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

I don't understand all the hate for IVs

#91NessEggmanPosted 8/21/2013 1:24:05 PM
VintageRonJohn posted...
ClassyOldHat posted...
Having a game be realistic is WAY better than having a game be balanced! In fact, I can think of ways to make it even better!

Let's give every Pokemon the Defeatist ability; hey, I'd like to see you hit as hard at full health as you would when you're about to die, comebacks from the brink of defeat are nonsense. Let's make it so every time a Pokemon wakes up from sleep, they get the effects of Slow Start. Let's remove most of the non-food items, their effects aren't realistic. Also, the medicines, berries and leftovers should only heal 5 hours after they're used. Let's make it so most non-legends refuse to breed in captivity. Let's make it so you can hunt wild Pokemon to extinction! Let's make it so only one cartridge in the entire world has a legendary in it; they should be one-of-a-kind, after all! Let's make it so you have to use the 3DS camera at the start, and depending on your race and gender, some racist/sexist gym leaders will refuse to battle you so you can never reach the Pokemon League. Let's make it so rich players can pay off judges to ignore their cheating and drum up charges on the little men!

What, these are all terrible ideas for a balanced game? But they're so realistic! They CAN'T be bad ideas!


Oh I see the error of my ways now. Nothing should be realistic at all; it's all about balance. Each type should have three weaknesses, three resistances, three types they hit for 2x damage, and three types they hit for .5 damage. Even that might not go far enough, because Pokemon get two types! Hey, how come only Bug and Electric have moves that let the user attack and switch out on the same turn? Clearly, every move should be replicated for every type. Every Pokemon should have roughly the same base stat total, and more equitable move pools. There are 650+ Pokemon and only 64 are viable in competitive play--that's far too realistic! Accuracy and misses should be done away with entirely, same with crits. Speed ties should be replaced by a pre-determined priority of attack types. Protect should always fail on the second consecutive try. No one should ever get lucky in any way, shape or form.


The step from the previous poster to what you said was not a logical one.

They never said that "always exactly the same" was the same as "balance." Did you just make that up? Each type can have different types of weakness/resistance as well as a variety of moves that differ from others and still be balanced (or at least try its best to be).

And none of the examples the previous user used even were examples of everything being the same as one another to represent balance.

Seriously did you even read what they said, or did you just take the word "balance" and throw it completely out of context to try and make a "point" ??
---
"Earth is a silly place. Half the world has no clean water. And the other half has so much, they poo in it."
3DS FC: 2750 1911 5515
#92VintageRonJohn(Topic Creator)Posted 8/21/2013 1:28:41 PM
NessEggman posted...
The step from the previous poster to what you said was not a logical one.

They never said that "always exactly the same" was the same as "balance." Did you just make that up? Each type can have different types of weakness/resistance as well as a variety of moves that differ from others and still be balanced (or at least try its best to be).

And none of the examples the previous user used even were examples of everything being the same as one another to represent balance.

Seriously did you even read what they said, or did you just take the word "balance" and throw it completely out of context to try and make a "point" ??


That's the end game of balance: sameness. Sure, things can be *different* yet mostly well-balanced, but if that's true in the extreme, then what you have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, and unfortunately competitive Pokemon is sometimes kind of like that.
---
Conduit 2: RonJohn 3868-8419-8160 [D-S]Jolt 4986-1435-0700
The Conduit: RonJohn 3309-2472-4741
#93VintageRonJohn(Topic Creator)Posted 8/21/2013 1:34:54 PM
To everyone who says breeding is "wasting your life":

ClassyOldHat was spot on when he said it's exercising patience. Patience, unlike the Pokemon metagame, is something worth learning and a skill applicable to real life. Knowing how many moves it will take to KO a Blissey is not applicable to anything. In a zen way, "wasting your life" on breeding might very well be the most useful thing you can do with your Pokemon time, even if it's dull.
---
Conduit 2: RonJohn 3868-8419-8160 [D-S]Jolt 4986-1435-0700
The Conduit: RonJohn 3309-2472-4741
#94ClassyOldHatPosted 8/21/2013 2:15:18 PM
VintageRonJohn posted...
Oh I see the error of my ways now. Nothing should be realistic at all; it's all about balance. Each type should have three weaknesses, three resistances, three types they hit for 2x damage, and three types they hit for .5 damage. Even that might not go far enough, because Pokemon get two types! Hey, how come only Bug and Electric have moves that let the user attack and switch out on the same turn? Clearly, every move should be replicated for every type. Every Pokemon should have roughly the same base stat total, and more equitable move pools. There are 650+ Pokemon and only 64 are viable in competitive play--that's far too realistic! Accuracy and misses should be done away with entirely, same with crits. Speed ties should be replaced by a pre-determined priority of attack types. Protect should always fail on the second consecutive try. No one should ever get lucky in any way, shape or form.


I know you intended for it to be ironic, but a lot of this stuff isn't actually bad. Personally, I found it weird that bug and electric were chosen for switching moves before types that would seem much more natural like Flying types (carrier pigeons) and don't really see how it would be unrealistic to have moves like that for every type. If turning around is somehow more associated with bugs than any other animal, it beats me how that association came to be.

Having more than 64 Pokemon be viable is not inherently unrealistic, but it would lead to a greater diversity, and by extension, a more unpredictable wi-fi scene. Which, come to think of it, is what you hope IVs would do, if I remember right.

Things like Speed ties and crits were already unrealistic, as well. And while crits are a necessary evil, they could stand to be rexamined.

It's kinda ironic, really. While some parts are a bit extreme, generally, most of your fake suggestions for balance would receive at least a lukewarm reception if you made a topic about them, even by non-metagame players; most players probably wouldn't be bothered if protect only worked every other turn, since that's pretty much how they use it anyway, for example. Meanwhile, if I made topics about these "realism" suggestions I made, I'd be labeled a troll.

Look, I'm not saying realism is bad for a game, in and of itself. Even games seemingly disconnected from all reality like Tetris or Super Hexagon use concepts like gravity or force. I'm only saying that good developers know when realism will help or hurt the experience they are trying to make, and understand when to ignore reality for balance, and vice-versa.
#95VycoulPosted 8/21/2013 2:27:12 PM
Xazeal posted...
I would be fine with IVs if they only ranged from 1 to 10. It would still definitely be difficult to get perfect IVs across the board (not that most Pokémon would need it anyway), but it would be much less frustrating than trying to get a legit perfect Pokémon now, which is almost impossible.

ETA: Oh, and they have to be made visible. They have to. Somehow.


This is exactly what I've always wanted. I don't think I've ever seen someone else say it though.
Great minds think alike.
---
Thank God for inner monologue. ~ Miles Edgeworth