Which Overhaul Is Suitable

[TouyaShiro]

Watch as the fans go rabid from what you just said. They'll be pointing out that the 3DS is perfectly capable of connecting with previous DS systems (like the DSi to 3DS transfer).
...of course, it may just be me at the moment but such a thing would anger the fanbase to make Generation VI the worst Generation of all time next to Generation III in their eyes.

I thought Gen V was the worst Generation of all time next to Gen III? Seriously, l've seen a lot of criticism for its content from here and 4chan.

Elsewhere, there are very vocal complaints about Generation III (mainly because of the ones hailing for remakes). I haven't seen so much complaints about Generation V, but I've seen them...it just doesn't seem to glare out as much as Generation III's hate does, though - perhaps just because of the subject of those wanting remakes of the games not keeping their mouths shut for a few seconds comes to mind. That, and it was the first Generation to receive this kind of hate (originally before FRLG came along).

There's why that idea doesn't work...I should also point out it removes something that a Pokémon should be able to logically learn (and that has been able to learn for so many years now).

But it's the only way to have the base stat/movepool overhaul to work. Part of the reason why you couldn't transfer your Pokemon from Gen II to Gen III is because of the EVs/IVs overhaul mechanic, which had a different function in the first two gens.

You dare defy fate? /junkazama
In all seriousness, that's Game Freak's decision, and we can't just cut it off after three generations of not having this happen! How the hell would we get our previous Generation Pokémon this time? It'll be a similar case to the backlash received from Generation III if that happens, that's all I'm saying. I doubt Game Freak wants that to happen again, and a good amount of fans wouldn't like it either.

Edit: Before you get into Flare Blitz, that's a case (reversed given that we were talking about removing moves from Pokémon rather than adding them) of people who want Flareon to have it just because of the name and purpose. Sure, it could very well use it, but it seems Game Freak disagrees with it being capable of using its power. Might be attributed to the factors of energy/strength/size of the Pokémon.

Larvesta would like a word with you.

A Level 100 Larvesta...wouldn't levels count towards a Pokémon's strength as well? Though once that's put into perspective, technically Flareon should be able to do so as well. But that's not our decision, that's Game Freak's.

 

[Bulletproof Scales]

If GF were to obsolete past generations they'd have some work squeezing all of them in at a short period of time, that is 649 pokémon, feasible but ugly. I'd rather (for example) the likes of Rattata and select % water pokémon become incompatible with Ice Beam and lose the move on transfer.

People arguing for acid being effective on steel doesn't take into account that acid is really really effective on everything.

 

[H-con]

For one, BST changes are not a very good way to go to "change" the metagame for the better. Some pokémon are better than others, that's life, and besides, that's the way it should be any way.

Movepool changes happen naturally, but I don't see why a type like Water should be denied a move like Ice Beam when it suits them to have it. There's no actually good reason to remove it, certainly not as a TM.

Adding new types... for those of you who would like a Light type I say: You and every 12 year old out there. It's a shitty idea, that's just it, especially when the role of the type is already filled. Oh, and of course the people who want to buff poison offensively by adding SEs like Water (lol), that always cracks me up.


I don't really see any major battle overhauls coming next gen. I think the system is pretty okay for the time being, I have far bigger concerns that can't be fixed by overhauling the battle system (mostly related to overworld features).

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

For one, BST changes are not a very good way to go to "change" the metagame for the better. Some pokémon are better than others, that's life, and besides, that's the way it should be any way.

Not true. In fighting games, characters can be buffed/nerfed within a sequel or an updated re-release, as well as patching, and with the 3DS, it may be possible to patch some Pokemon via updates if it's too weak or too strong.

Movepool changes happen naturally, but I don't see why a type like Water should be denied a move like Ice Beam when it suits them to have it. There's no actually good reason to remove it, certainly not as a TM.

Oh, and of course the people who want to buff poison offensively by adding SEs like Water (lol), that always cracks me up.

I smell a form of biasm. You need to understand that Water types are completely broken in the core gameplay with Drizzle + Swift Swim and being capable of eliminating one of their weaknesses (most Grass types lack Rock/Ground moves, and Fire types can't abuse Electric moves and Solarbeam - for their glass cannon status). As what Inifity MK stated, most Water types shouldn't be able to learn Ice moves.

 

[Peachy]

@Ghetsis-Dennis; While it might be true that water is overpowered, GF doesn't make the games with the meta game in mind, most likely. And most of your changes have to do with the meta game. Also, your example about fighting games don't really apply. In the fighting genre the characters may return to the next generation of the games but it is not the same character. Pokemon can be transfered cross-generationally, even if it is only a one way trip. So you can have the same Charizard you had in FR battling with you in White 2.

 

[Lord Clowncrete]

Rather than change in mechanics, I want a change in gameplay. I want the ability to customize my character starting from his age to ethnicity. Even if there is no character customization feature, I would appreciate a variety of templates to choose from. I want better story lines, anime-style Poke-cries instead of the screeches we have right now, 3d graphics,etc,etc.

Having Gen 6 incompatible to Gen 5 is bad idea. I can see more fans getting angry with it than happy with it.

I see no reason for the changes in the mechanics. Most battlers are simply gonna adapt and still use mons based on their usefulness, instead of biases.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

@Ghetsis-Dennis; While it might be true that water is overpowered, GF doesn't make the games with the meta game in mind, most likely. And most of your changes have to do with the meta game. Also, your example about fighting games don't really apply. In the fighting genre the characters may return to the next generation of the games but it is not the same character. Pokemon can be transfered cross-generationally, even if it is only a one way trip. So you can have the same Charizard you had in FR battling with you in White 2.

Which is why I thought of an idea of restricting Pokemon who learn moves that they can't learn when transferring them to Gen VI games, just like how held items aren't allowed when transferring Pokemon from Gen IV to Gen V due to the resusable TMs.

 

[Lord Clowncrete]

Regarding the ice beam on water types thing, most water types:
1) invest in defenses and thus have low offenses and do piddly amounts to bulky grass types.
2) are used as support mons and thus often have no room for ice beam. For example, vaporeon has no room for ice beam after putting in wish, protect, roar/toxic and scald.

Inspite of the ice weakness, most grass types like Venusaur, Celebi, Ferrothorn, etc. still make great switch-ins for water types. Most are not even ko'ed by ice beam and can easily demolish the water type with giga drain, leaf storm, etc.

Dragons are far more deadlier than water types, imo. And statements like "dragons are virtually indestructible" make me feel that they are meant to be so. I don't really want a change but if there should be a change, it should be on dragon types.

 

[Gengarzilla]

Removing Ice Beam from the movelists of most Water types? That is a very bad idea. I don't even need to explain how much that would damage the franchise...

Ice is frozen Water, so it's only logical that Water types should be able to use Ice type moves and vice versa.

As for my ideas, I think the Poison type needs some more love. Make it super effective against Bug again and against Water because of pollution. Acid and Acid Spray should also ignore the Steel types immunity to Poison. Bad Poison needs to be more available too.

No Ice Beam for Water types... By any chance, did your Dragonite/Salamence/Garchomp get OHKO'ed by a Starmie at one point?

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Removing Ice Beam from the movelists of most Water types? That is a very bad idea. I don't even need to explain how much that would damage the franchise...

Ice is frozen Water, so it's only logical that Water types should be able to use Ice type moves and vice versa.

But it's the main reason why Ice type Pokemon are rarely seen in battles, because Water types outclass them. Removing Ice Beam helps the poor type at their advantage.

As for my ideas, I think the Poison type needs some more love. Make it super effective against Bug again and against Water because of pollution. Acid and Acid Spray should also ignore the Steel types immunity to Poison. Bad Poison needs to be more available too.

What about removing Toxic from every Pokemon's movepool except for Poison types? One of the main reasons for their uselessness was because everyone and their mother learned Toxic via TM.

No Ice Beam for Water types... By any chance, did your Dragonite/Salamence/Garchomp get OHKO'ed by a Starmie at one point?

No, I was using a Hydreigon, but it, as well as two other selected Pokemon, were effortlessly killed by one at Random Matchups.

 

[YamiiDenryuu]

As for my ideas, I think the Poison type needs some more love. Make it super effective against Bug again and against Water because of pollution. Acid and Acid Spray should also ignore the Steel types immunity to Poison. Bad Poison needs to be more available too.[/SIZE]

... Which would leave every grass/bug type with three compounded weaknesses. That's just a bad idea.

And pretty much everything can learn Toxic by TM, so I don't know how you want to make Bad Poison more available.

 

[RainbowSylveon]

It's like, what /can't/ learn Toxic by TM these days, seriously.

I don't think any of those is a very good idea. I think the series is fine as it is, and addition of types or something would make it all the more confusing for some players.

 

[H-con]

Make it super effective against Bug again and against Water because of pollution.

You do realize that water is a pretty good solvent, right? Like, it dissolves poison? So tell me again why poison should be SE against Water. Besides, why should water creatures be more prone to poisoning then, say, birds? Land creatures?

Quite frankly it should be the other way around, though I'm not advocating that, as Water is fine as it is.

The only thing I remotely see is Bug, but even that's a very shaky one.

 

[Shiny Shinx]

To be honest, I like the games the way they are. To much metgame talk here, it seems like.

I don't think there is going to me an overhaul. Game Freak/Nintendo has found a good system to work with. Why fix something that isn't broken?

If there IS going to be an overhaul, it would have little to no relation with competive play.

 

[Peachy]

If there will be an overhaul in gen 6 it will most likely graphical. Considering the games will probably be on the 3DS. :/

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Make it super effective against Bug again and against Water because of pollution.

You do realize that water is a pretty good solvent, right? Like, it dissolves poison? So tell me again why poison should be SE against Water. Besides, why should water creatures be more prone to poisoning then, say, birds? Land creatures?

Quite frankly it should be the other way around, though I'm not advocating that, as Water is fine as it is.

The only thing I remotely see is Bug, but even that's a very shaky one.

The same can be said about some species of plant life suriviving on an artic tundra, yet Grass is still weak to Ice, so what's your point?

 

[TouyaShiro]

Make it super effective against Bug again and against Water because of pollution.

You do realize that water is a pretty good solvent, right? Like, it dissolves poison? So tell me again why poison should be SE against Water. Besides, why should water creatures be more prone to poisoning then, say, birds? Land creatures?

Quite frankly it should be the other way around, though I'm not advocating that, as Water is fine as it is.

The only thing I remotely see is Bug, but even that's a very shaky one.

The same can be said about some species of plant life suriviving on an artic tundra, yet Grass is still weak to Ice, so what's your point?

Those particular species don't exist as a Pokémon yet, so that point is invalid. If you mind linking us to said plants it might make more sense to us. (...just in case someone finds this post in the future, anyway.)

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Those particular species don't exist as a Pokémon yet, so that point is invalid. If you mind linking us to said plants it might make more sense to us. (...just in case someone finds this post in the future, anyway.)

Plants of the Arctic and Antarctic — Polar Plants — Beyond Penguins and Polar Bears

There's also the Snover family, which based off of a tree that can survive on snowy regions. But the main point is that despite these facts, the majority sees plant life not being able to survive on cold regions, so the majority also believe pollution destroys water, thus announcing the idea of giving Water types an additional weakness to Poison types.

 

[TouyaShiro]

Those particular species don't exist as a Pokémon yet, so that point is invalid. If you mind linking us to said plants it might make more sense to us. (...just in case someone finds this post in the future, anyway.)

Plants of the Arctic and Antarctic — Polar Plants — Beyond Penguins and Polar Bears

There's also the Snover family, which based off of a tree that can survive on snowy regions. But the main point is that despite these facts, the majority sees plant life not being able to survive on cold regions, so the majority also believe pollution destroys water, thus announcing the idea of giving Water types an additional weakness to Poison types.

I guess that makes sense. Still, I'm thinking that the majority thought the pollution destroying water thing is just a misunderstanding on both ends - as far as I know of the issue, pollution doesn't affect water itself, but it makes it nasty for those who live in it or have to drink it. Hope we've cleared up that issue.

 

[H-con]

I don't think you understand what my point is. Water is a very effective solvent of all kinds of stuff, and that includes poison. Sure, poison can create a local poisoning, but on a massive scale that won't take much affect, given the dilution. Seeing how Water types are based on (at least mostly) marine animals and the like, why should they be more prone to poisoning than say, a rat? A bird?

The idea of poison being SE to Water is, I think, based on two sentiments. First of all, it incorrectly bases itself on the criteria of water poisoning. I'm not going against that water creatures can't be poisoned (quite the opposite), and that this can kill of a lot of things effectively, but seeing how this argument could be extended to encompass a lot of life as we know it, it's really a moot point. The second is that I think a lot of people just want the Poison type buffed offensively (not that they're that much of an offensive type to begin with) and in the process add more weaknesses to Water. They then base themselves on the first reason listed.

One could just as easily as the water/land pollution example extrapolate how Fire could be SE against pretty much every type out there, for that matter. Nobody is arguing for that, luckily, but people gladly ignore this sentiment and jump right to water pollution, ignoring what is arguably reality. If anything, they could SE eachother, though I'm not advocating this change at all. Quite frankly, the type chart is fine as it is.