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

I don't understand all the hate for IVs

#71Alexoneill77777Posted 8/20/2013 7:52:25 AM
The iv mechanics need to be fixed because who the f*** enjoys riding a bike hours on end trying to get even a half decent pokemon. This game is all about the pokemon battling not the breeding. Competitive pokemon revolves around strategy not luck. If they want to keep Ivs that's fair enough for in game. but breeding should be much easier (maybe the greatest of each iv always gets passed to the offspring?)
That I wouldn't mind but if they did this or removed them Ligitimate play and cartridge play will become more popular.
---
FC- 3754 7190 4070
I hate gold watering cans so much you don't even know
#72bararad13Posted 8/20/2013 8:27:54 AM
that's all nice and all as it's true making each pokemon stats diverse is nice and all but when it comes to the compatative metagame (which is practically the only place people care about ives) almost any pokemon will have flawless ives anyway (unless it's speed for tr or something else for hidden power (and those require such a specific combination of ives and thus are practically impossible to get without RNGing so they might aswell be flawless)that the point of ivs is moot anyway.. instead I think they should restructre the iv mechanics to make various strong and weak points (like a pokemon which is "born" with emphsise in speed or attack )so varity will actually come into play as opposed to flawless=good anything else (90% of the time) = not good(and again even if one doesn't aim for flawless he does for something which is so specific that it might as well be)
#73deadpool848Posted 8/20/2013 8:45:12 AM
THe thing is, there is absolutely no harm in removing IVs, I understand they add to the realism that not all pokemon of the same species are the same and all, and thats fine and dandy for ingame, but once you go competitive, it makes too much of a difference if you have 30 speed IV and your oponent has 31 and wins because of that.

Why not do this: Auto tune all IVs to 31 for when battling with other players occur. This will at the same time, not anger the crybabies that complain that pokemon would loose there uniqueness and charm because of a few numbers, while make competitive players happy due to not having to breed for days just to get a decent team to compete with.

Hidden power just needs to be reworked to depend on something else, and at least always have a BA of 70.
#74swordsman126Posted 8/20/2013 8:53:52 AM
ClassyOldHat posted...
VintageRonJohn posted...
I was waiting for someone to mention this. If I recall correctly though, not all of the IVs come from the parents, and it's less likely that Defense will get passed down, so using a power item for defense makes the most sense.

But yeah, the way to do it is Everstone on the parent with the right nature, clamp down one IV, and make sure that the pokes you're breeding each have 2+ perfects (preferably no overlap on the IV you control, and overlap on the ones you aren't).


So basically, no matter how much skill or knowledge you demonstrate, or how much time or effort you spend, another player can put in less and still get objectively better results if s/he just gets lucky.

And this is a system you want to encourage? This kinda thing might be fine in a single player game, where you can rely on strategy or grinding to overcome your disadvantages, but in a multiplayer game, that extremely unbalanced, and doesn't add any real diversity. Real diversity comes from choices where options are equal.

Natures add diversity, because you don't get something for nothing. You either have all stats be normal, or get a boost for one stat in exchange for lowering another. Abilities and moves and EVs do the same, in different ways. And even better, all of these things are almost 100% controllable, or have 50-50 chances that don't waste nearly as much time for the player.

IVs, however, offer no choice. If you have the option to have all 31s in every stat (barring the obligatory exceptions where having Sp. atk or Speed at zero, or a certain Hidden Power), there's no trade off, no real thought to it, and thus no choice. It's like how you technically have a choice to bring level 1 Pokemon to a battle; you could do it, but unless you're running FEAR, there's no real thought about the "choice;" why bring a level 1 when you can bring a level 100? And unlike your Pokemon's level, IVs are decided apart from player involvement, unless you hack. Even what IVs you can pass are decided by the RNG allowing you to have parents with good IVs in the first place.


This guy has it. Everyone who likes IVs always uses the argument "oh you just want stuff handed to you" and "it rewards good players who spend time". Well it doesn't, not when someone less skilled who spends less time can get strictly better results if RNG smiles upon them.
---
Currently playing SMT4, MH3U, FE:A and eagerly awaiting Pokemon X
Remember kids, there's no kill like overkill.
#75ClassyOldHatPosted 8/20/2013 3:19:01 PM(edited)
VintageRonJohn posted...
redFOX381 posted...
back on topic: They're difficult to manipulate w/out hacking.


... and if that's the only complaint, video games might not be your thing.


That's not the only reason, it just makes the other reasons much more noticable. There are things in multiplayer games that are difficult to manipulate without hacking that nobody worries about: for example, random weapon drops in Team Fortress 2.

There are a wide variety of specialized items in TF2 which will sometimes appear after you've played a certain length of time, and what items you get are almost completely out of the player's hands, just like with IVs in Pokemon. Why don't people complain about these though?

1: Unlike IVs, (but like natures, Abilities, EVs or moves), all but a few of these items are trade-offs, creating actual choices and diversity. For example, the Soldier normally has the basic rocket launcher, but several of the items available replace the default rocket launcher with a special one, such as the Black Box, a rocket launcher that heals the user a little for each short landed in exchange for a smaller clip, meaning you can't play as aggressively as with the default, and will spend more time reloading, or the Cow Mangler 5000, which gives you infinite ammo, and a charged shot that can light players on fire for additional damage, in exchange for drastically reduced damage against enemy sentry turrets compared to the default, which can render you dead weight should the enemy have a horde of sentries.

People will deal with randomness if the randomly acquired things are roughly equal. The above examples are debatable and could be overpowered or underpowered compared to the default, but even the fact that it is debatable shows that they are better balanced than IVs, where it can be mathematically demonstrated that one IV pattern is better than another in all but a tiny handful of circumstances.

2: The chances of getting good results without hacking are not astronomically low. In TF2, there are approximately 140 gameplay-affecting items, and all of them are in the 98% drop list, all with roughly equal chances of appearing, (The items in the 2% list are costume items that have no effect on gameplay). This means that even if you play for weeks and don't get an item you want, chances are there are hundreds of other players with doubles of that item who will trade it to you for an item you got doubles of, or failing that, for crafting items made from these randomly dropped items.

Meanwhile, lets look at pokemon. The chance of getting a specific combination of six IVs, when both parents have the desired combination, and there is no overlap in IV inheritance, is 1 in 32768. For the record, the chance of finding a shiny Pokemon is 1 in 8192. This means you are four times more likely to find a shiny Pokemon without Masuda method or charm, (something, I will remind you, many players never do), than to get a single pokemon to have the desired collection of IVs, in the best circumstances. And keep in mind, these "best circumstances" entail getting two parents with that IV combo, without any aid, something that has a 1 in 1,073,741,824 chance of happening for just one parent.

For comparison, your chances of winning the American Lotto are 1 in 175,223,510; this means you are 6 times more likely to win the lotto in real life than get one perfect parent/legend in this game!

Let that sink in for a moment.

Needless to say, people would not be nearly as willing to trade something that rare as they would TF2 items. And when an item with that great a gameplay effect is so rare, you can bet people will call the system unfair.
#76VintageRonJohn(Topic Creator)Posted 8/20/2013 5:37:16 PM
ClassyOldHat posted...
VintageRonJohn posted...
redFOX381 posted...
back on topic: They're difficult to manipulate w/out hacking.


... and if that's the only complaint, video games might not be your thing.


For comparison, your chances of winning the American Lotto are 1 in 175,223,510; this means you are 6 times more likely to win the lotto in real life than get one perfect parent/legend in this game!

Let that sink in for a moment.


I understand that, and ignoring the fact that you can radically improve your odds with breeding, what I'm trying to say is that everyone should be okay with the idea that perfect Pokemon aren't obtainable. That's the way the game was intended to be. Why does that make everyone so crazy?

It's what makes my Modest Reshiram with a 31 in Special Attack that I caught with the first Ultra Ball really spiffy, and not something that everyone can grind or whatever to get.
---
Conduit 2: RonJohn 3868-8419-8160 [D-S]Jolt 4986-1435-0700
The Conduit: RonJohn 3309-2472-4741
#77PentaoPosted 8/20/2013 7:26:26 PM
You really don't get it?

Well obviously not. Your entire topic has been going "why won't people give up what they want to go for this assumed belief that the game was designed for a different purpose?"

Which is dumb anyway, ever read a book? Do you think what the author intended is the only thing that matters, and that there's a "right way" to interpret those stories?

herp
---
"Religion keeps pressing B when we try to evolve." - pirategeorge"
[3DS FC: 1934-0673-9848 (Pentao)]
#78VintageRonJohn(Topic Creator)Posted 8/20/2013 7:35:27 PM
Pentao posted...
Well obviously not. Your entire topic has been going "why won't people give up what they want to go for this assumed belief that the game was designed for a different purpose?"

Which is dumb anyway, ever read a book? Do you think what the author intended is the only thing that matters, and that there's a "right way" to interpret those stories?


There are battle simulators that make IVs a non-issue. Interpretation is fine and well, but if Pokemon were a book you're basically yelling "AHHH This plot point SUCKS and no one's going to read the actual book until you fix it; we'll just write fanfiction where it never happened."
---
Conduit 2: RonJohn 3868-8419-8160 [D-S]Jolt 4986-1435-0700
The Conduit: RonJohn 3309-2472-4741
#79ClassyOldHatPosted 8/20/2013 8:47:06 PM
VintageRonJohn posted...
I understand that, and ignoring the fact that you can radically improve your odds with breeding,


Well, nice to know you didn't bother to read my post. If you would kindly read the paragraph before the one you quoted, you would see that I already acknowledged that breeding would "radically improve your odds" to "merely" 4 times less likely than your chances of getting a shiny without a charm, radar, or Masuda method, under the "best circumstances."

You would also see that getting the means to "radically improve your odds with breeding" takes a 1 in a million chance... Before you can actually start breeding. Do you maybe see where the issues start to show up?

what I'm trying to say is that everyone should be okay with the idea that perfect Pokemon aren't obtainable. That's the way the game was intended to be. Why does that make everyone so crazy?


...

Because!

Multiplayer!

Games!

Require!

Balance!


How many times do we need to emphasize this? A multiplayer game where two players can perform the exact same actions for the exact same amount of time, in the exact same circumstances, and one can get objectively better (not a trade off-, objectively better) results than the other player, does not deserve to be taken seriously as a multiplayer game. Crits, status and less accurate moves provide adequate Luck factor to keep things interesting, without deciding who will win from the start.

It being "the way the game was intended to be" does not excuse poor multiplayer balance. If I made a version of Checkers where the player with white pieces somtimes had half the number of pieces that the player with the black had due to a dice roll, and said it was meant to be that way, do you think people would put up with my version of checkers? Not if they were sane.
#80VintageRonJohn(Topic Creator)Posted 8/20/2013 9:54:21 PM
ClassyOldHat posted...
Well, nice to know you didn't bother to read my post. If you would kindly read the paragraph before the one you quoted, you would see that I already acknowledged that breeding would "radically improve your odds" to "merely" 4 times less likely than your chances of getting a shiny without a charm, radar, or Masuda method, under the "best circumstances."

You would also see that getting the means to "radically improve your odds with breeding" takes a 1 in a million chance... Before you can actually start breeding. Do you maybe see where the issues start to show up?


And yet, it's not like you're stuck with the first outcome breeding gives you. You get to try as many times as you want, forever and a day. Grinding that way isn't fun by any means, but it's not luck at that point. Suppose lottery tickets were free to you, for some reason, and you could have as many as you could take. You'd win the lottery, right? Would you complain about having to scratch off the tickets, one at a time, with your *bare hands*? Once again, if you want to play without IVs being part of the experience, there are plenty of simulators for you.

ClassyOldHat posted...
Because! Multiplayer! Games! Require! Balance!

How many times do we need to emphasize this? A multiplayer game where two players can perform the exact same actions for the exact same amount of time, in the exact same circumstances, and one can get objectively better (not a trade off-, objectively better) results than the other player, does not deserve to be taken seriously as a multiplayer game. Crits, status and less accurate moves provide adequate Luck factor to keep things interesting, without deciding who will win from the start.


What on Earth? Crits and accuracy do way more to screw with outcomes than a small handful of IV points. It's not hard to get Pokemon with IVs that are all in the high 20s or above, and those Pokemon are perfectly viable in competitive play. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough, and all that.

ClassyOldHat posted...
It being "the way the game was intended to be" does not excuse poor multiplayer balance. If I made a version of Checkers where the player with white pieces somtimes had half the number of pieces that the player with the black had due to a dice roll, and said it was meant to be that way, do you think people would put up with my version of checkers? Not if they were sane.


A few issues here.

1) A more appropriate analogy would be that the player with white pieces sometimes has half the number of pieces, but also sometimes the dice roll means the player with the black pieces has half the number of pieces. Two players trying to create competitive Pokemon are on a level playing field. The randomness of IVs is totally equal-opportunity.

2) Your version of checkers is insane in part because that's not how checkers was created. You would be equally insane if you tried to suggest that Monopoly players should be able to roll the dice twice and pick whichever roll they preferred.

3) The multiplayer is balanced if no one cheats or abuses RNG, with benefits going to players who know the mechanics and spend time breeding.
---
Conduit 2: RonJohn 3868-8419-8160 [D-S]Jolt 4986-1435-0700
The Conduit: RonJohn 3309-2472-4741