RPG, which doesn't mean that it can't be included), I just argued that it wasn't enough for some players.
You begin to say "But I'm not saying that I want it to be removed. Why are you saying such things?"
I try to explain "Yeah, you are not, but people were."
You say "But I'm not. Why are you arguing against something that I'm don't saying?"
This context doesn't answer my question at all. You said that you're explaining your past arguments, but you never said why you chose to explain your past arguments to me when I wasn't disagreeing with keeping rare encounters. I'm not asking why you were making the arguments in the first place, I'm asking why you continue to make the arguments to me despite the fact that I've repeatedly said that I'm not wanting a total removal of rare encounters, when I've repeatedly said that I agree with the idea that having options is a good thing, and when I never even said that I wanted encounter rates to be removed in the first place. And even if the point was to just explain the idea behind keeping them, there's no reason to continue to repeat your arguments after the first time.
If you go back and read everything, you will see that this has happened several and several times. In fact, so far we are still discussing hypothetical situations and examples that I used to answer as to why I don't think that rare encounters should be removed. If you questioning it, I'll try to explain it, even if the argument wasn't for you at first.
I know this has happened several times, because I wrote these posts:
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.
Then go quote their posts. I don't see why you would argue with my points to argue against someone else's.
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.
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.
And as I've said, repeatedly, I am asking for an added alternative, not a complete replacement.
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?
If you weren't referring to me, why did you quote my posts and respond to them with arguments as if I were asking for the total removal? Who else are you responding to in your post?
I didn't understand that you knew it wasn't my point because you kept responding to my posts as if it was. What's the point in approaching my argument as if it's a different argument? I already know that you don't want rare encounters removed entirely. I said I wasn't arguing for that multiple times. Why repeat the arguments at all?
Why are you responding to my post as if I'm asking for a removal if you know that's not the case?
No, I'm not assuming anything, using the example that brought us here it would be a fact.

(Again, we are still discussing that example of XY.)
These dungeons haven't even been created. You can't say it's a fact that they'd appear unnatural when they're not even existent to compare to their real-life inspiration.

And looking at the real-life inspiration, there's plenty of opportunities for natural places to explore. Look at the Gorges du Verdon river canyon, the Étretat Cliffs, the Gavarnie Falls, or the Pont d’Arc-does it really look like there wouldn't be any opportunities to have a hidden location in any of these?
One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I've explained why rare encounters add depth to the encounter system, wheter people liked it or not, it would still be adding depth.

The dungeons (in the example we are discussing, which is that the one of XY) would be unnatural to the world, objectively speaking. It's not just my opinion, it's a fact.
This is ignoring my point entirely. Even if it was an objective fact that the dungeons looked unnatural (which it is not), the fact is that some players aren't bothered by this, just like how some players aren't bothered by how repetitive seeking out rare encounters are. My point was that even if part of the gameplay has something that a player dislikes (even if its existence is undeniable, like the repetitiveness of seeking out rare encounters), there is still the fact that other players can enjoy it regardless of it.
It's happening again. See (the bold parts and the pic are the important ones):
How does this contradict what I said? Minya's posts don't mention large dungeons or Kalos. That comes from your post saying that they needed to have the same difficulty and challenge, which is something that you said would need to be in any addition to the route, but nobody else did. Even when Minya asked for a total replacement of the rare encounter system, they didn't ask for the added areas to take as much time as grinding. Even though your example is about Minya's idea where these would replace encounter rates altogether, the idea that they would have to be overly elaborate is still yours. Minya never said that the dungeons ought to take as much time as encounter rates currently do.

Ok, then. But no, it was not in the same. It was 2 posts later. But I got it.
I said that competitive grinding is more difficult twice. In the same post where I elaborated on my example of trading, I also said this:
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.
And the other post where I said that competitive grinding was harder (the post where I quote "Yes, I never said they weren't" from) is one post before this one, not two posts later.

I don't understand why you'd try to split hairs about which post it was in the first place, but it's even more confusing that you wouldn't get it right, especially after your comment that you're "the only one who looks back for context".
The fact that speedruners celebrate the fact of doing the action faster, supports my starting point. It proves that the time constraints are there (as of skills too, as you added). And it is precisely because they are able to overcome these impositions so quickly that they celebrate.
I never said that time constraints weren't there, just that they're not the main method of adding difficulty.
Like I said, whatever it is ("walking in circles" or something like the Pelago "incubator"), I don't see how to add another measure other than time to breeding. If youl have any idea about, I would like to know.
I'm not asking for an additional way to make it harder, I'm saying that the system should be made easier if there's no better way to include difficulty.
I know how to get 6 IVs Dittos legitimately (otherwise, I would not even haved quoted it), and how breeding works. I agree that get all these aren't easy, but like I said, once you get everything you need, the breeding becomes quite easy.
"After doing these complicated things to get what you need, it's easy" isn't really easy at all.
By saying "an enjoyable way" is the same as saying that some of these people will find the grinding of the rare encounters boring. However, there is hardly any demand for rare encounters Pokémon. Not even when it's a giveaway (ie for free).
Just because people still got the rare encounters doesn't mean they didn't find it boring, it means that they've put up with it to get the Pokemon they want. Several users (Minya, Oriden, Purple Pegasus, prog_rocker, Bolt the Cat, Sinnoh Eevee) have already said they find grinding boring. (If everybody enjoyed grinding, then nobody would be asking for it to be removed, and you said yourself that there were people asking for it to be removed)
I mean the "first one" where this subject started, which wasn't the previous post...
I know you did. I'm asking why you chose to continue to respond to me as if I was asking for a total removal. Even if you thought that in your first post, you said that you realized I wasn't asking for that in your later posts.
 

Pelican

New Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
So normally i just lurk here to see if there's any leaks or something but these dudes have been arguing about the morality of grinding for 5 pages, can't you just like agree to disagree and like focus on leaks or speculation that doesn't devolve into defining depth and Mexican food
 

PurplePegasus

Nuzlocke Lover
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
3,626
Reaction score
4,149
So, I wonder how the metropolis will look this time. Castelia City was bustling and fun to explore. Lumiose City was a bit too big, but I still liked discovering an area that I missed or working at Hotel Richissme.

I feel that it shouldn't be as big as Lumiose since there is the possibility of getting lost. But it should have plenty of attractions and activities to do.
 
Last edited:

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
2,376
And my question is why? I already know you don't want rare encounters removed. You've already explained why several times. Why do you continue to repeat your arguments when nobody is opposing them?
Because you are opposing to them, man. But the discussion has gone so far that things have been taken entirely from the original context. And well, there would be no problem in that (of things being taken from the original context), as long as you turned the pages to see what I was really talking about.

Like:

Someone: They should totally replaced the rare encounters by this system.

Me : They sould not do that. That would not work because they aren't the same things. Like, to totally replaced without removing depth, they would be to keep the same challenge level of some rare encounters, and by doing so, the Kalos' world would be ending becomes unnatural, with all those giant dungeons everywhere.

You: *Quoted what I have said previously* - Why do you think that? I don't understand your logic.

Me : Oh, it's because it would be like all the routes have also a giant 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.

You: It's more immersive to not have extra places to explore?

Me: 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.

You: 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"? Also 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.

Me: 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. 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.

You: But why are arguing about that? About a totally replacement? I'm not in a favor of a totally replacement. (<???)

We are talking about that from the very beginning. What was the point of confronting my argument so far then, if we were not talking about the same thing then? You totally forget the context in which the argument you are trying to confront was originally.

I questioned your claim that running through the same patch of grass repeatedly was exploration. I never questioned your reasoning behind wanting to keep the option to do so (the closest I got was arguing that grinding isn't essential to an RPG, which doesn't mean that it can't be included), I just argued that it wasn't enough for some players.
I am not referring to that part specifically, but to the general discussion (others parts). Look at the example above.

This context doesn't answer my question at all. You said that you're explaining your past arguments, but you never said why you chose to explain your past arguments to me when I wasn't disagreeing with keeping rare encounters. I'm not asking why you were making the arguments in the first place, I'm asking why you continue to make the arguments to me despite the fact that I've repeatedly said that I'm not wanting a total removal of rare encounters, when I've repeatedly said that I agree with the idea that having options is a good thing, and when I never even said that I wanted encounter rates to be removed in the first place. And even if the point was to just explain the idea behind keeping them, there's no reason to continue to repeat your arguments after the first time.
Again, look at the example above and you will see what happened many times.

I know this has happened several times, because I wrote these posts:
Again, the example above exemplifies everything that have occurred in this regard. It makes no sense for you to start questioning my argument, and after a long time, to say it was not about what you were talking about.

These dungeons haven't even been created. You can't say it's a fact that they'd appear unnatural when they're not even existent to compare to their real-life inspiration. And looking at the real-life inspiration, there's plenty of opportunities for natural places to explore. Look at the Gorges du Verdon river canyon, the Étretat Cliffs, the Gavarnie Falls, or the Pont d’Arc-does it really look like there wouldn't be any opportunities to have a hidden location in any of these?
You see? You continue to confront the argument, even though you said a little while ago that it wasn't about that you were talking about (when it actually was.).

(But well, there is no problem in confronting the argument. It's all right. The problem is: if after I answer it, you forget what the original argument was about, and say it's not about that's what we're talking about.)

But okay, let's get this over with.

Speaking about the example you are quoting: yes, I know that it would not work in regions like Kalos. For all the reasons I've explained. The game would have to have large dungeons on virtually every route. It was going to be "oversaturated," "heavy", and unnatural.

And if you still disagree, even after everything I've said, I'm sorry, I don't have nothing more to say about it.

I think I'll just keep friendly disagreeing with you on this.


Now, in order to avoid doubts, and close this matter, also:

If we would not were talking about a total replacement of the rare encounters with dungeons, but about just adding dungeons in the game instead: yes, I agree, it would work. I don't see a problem.

Because that way (being additions and not substitutions) they would not have to put the same level of challenge of the rare encounters to not losing depth in the game, so the dungeons don't would have to be all giants or appear everywhere.

No problems here. It would be cool.


This is ignoring my point entirely. Even if it was an objective fact that the dungeons looked unnatural (which it is not), the fact is that some players aren't bothered by this, just like how some players aren't bothered by how repetitive seeking out rare encounters are. My point was that even if part of the gameplay has something that a player dislikes (even if its existence is undeniable, like the repetitiveness of seeking out rare encounters), there is still the fact that other players can enjoy it regardless of it.
First of all, in the example we were quoting initially; yes, it is an objective fact (that the dungeons would be looked unnatural). And if you still disagree, even after everything I've said, I'll just keep friendly disagreeing with you on this.

About the rest, as I have previously said, repeatability is a characteristic of grinding. And looking "unnatural" is not a characteristic of dungeons, and should not be. It's a game design error.

How does this contradict what I said? Minya's posts don't mention large dungeons or Kalos. That comes from your post saying that they needed to have the same difficulty and challenge, which is something that you said would need to be in any addition to the route, but nobody else did. Even when Minya asked for a total replacement of the rare encounter system, they didn't ask for the added areas to take as much time as grinding. Even though your example is about Minya's idea where these would replace encounter rates altogether, the idea that they would have to be overly elaborate is still yours. Minya never said that the dungeons ought to take as much time as encounter rates currently do.
I was counter-arguing his/her argument about a total replacement (and how rare encounters and dungeons were different things, contrary to what he/she had said).

I pointed out why I don't think it would work the same way (a total replacement), and why it should not be done.

I think it would not work the same way, because if done to maintain the same level of challenge, there would be all the problems I've previously mentioned, and if it wasn't done to maintain the same level of challenge, the game would be losing depth.

To make a total replacement, they would have to present equivalent challenges. Otherwise, the game would be losing depth. That was my counter-argument that explained that it would not be the same thing (as he/she had argued).

"Yeah, but what if I want a game with less depth?"

There is nothing I can do about it, really. Taste is subjective. It was my counter-argument. I still think that if they were to make a total replacement, they should present equivalent challenges.

And if you still disagree, I'll just keep friendly disagreeing with you on this.

And I don't have anything more to say about it.

I said that competitive grinding is more difficult twice. In the same post where I elaborated on my example of trading, I also said this:

And the other post where I said that competitive grinding was harder (the post where I quote "Yes, I never said they weren't" from) is one post before this one, not two posts later.

I don't understand why you'd try to split hairs about which post it was in the first place, but it's even more confusing that you wouldn't get it right, especially after your comment that you're "the only one who looks back for context".
You see? We are going so far in the discussion that you simply forget what was being discussed in the original context, to begin with. And that is okay, I forget it too sometimes, lol. But like I said, I usually come back to see what the whole context was about, but I don't think you're doing it.

Look:

As I said, I was referring to this sentence:

*Quoted the sentence*

Yes, you have said that competitive grinding is more difficult. But after that, you implied that rare encounter Pokemon is more valuable than competitive Pokémon, and so, I don't understood why you think so. That was the issue.
Note that I used "was" to demonstrate that this had been a problem before, but that you had corrected it, and I had already understood. Still, you persisted in the matter. This was your response about:

In the same post where I said that competitive grinding was more difficult, I also said this:

*Quoted the thing about gift Pokémon*

I made it pretty clear that I was not referring to competitive Pokemon when I said lesser value Pokemon.
Go back the previous pages and check, you didn't tell the part about "gift" Pokémon in the same post that had said about grinding being more difficult, but only 2 posts later. Then I replied:

Ok, then. But no, it was not in the same. It was 2 posts later. But I got it.
Note that I just pointed out that it actually was 2 posts later, not the same post (what have confused me before). But still, after all the discussion, I had already understood, so notice that I say "But I got it". And then your answer:

I said that competitive grinding is more difficult twice. In the same post where I elaborated on my example of trading, I also said this:

*You quoted these posts now:

And the other post where I said that competitive grinding was harder (the post where I quote "Yes, I never said they weren't" from) is one post before this one, not two posts later.

I don't understand why you'd try to split hairs about which post it was in the first place, but it's even more confusing that you wouldn't get it right, especially after your comment that you're "the only one who looks back for context".
Note: I used the image because this forum doesn't allow dual quoting, and would be difficult to understand otherwise.

Notice that you quoted different things and began to speak of another part of the conversation, when in fact, the issue from the beginning was the part about the "gifts Pokémon", which contrary to what you have said, had not been said in the first post you mentions, but 2 posts later.

And you really do say that the grinding of the competitive Pokémon is more difficult in the first post of this subject, but at the same time, as I quote it above, in another part, you also implied that they are less valueable, and that is what I didn't understand at first, because if they are even more difficult than rare encounters to get, why they would be less valueable, at all?

Then you said that you have explained about it with the part of the "gift" Pokémon, but when in fact, you only said that part in two 2 posts after the original that we are discussing about.

Anyway, explained the misunderstanding, I think there is no further reason to continue on this subject, as I have tried to demonstrate previously, I already understood.

I never said that time constraints weren't there, just that they're not the main method of adding difficulty.
I don't know, they still seem to be the main to me. But of course there are others.

But back to the original subject: we were talking about breeding. I don't see how to put other requiriments than time regarding breeding, but who knows. As long as they keep the difficulty somehow, I would see no problem, I think.

I'm not asking for an additional way to make it harder, I'm saying that the system should be made easier if there's no better way to include difficulty.
Got it. I don't agree with that. I'll just keep friendly disagreeing with you on this, then.

"After doing these complicated things to get what you need, it's easy" isn't really easy at all.
Actually, it is. Because these things have been implemented for that (the side effect of synchronise, the Masuda method, the fact that Ditto breed with all Pokémon, EV and IV items etc. It's not like a bug or something.)

They were placed in the game, assuming the player who is breeding competitively, would got them.

If he doesn't want to get these things, it's fine, but the breeding will be more difficult, because these things were put there just as an imposition of difficulty: if the player want to make the breeding easy, he is supposed to get these things, and by the breeding becoming so easy with them, consequently they could not be delivered it to players "for free", on the other hand.

If you're wanting to make the game even easier, like I said, I disagree. If it is the case, I'll just keep friendly disagreeing with you on this, as well, then.

Just because people still got the rare encounters doesn't mean they didn't find it boring, it means that they've put up with it to get the Pokemon they want. Several users (Minya, Oriden, Purple Pegasus, prog_rocker, Bolt the Cat, Sinnoh Eevee) have already said they find grinding boring. (If everybody enjoyed grinding, then nobody would be asking for it to be removed, and you said yourself that there were people asking for it to be removed)
I can't understand, as a thing that is considered "boring" or "difficult" to get in the game, would not automatically become valuable in the eyes of the players, and would not be something of their desire, especially if we are talking about giveaways. So, I continue with the same thought about it. Then I'll just keep friendly disagreeing with you on this too.

I know you did. I'm asking why you chose to continue to respond to me as if I was asking for a total removal. Even if you thought that in your first post, you said that you realized I wasn't asking for that in your later posts.
I already have explained why. Look:

First, you quoted my post where I am talking about a situation where the rare encounters were totally replaced by Minya's suggestion:

Then, as you can see, you made the following observation: "I think the number of players who are not willing to explore to the end of a dungeon or quest is probably smaller than the number of players who do not want to grind." Then I answer to you:

Myth said:
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).
So, as you can see, I say that talking about a total replacement, the numbers don't matter, because after all, there would be many players who would like one and many others players who would like the another.

But as I have already told you, in the case of an addition, the fact that more players like one than of another isn't irrelevant! And that is why, as you can see, I further added that the ideal scenario would be to introduced both of them.

And then, you quote only the part where I was still talking about the first example (about a total replacement), and even after I have said that in the case of a total replacement the numbers don't matter, because there will be many players who would like of one and many players who would like of another anyway, you keeping saying about numbers:


And then it's when I explained to you, in more details, why the numbers mean nothing when we are talking about a total removal or the total replacement:


And, well, this was your answer: (again, after the discussion went so far, you just forgot about what the context of the original subject we we're discussing in this part was about)


As I said. After such a long discussion, this is normal to happen. I'm also having to come back sometimes to make sure what was being said in the original context, but it doesn't look like you're doing the same.
 
Last edited:

Dieter

Dieter
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
932
Reaction score
599
I just realized that it was a reference to their Pokédex entries. Good catch! Although kinda troll-ish if you don't see it coming, not helped by the fact that there's almost no reason to ever go to Kala'e Bay and that the cave that leads to it is kinda hidden (I missed it completely my first time, even with Serebii's Pokéarth at hand). I guess it's fixed in USUM since they guide you to it?
Tbf, I can't remember which games made an explicit reference to it, but if only USUM did... And it also indeed not the most accessible place, cause the entrance to the cave is pretty hidden, plus you need lapras to even be able to get to the tall grass.

That said, I don't oppose the implementation of these kind of lore-references. It just would have been nicer if you could have immediately gone to the foot of the cliff if you happened to know about bagon's behaviour. That feels clever at least. The first example of similar implementations would be cottonee or hoppip which could be rare in grass on a windy route, but if you follow the air current you'll get to a place where they're very common.
 

Lufenium

#1 Wooloo Fan
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
2,366
Well, they managed to make an anglerfish cute and managed to make Paras look cute, even though it is based on a pretty disturbing parasite.
You saying Dwebble isn't cute?
Eh, cute is subjective. :p although admittedly Lanturn is kinda adorable.

As for Paras, it's Parasect that's really disturbing. It's literally a zombie bug being controlled by the parasite.

The Ultra Sun dex entry is just...horror:

The bug is mostly dead, with the mushroom on its back having become the main body. If the mushroom comes off, the bug stops moving.

I also don't get why Darkrai is genderless when Cresselia is female.
I think Cresselia being female is a nod to that most deities of the moon are female, and the moon/luna are considered feminine, and the sun masculine.
 

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
2,376
The usual place, if you know what I mean.


Thank you!

Well, I didn't find it very believable, at all, even more knowing that it came from that place...

The problem is that everything in it is too much detailed for a leak, real leakers usually don't even know so much about the games.

There are also some "gimmicks-things" that only the community talks about, like a Kiwi Pokémon, or Yungoos being the next region's "rodent". Corphish is also theoretically from another region, so that doesn't mean much.
 
Last edited:

Poke Dragon

The boundary between opposites.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,868
Reaction score
3,661
What if Miracle Twin doesn't necessarily mean a physical twin but rather means what you find in reflections? I had this weird dream that the next Pokemon games had mirrors involved in the plot. Plus, it is very specific that the only mention of mirrors in Gen 7 was at the lab (forgot its name, haven't played them recently) where there was a mention of how someone (forgot her name) said that she would look at the mirror at the dead of night and see "a stranger staring back". Hmm, could the two title legendaries actually be the same legendary, but two separate reflections come to life while the third is actually part of the Pokemon World? Makes more sense why an old rumor stated that both mascot legendaries would be snakes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top