This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A new twist on an old idea...

#11LoinatorPosted 1/23/2013 11:27:07 AM
VampLordAdamaru posted...
Loinator posted...
FungusForBrains posted...
I'd be opposed to an instant and drastic change like eight starters, but four or five I wouldn't mind, provided it would be balanced right. But that would be incredibly hard, to balance out a type... square. Or pentagon.


/\ Hard?
Do you really play Pokemon? XD


He meant that with five starters, making sure they were balanced correctly among all five would be difficult from a designer standpoint, not a player standpoint.


If you guys are talking about programming, then yes.
But anything else (stats/moves/evos/type etc) is easy as it can be.
---
Lance FTW o/.
#12VampLordAdamaruPosted 1/23/2013 11:34:45 AM
Loinator posted...
If you guys are talking about programming, then yes.
But anything else (stats/moves/evos/type etc) is easy as it can be.


The Type decisions are where the issue really lies, because, with three, each has an advantage and a disadvantage.

However, with five, balancing becomes more difficult starting out, as there are a number of additional possibilities that come into play regarding advantages and disadvantages. They would have to ensure that no one starter is stacked with advantages over all the others, or that one doesn't get shafted with disadvantages. Hence, difficulties with balancing. Gameplay wouldn't change much, just programming would become a headache.
---
Founder - IRDC AND Fluffy the Friendly Deathclaw Fanclub
ULCE#: 9,426 of 53,160
#13ADono4(Topic Creator)Posted 1/23/2013 5:01:42 PM
VampLordAdamaru posted...
Loinator posted...
If you guys are talking about programming, then yes.
But anything else (stats/moves/evos/type etc) is easy as it can be.


The Type decisions are where the issue really lies, because, with three, each has an advantage and a disadvantage.

However, with five, balancing becomes more difficult starting out, as there are a number of additional possibilities that come into play regarding advantages and disadvantages. They would have to ensure that no one starter is stacked with advantages over all the others, or that one doesn't get shafted with disadvantages. Hence, difficulties with balancing. Gameplay wouldn't change much, just programming would become a headache.


Yeah I completely agree. But it definitely could be done.
---
This signature will not be changed until someone tells me to do otherwise.
#14ADono4(Topic Creator)Posted 1/23/2013 5:02:52 PM
FungusForBrains posted...
I'd be opposed to an instant and drastic change like eight starters, but four or five I wouldn't mind, provided it would be balanced right. But that would be incredibly hard, to balance out a type... square. Or pentagon.


But it would be harder to balance five then it would be to balance eight because with eight you incorporate all types. With five, however, it requires more careful choices with what type combinations would work well with what
---
This signature will not be changed until someone tells me to do otherwise.
#15Infectedglore2Posted 1/23/2013 6:42:18 PM
ADono4 posted...
I'm honestly not sure of how well it would actually work, but I'm beginning to realize that 99% of Pokemon players will have a starter on their team. That's all fine and dandy, but only having three really does make each replay have less and less value. That's why I'm suggesting a much needed expansion of the starter idea.

8 Starters... Yes, that's a lot. But here me out.

Excluding the normal type, this would allow each starter to have a different secondary type to accommodate for each and every type. And the combinations could change every generation as well.

And before I go any further, I'm fully aware of the reasons it would never happen. So don't get into that. I'm just saying it would be a nice expansion of the starter concept that has gotten old rather quickly.

So here is an example...

GROUND / BUG
DARK / ELECTRIC
DRAGON / GRASS
FIGHT / POISON
FIRE / GHOST
FLYING / STEEL
ROCK / ICE
PSYCHIC / WATER

You know, something like that. Obviously I didn't take much time to weigh each typing combination but it could work. Please post your thoughts.

I'm also aware that it is a deviation from the norm, which is usually not good in a Pokemon game. But since when was more options a bad thing, right?


Who in the **** replays Pokemon? Pokemon is one of those games where you never delete your save file. Unless you're really that obsessed with the bad story. The only reason to replay Pokemon is to do stuff like Nuzlocke challenge and you'd have to put all those Pokemon onto a "main" file first
#16ADono4(Topic Creator)Posted 1/24/2013 4:10:31 PM
Infectedglore2 posted...
ADono4 posted...
I'm honestly not sure of how well it would actually work, but I'm beginning to realize that 99% of Pokemon players will have a starter on their team. That's all fine and dandy, but only having three really does make each replay have less and less value. That's why I'm suggesting a much needed expansion of the starter idea.

8 Starters... Yes, that's a lot. But here me out.

Excluding the normal type, this would allow each starter to have a different secondary type to accommodate for each and every type. And the combinations could change every generation as well.

And before I go any further, I'm fully aware of the reasons it would never happen. So don't get into that. I'm just saying it would be a nice expansion of the starter concept that has gotten old rather quickly.

So here is an example...

GROUND / BUG
DARK / ELECTRIC
DRAGON / GRASS
FIGHT / POISON
FIRE / GHOST
FLYING / STEEL
ROCK / ICE
PSYCHIC / WATER

You know, something like that. Obviously I didn't take much time to weigh each typing combination but it could work. Please post your thoughts.

I'm also aware that it is a deviation from the norm, which is usually not good in a Pokemon game. But since when was more options a bad thing, right?


Who in the **** replays Pokemon? Pokemon is one of those games where you never delete your save file. Unless you're really that obsessed with the bad story. The only reason to replay Pokemon is to do stuff like Nuzlocke challenge and you'd have to put all those Pokemon onto a "main" file first


You're joking right? Gamefreak claims that it's success is due to the fact that it's one of the most replayable games ever. You need to learn your facts before you go preaching about your own personal opinion on a certain matter. I don't know of a single person that has never clicked New Game in the main menu. It's not about the story. It's about testing how you can go about beating the game and doing so using a different set of pokemon each time.
---
This signature will not be changed until someone tells me to do otherwise.