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

The only people who want IVs to remain are ignorant.

#231PheonixFFire7Posted 9/3/2013 11:03:03 PM
Jagus posted...
The funny part is, people who are clamoring for a rehaul of IVs or making them more visible are still missing the most obvious point:

They shouldn't exist and add nothing to the game.


The best way I can think to address this is from a comment I posted in a different topic:

"The fact that IV's are so hard to manipulate is what gives them the most "unique" factor of them all. Everything else is completely arbitrary, since they're either easy to manipulate, or inconsequential since they serve no purpose other than flavor.

The fact that I have a 31/31/24/31/30/31 Jolly Moxie Gyarados MEANS something to me, because I know just how damn rare it is to find something that good. It gives that specific Gyarados, -my- Gyarados value to me. I know that I could have easily RNG'd for one with equal or better stats (and make it shiny to boot!), but if the results are inevitable, it loses all value. It's no longer something to appreciate, it's just something that I feel entitled to, and there's no longer any fun in owning it.

It's kinda like with TCG's. When you buy a booster pack and get something really awesome and rare, that card means a lot to you. You appreciate it, even if maybe it's not the greatest card. But when you just go online and buy that exact card in 2 minutes, there's zero fun in that. The card has no intrinsic value to you since at that point you just feel entitled to it and don't even appreciate the fact that you own it.

Don't get me wrong - if your one and only goal is to create a competitive deck, and you need that specific card to compete (or a specific IV spread for competitive Pokemon), then by all means just go online and buy that card (or RNG that Pokemon). I'm not really against people who do. What I'm against is people who do this and then think that other people who just get a thrill out of collecting or don't mind just playing with whatever they were lucky enough to get are doing things wrong, or have some kind of warped logic; or that the game should be changed to convenience the way THEY want to play, and think that any other mindset is silly.

I support revamping the IV system, making it better, deepening breeding and making good IV's easier to obtain and mitigating luck from the equation. I don't think they should be removed entirely just BECAUSE they're random, though. And I also don't think that randomness should be 100% removed - just more manageable if you're a good breeder."

----

IV's do add something to the game - an element of value to each of your Pokemon. That may be a worthless element competitively speaking, but it goes a long way for single-player and collecting purposes. It aids the addicting nature of the games, knowing that maybe if you just hatch one more egg or catch one more Pokemon, it might be that 1 in a million lucky lotto draw and have a perfectly suited IV spread. Shiny Pokemon are another example of this, but the difference is that shininess has no real value outside of novelty. A Pokemon with great IV's has value both for collecting purposes and bragging rights, on top of the actual battle benefits. That's what makes them so desirable.
#232Jagus(Topic Creator)Posted 9/3/2013 11:17:21 PM
I noticed this post getting a lot of attention, so I'll address it right now.

Pokemon is a single player RPG first, multiplayer game second. That's why a lot of the official competitive aspects are centered around single-player logic, rather than competitive logic (Phione being banned because it's obscure and hard to obtain, not because it's good). IV's are sort of a carry over of that logic.


This is completely wrong, and anyone who thinks this doesn't know about the history of Pokemon. Pokemon was created because Satoshi Tajiri wanted to make a game where friends could trade and compete with each other. Pokemon was created BECAUSE of the multiplayer aspect, that is why the Gamebody Cable was developed simultaneously.

And the fact of the matter is, just because IVs don't matter as much in a single player game, doesn't mean they're not useless and illogical.

Yes, it's "unfair" that you don't have perfect stats, but the point (in terms of single player logic) is that you're not supposed to have perfect stats. The only reason the idea of "perfect" stats even exists is because we've all forced it to exist through game manipulation. The point is that you're supposed to luck out sometimes and have a high stat in one thing, but other times its less than ideal. You learn to make the best of what you get.


There is no reason for perfect stats not to exist. You're basically saying "this game is unfair, but that's the way it should be."

I don't think that element should be removed. However, I do think the option to get perfect (or near-perfect) stats should still be possible without completely relying on luck (or game manipulation) by giving better control over the outcomes through breeding. Power Items helped, but there could always be improvements. But it should be something you have to put a little effort into to obtain.


You see, this silly too.

I keep seeing people saying in this topic that "IVs should just be made visible or the way they work should be changed." No. Absolutely not. There's no reason for IVs to exist, so why bother making them more visible or rehauling the system? The fact of the matter is, nobody has still come up with a good reason they should exist. they're redundant. The only new argument I see here is "tradition."

People say breeding for IVs is what makes breeding fun. Aside from the fact that this is idiotic, wouldn't you rather GameFreak made breeding fun in ways that had nothing to do with luck? Someone pointed out that Pokemon has a shallow breeding system. They could make it deeper by adding stuff you could do with Egg Moves. At least attacks have some sort of actual value, a completely redundant mechanic.

Also, I noticed people saying that IVs make Pokemon variable whereas EV spreads can be identical. Guess what? IV spreads can be identical too. And not only that, but there are multiple possible EV spreads out there that you can use. Customization is still a form of diversity. And anyways, diversity for diversity's sake is not always good.

Lastly, I noticed somebody saying IVs should stay because luck is a tradition of the RPG genre. First off, appealing to tradition is dumb. Sticking to mechanics just because they're traditional means that games have no room to progress and become more refined and intelligent. Should we still have traditional game overs, where, if you lose, you have to start all over?

Secondly, no RPG has randomness in stat variation like Pokemon does.

Lastly, the guy who tried to use the Zodiac Spear as an example of why IVs should stay. Are you freaking serious? The Zodiac Spear is a SHINING EXAMPLE of randomness being absurd in RPGs.
---
No, marriage is about love. It fails because people think love can be reduced to a feeling. - On the Edge
#233Jagus(Topic Creator)Posted 9/3/2013 11:19:59 PM
IV's do add something to the game - an element of value to each of your Pokemon. That may be a worthless element competitively speaking, but it goes a long way for single-player and collecting purposes. It aids the addicting nature of the games, knowing that maybe if you just hatch one more egg or catch one more Pokemon, it might be that 1 in a million lucky lotto draw and have a perfectly suited IV spread. Shiny Pokemon are another example of this, but the difference is that shininess has no real value outside of novelty. A Pokemon with great IV's has value both for collecting purposes and bragging rights, on top of the actual battle benefits. That's what makes them so desirable.


Wouldn't you rather Pokemon have some element of collectability that doesn't spit in the face of what Pokemon is? Seriously, IVs are like the crappiest way to make Pokemon unique, because they're a redundant mechanic. This isn't even about being competitive, it's an issue of game design.

Wouldn't it be cooler if your Pokemon was unique because it had some sort of visual difference instead? Those are the kinds of variations people should be asking for, not freaking luck-based stats that can make your Pokemon worthless.
---
No, marriage is about love. It fails because people think love can be reduced to a feeling. - On the Edge
#234acerola-orionPosted 9/4/2013 12:00:05 AM
Jagus posted...
Lastly, I noticed somebody saying IVs should stay because luck is a tradition of the RPG genre. First off, appealing to tradition is dumb. Sticking to mechanics just because they're traditional means that games have no room to progress and become more refined and intelligent. Should we still have traditional game overs, where, if you lose, you have to start all over?

Secondly, no RPG has randomness in stat variation like Pokemon does.


'Tradition' isn't even the key phrase of my post. The element of luck is one of the defining elements of an RPG. If Pokemon wasn't luck based, it wouldn't be an RPG. If GameFreak didn't want it to be an RPG, why the hell is it an RPG? Why isn't it a pure strategy game? The element of luck isn't just an appeal. It's an aspect of the RPG genre itself. I'm all for change. By no means do I consider myself a traditionalist or a purist, but it's one thing to improve on a game, and one thing to completely change it. Pokemon is an RPG, not a skill-based strategy game, and there is no need to turn it into one.

(Also, complete game overs have never been a thing in RPGs. Even the original Dragon Quest had a save feature.)

And stat variation exists and is much worse in other RPGs. In Fire Emblem (excluding Awakening, which completely disregarded the original FE formula), for example, characters have growths based on a percentage and a finite number of levels in which to gain those stats. IIRC, stat growth is also random in most, if not all, DQ games. I can't think of many good examples off the top of my head, but they exist, and stat variation is most certainly not exclusive to Pokemon.
#235PheonixFFire7Posted 9/4/2013 12:01:36 AM
Jagus posted...
IV's do add something to the game - an element of value to each of your Pokemon. That may be a worthless element competitively speaking, but it goes a long way for single-player and collecting purposes. It aids the addicting nature of the games, knowing that maybe if you just hatch one more egg or catch one more Pokemon, it might be that 1 in a million lucky lotto draw and have a perfectly suited IV spread. Shiny Pokemon are another example of this, but the difference is that shininess has no real value outside of novelty. A Pokemon with great IV's has value both for collecting purposes and bragging rights, on top of the actual battle benefits. That's what makes them so desirable.


Wouldn't you rather Pokemon have some element of collectability that doesn't spit in the face of what Pokemon is? Seriously, IVs are like the crappiest way to make Pokemon unique, because they're a redundant mechanic. This isn't even about being competitive, it's an issue of game design.

Wouldn't it be cooler if your Pokemon was unique because it had some sort of visual difference instead? Those are the kinds of variations people should be asking for, not freaking luck-based stats that can make your Pokemon worthless.


Visual differences honestly aren't very interesting. This already exists with shiny Pokemon, and i still value good IV Pokemon far more than just the novelty of having a shiny Pokemon. Same with Spiked-Ear Pichu, or Pokemon with extreme gender differences. They're nice touches to vary the Pokemon up a bit, but they're not inherently more desirable. Good IV's make a Pokemon desirable, even if you're not competitive. Just the fact that you know you have a "good" Pokemon makes them valuable to you.

Besides, IV's only REALLY matter for Speed (and to a lesser extent, HP). All of the other stats can more or less have whatever IV's and the Pokemon will still be usable. Good IV's are just icing on the cake to give your Pokemon that little extra oomph.


As for you other responses:

-Yes, the concept for Pokemon originated from the idea of trading and collecting. Multiplayer is a core part of the concept of Pokemon. But the games THEMSELVES are primarily based around single-player. You're never forced to interact with other people, it's merely encouraged. Trading more so than battling. The games are still "balanced" from a single-player perspective, not a competitive one.

-I'm saying IV's are only an issue today because people who play the game at its highest level always assume perfect stats. Because that ideal has been set, everyone feels compelled to find loopholes to get perfect stats, when in reality it's not really that necessary outside of Speed. It's not that the game is "unfair", it's that everyone is looking at it from the perspective that the ideals should be the norm, when they should be looking at it from the perspective that ideals are just something to strive for. The objective of the game is to make the best out of what you can get, not to crack the code to achieve perfection. Perfection wasn't ever intended to be obtainable.

And I welcome a deeper breeding system. Breeding is honestly the primary reason I want IV's to remain. If this was Gen 1 we were talking about, before breeding existed, I'd be totally indifferent to IV's. However, with breeding, Pokemon goes from just being a simple jrpg into a full fledged monster breeder rpg. If that's what it's going to be, then I want a deep breeding system where I can build up powerful monsters, which is why I'd want IV's to be deeply tied into the breeding system. If there are better ways to do that, then I'm totally open to that. It just makes so much sense with IV's, since the whole "genetics" concept pretty much writes itself, and makes the breeding system in Pokemon a bit more unique than others out there.
#236ArtiRockPosted 9/4/2013 1:38:29 AM
Jagus posted...
The funny part is, people who are clamoring for a rehaul of IVs or making them more visible are still missing the most obvious point:

They shouldn't exist and add nothing to the game.


If the system were rehauled, yes it could. There are plenty of things that could be done with IVs to make them actually good.

The issue is that the current system is terrible.
---
This is the duty of the Grim Angels.
#237mehmetskiPosted 9/4/2013 1:57:18 AM
PheonixFFire7 posted...


Visual differences honestly aren't very interesting. This already exists with shiny Pokemon, and i still value good IV Pokemon far more than just the novelty of having a shiny Pokemon. Same with Spiked-Ear Pichu, or Pokemon with extreme gender differences. They're nice touches to vary the Pokemon up a bit, but they're not inherently more desirable. Good IV's make a Pokemon desirable, even if you're not competitive. Just the fact that you know you have a "good" Pokemon makes them valuable to you.

Besides, IV's only REALLY matter for Speed (and to a lesser extent, HP). All of the other stats can more or less have whatever IV's and the Pokemon will still be usable. Good IV's are just icing on the cake to give your Pokemon that little extra oomph.


As for you other responses:

-Yes, the concept for Pokemon originated from the idea of trading and collecting. Multiplayer is a core part of the concept of Pokemon. But the games THEMSELVES are primarily based around single-player. You're never forced to interact with other people, it's merely encouraged. Trading more so than battling. The games are still "balanced" from a single-player perspective, not a competitive one.

-I'm saying IV's are only an issue today because people who play the game at its highest level always assume perfect stats. Because that ideal has been set, everyone feels compelled to find loopholes to get perfect stats, when in reality it's not really that necessary outside of Speed. It's not that the game is "unfair", it's that everyone is looking at it from the perspective that the ideals should be the norm, when they should be looking at it from the perspective that ideals are just something to strive for. The objective of the game is to make the best out of what you can get, not to crack the code to achieve perfection. Perfection wasn't ever intended to be obtainable.

And I welcome a deeper breeding system. Breeding is honestly the primary reason I want IV's to remain. If this was Gen 1 we were talking about, before breeding existed, I'd be totally indifferent to IV's. However, with breeding, Pokemon goes from just being a simple jrpg into a full fledged monster breeder rpg. If that's what it's going to be, then I want a deep breeding system where I can build up powerful monsters, which is why I'd want IV's to be deeply tied into the breeding system. If there are better ways to do that, then I'm totally open to that. It just makes so much sense with IV's, since the whole "genetics" concept pretty much writes itself, and makes the breeding system in Pokemon a bit more unique than others out there.


im really sorry but....i think i fell in love with you :D
---
Xerneas, the gay-pride Pokemon
3DS FC: 4511-0558-9256
#238Grammar_manPosted 9/4/2013 2:49:53 AM
ClassyOldHat posted...

In Super Smash Bros. unless the 'Handicap' option is being used, all Marios fight exactly the same.


Not true, actually, due to a little mechanic called Port Priority.

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Port_priority


Player 1 version of the character will always be better than Player 2.
#239PheonixFFire7Posted 9/4/2013 8:10:15 AM
mehmetski posted...
PheonixFFire7 posted...


Visual differences honestly aren't very interesting. This already exists with shiny Pokemon, and i still value good IV Pokemon far more than just the novelty of having a shiny Pokemon. Same with Spiked-Ear Pichu, or Pokemon with extreme gender differences. They're nice touches to vary the Pokemon up a bit, but they're not inherently more desirable. Good IV's make a Pokemon desirable, even if you're not competitive. Just the fact that you know you have a "good" Pokemon makes them valuable to you.

Besides, IV's only REALLY matter for Speed (and to a lesser extent, HP). All of the other stats can more or less have whatever IV's and the Pokemon will still be usable. Good IV's are just icing on the cake to give your Pokemon that little extra oomph.


As for you other responses:

-Yes, the concept for Pokemon originated from the idea of trading and collecting. Multiplayer is a core part of the concept of Pokemon. But the games THEMSELVES are primarily based around single-player. You're never forced to interact with other people, it's merely encouraged. Trading more so than battling. The games are still "balanced" from a single-player perspective, not a competitive one.

-I'm saying IV's are only an issue today because people who play the game at its highest level always assume perfect stats. Because that ideal has been set, everyone feels compelled to find loopholes to get perfect stats, when in reality it's not really that necessary outside of Speed. It's not that the game is "unfair", it's that everyone is looking at it from the perspective that the ideals should be the norm, when they should be looking at it from the perspective that ideals are just something to strive for. The objective of the game is to make the best out of what you can get, not to crack the code to achieve perfection. Perfection wasn't ever intended to be obtainable.

And I welcome a deeper breeding system. Breeding is honestly the primary reason I want IV's to remain. If this was Gen 1 we were talking about, before breeding existed, I'd be totally indifferent to IV's. However, with breeding, Pokemon goes from just being a simple jrpg into a full fledged monster breeder rpg. If that's what it's going to be, then I want a deep breeding system where I can build up powerful monsters, which is why I'd want IV's to be deeply tied into the breeding system. If there are better ways to do that, then I'm totally open to that. It just makes so much sense with IV's, since the whole "genetics" concept pretty much writes itself, and makes the breeding system in Pokemon a bit more unique than others out there.


im really sorry but....i think i fell in love with you :D


Haha I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it, but this is definitely the best comment I've woken up to in a while.
#240TerotrousPosted 9/4/2013 8:14:00 AM
IVs do add more customization. The absolute maximum realistic number of IVs at 31 you can get is 3 (realistically it's more like 2). You have to choose which ones you want.

Therefore TC's argument is wrong.


Also, FYI, it only takes a few hours to breed a pokemon with 2 IV 31s. It also doesn't require you to pay much attention, so you can do it while watching TV or whatever else.
---
http://terosclassicgaming.blogspot.com/ - Watch me beat "NES Yume Penguin Monogatari"
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery