As Legends proved... nothing at all.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
(Little) Things that annoy you in Pokémon
- Thread starter BriarRose
- Start date
Re: Stakataka
The ability to boost Attack with Beast Boost without an IV system could be preserved with minor stat alterations. It seems like a worthwhile pursuit given that the Lonely set was used across most formats (including VGC). Even if they wanted to stick with the tendency for inter-generational stat changes to only change by multiples of 5 or 10, the change of -20 Def / +20 SpA could accomplish that nicely (while still keeping the 570 BST and keeping all stats prime).
On the topic of prime stats, I'm still annoyed about how they messed up the prime stat theme by giving Naganadel a Speed stat of 121. It's not even a number that one might mistake as prime at first glance (like 119). Like, c'mon, it's a perfect square.
The ability to boost Attack with Beast Boost without an IV system could be preserved with minor stat alterations. It seems like a worthwhile pursuit given that the Lonely set was used across most formats (including VGC). Even if they wanted to stick with the tendency for inter-generational stat changes to only change by multiples of 5 or 10, the change of -20 Def / +20 SpA could accomplish that nicely (while still keeping the 570 BST and keeping all stats prime).
On the topic of prime stats, I'm still annoyed about how they messed up the prime stat theme by giving Naganadel a Speed stat of 121. It's not even a number that one might mistake as prime at first glance (like 119). Like, c'mon, it's a perfect square.
Well it’s a prime power, 11 squared, so it’s still related to prime numbers. I think that and the Necrozma forms’ Speed stats (77, a subprime), are meant to signify that they’re special, possibly.
Or GF just made a goober.
Probably close to the same number as there are Pokémon who evolve using a Burn Heal.
This has strong "it's balanced because we gave it to a shitmon" energy. Isn't Thievul the Gen VIII Pokémon with the lowest BST?
Last edited:
I think an explanation has been partially explored by Cobalt Empoleon, but I'll try and provide a more succinct answer (as much as a potato like me can). While from a competitive/competitive accessibility standpoint IVs hold little value, from a gameplay perspective they're important. They add another degree of variance that is core to the identity of the main series.
At a fundamental level, Pokemon is a RPG. It's more specifically a Monster Tamer, but not only is that a subgenre of RPGs, but also Pokemon basically pioneered that subgenre. So, as a simplification (broadening?) it's an RPG. While RPGs are a highly diverse and broad genre, their fundamental purpose is right in the name "role-playing".
Your journey through the various mainline games is supposed to be your journey. You can name your character, choose who your partners will be, player customization is (now) a thing, etc. You're not playing as a character that GF has pre-designed, you decide who you want to be. Of course, that ignores the quality of this variance which is horrifically basic in Pokemon - but this is at least GF's intended goal.
But, this journey is not in a vacuum. Your gameplay needs to be compared to both A: other players and B: your other playthroughs. When in comparison to these other experiences, there are certain immutables. The story will obviously be the same, NPC's won't have variance, and while you might experience different random encounters depending on how you walk, that randomness won't really have much of a noticeable long-term impact. But, what randomness will stick with you are the Pokemon you choose.
When you capture a Pokemon, there a number of factors the define it as different from its peers. IVs, Nature, Level, and Moveset can all vary between Pokemon of the same species. But, let's break these factors down:
- IV: There are
4096Edit: 32^6 possible IV combinations - which while finite, is still quite a lot. You're unlikely to meet two of the same Pokemon with the exact same IV values in a single playthrough (unless they're fixed). - Nature: There are 25 possible natures. In terms of effect on battle performance, there's only 21 due to the neutral natures. But, it's quite possible that you will encounter multiple Pokemon with the same nature in your playthrough, assuming you regularly capture new mons.
- Level: On any given route, there is a fixed variance in possible levels. Most I've seen is 1-5 level difference, but I don't have time to double check every single game lol.
- Moveset: Moveset variance is tied to the level, so it makes it basically a non factor for newly caught Pokemon.
But what about over the course of a playthrough? There are other factors to consider: RNG certainly plays a role, but that's a whole other discussion. But, the main points of variance are moveset changes, level difference, and of course EVs.
- Movesets: Pokemon can obviously run different movesets. Your Bidoof might be running Rollout, while at the same point Timmy's Bidoof might be using that slot to run Sheer Cold (the superior choice for Bidoof :P). But, all Pokemon have the exact same possible moveset combinations for their species. Bidoof will always be able to learn Yawn at lvl 21, no matter who is using it.
- Level: Level/experience will vary depending on player choice. But, there's again a limited number of "good" options in terms of using a Pokemon. A NPC trainer with Fighting types will be a bad option to use Bidoof against. But a Ghost-type trainer? That's a good option to bring out your Bidoof. So, players with the same Pokemon will be led to use said Pokemon in similar circumstances - which leads to similar leveling.
- EV's: Perhaps the biggest point of possible variance between Pokemon is their EV's - and rightfully so. EVs are supposed to show the shared experience of said Pokemon over the course of a playthrough, and are influenced by when you used it to battle. But, like with the above blurb on leveling, there are a "good" and "bad" times to use your Pokemon. This leads towards an EV convergence, where players will use their Pokemon in similar circumstances, which will lead them towards gaining the same number of EVs.
But, why does variance matter in the first place? Let's bring it back to the first point: Pokemon is a RPG. It is your narrative to weave as you want - at least theoretically. Your experiences should be different from your friends and even other playthroughs you might undertake.
But, what happens if variance is limited? What if, when both you and Timmy caught your first Bidoof, they were exactly the same? Or if you caught any other mons they were exactly the same? Suddenly, your playthrough is not unique (or at least more obviously not unique). It's no longer your experience, but the same experience that everyone else will have.
That is of course a little dramatic, and there are other factors of variance as aforementioned. But, the important thing is the magic that you are going on a journey that is entirely your own is just a bit dimmer.
IVs are an important factor in adding variance to Pokemon - if not the most important. In terms of their overall impact, they reign as the least mutable with the greatest effect on making Pokemon unique from one another. And, if they were removed from the series, Pokemon would most certainly be worse off.
Hope this answers your question! And that you haven't decided to murder me for creating this text wall
Last edited:
Yeah, about that...I think an explanation has been partially explored by Cobalt Empoleon, but I'll try and provide a more succinct answer (as much as a potato like me can). While from a competitive/competitive accessibility standpoint IVs hold little value, from a gameplay perspective they're important. They add another degree of variance that is core to the identity of the main series.
At a fundamental level, Pokemon is a RPG. It's more specifically a Monster Tamer, but not only is that a subgenre of RPGs, but also Pokemon basically pioneered that subgenre. So, as a simplification (broadening?) it's an RPG. While RPGs are a highly diverse and broad genre, their fundamental purpose is right in the name "role-playing".
Your journey through the various mainline games is supposed to be your journey. You can name your character, choose who your partners will be, player customization is (now) a thing, etc. You're not playing as a character that GF has pre-designed, you decide who you want to be. Of course, that ignores the quality of this variance which is horrifically basic in Pokemon - but this is at least GF's intended goal.
But, this journey is not in a vacuum. Your gameplay needs to be compared to both A: other players and B: your other playthroughs. When in comparison to these other experiences, there are certain immutables. The story will obviously be the same, NPC's won't have variance, and while you might experience different random encounters depending on how you walk, that randomness won't really have much of a noticeable long-term impact. But, what randomness will stick with you are the Pokemon you choose.
When you capture a Pokemon, there a number of factors the define it as different from its peers. IVs, Nature, Level, and Moveset can all vary between Pokemon of the same species. But, let's break these factors down:
As you can see, for newly caught Pokemon, there is not a whole lot of variance available - except with IVs. If IVs didn't exist and you and your friend Timmy both went out and caught a Bidoof, the likelihood that they'd be exactly the same would not be improbable.
- IV: There are 4096 possible IV combinations - which while finite, is still quite a lot. You're unlikely to meet two of the same Pokemon with the exact same IV values in a single playthrough (unless they're fixed).
- Nature: There are 25 possible natures. In terms of effect on battle performance, there's only 21 due to the neutral natures. But, it's quite possible that you will encounter multiple Pokemon with the same nature in your playthrough, assuming you regularly capture new mons.
- Level: On any given route, there is a fixed variance in possible levels. Most I've seen is 1-5 level difference, but I don't have time to double check every single game lol.
- Moveset: Moveset variance is tied to the level, so it makes it basically a non factor for newly caught Pokemon.
But what about over the course of a playthrough? There are other factors to consider: RNG certainly plays a role, but that's a whole other discussion. But, the main points of variance are moveset changes, level difference, and of course EVs.
All of this long-winded explanation is to say that while there are multiple ways Pokemon introduces variance in a playthrough, they are not all created equal. Many will end up being quite similar due to players facing the exact same game pressures, or aren't very broad in the first place.
- Movesets: Pokemon can obviously run different movesets. Your Bidoof might be running Rollout, while at the same point Timmy's Bidoof might be using that slot to run Sheer Cold (the superior choice for Bidoof :P). But, all Pokemon have the exact same possible moveset combinations for their species. Bidoof will always be able to learn Yawn at lvl 21, no matter who is using it.
- Level: Level/experience will vary depending on player choice. But, there's again a limited number of "good" options in terms of using a Pokemon. A NPC trainer with Fighting types will be a bad option to use Bidoof against. But a Ghost-type trainer? That's a good option to bring out your Bidoof. So, players with the same Pokemon will be led to use said Pokemon in similar circumstances - which leads to similar leveling.
- EV's: Perhaps the biggest point of possible variance between Pokemon is their EV's - and rightfully so. EVs are supposed to show the shared experience of said Pokemon over the course of a playthrough, and are influenced by when you used it to battle. But, like with the above blurb on leveling, there are a "good" and "bad" times to use your Pokemon. This leads towards an EV convergence, where players will use their Pokemon in similar circumstances, which will lead them towards gaining the same number of EVs.
But, why does variance matter in the first place? Let's bring it back to the first point: Pokemon is a RPG. It is your narrative to weave as you want - at least theoretically. Your experiences should be different from your friends and even other playthroughs you might undertake.
But, what happens if variance is limited? What if, when both you and Timmy caught your first Bidoof, they were exactly the same? Or if you caught any other mons they were exactly the same? Suddenly, your playthrough is not unique (or at least more obviously not unique). It's no longer your experience, but the same experience that everyone else will have.
That is of course a little dramatic, and there are other factors of variance as aforementioned. But, the important thing is the magic that you are going on a journey that is entirely your own is just a bit dimmer.
IVs are an important factor in adding variance to Pokemon - if not the most important. In terms of their overall impact, they reign as the least mutable with the greatest effect on making Pokemon unique from one another. And, if they were removed from the series, Pokemon would most certainly be worse off.
Hope this answers your question! And that you haven't decided to murder me for creating this text wall
Remember Legends?
I think the coromon system is the most fun one, with two exp bars
The first one is pretty similar to pokemon: a coromon levels up, it gains some stats. The same species will always gain the same stats at level up, so X coromons will always gain 2 speed, 1 def, 1 attack 1 hp on level 4, for example.
The second bar is more interesting: whenever it levels up, it allows you to distribute 3 stats freely on your mon. It doesnt level up at the same pace as your main exp bar, rather, coromon have an iv like system called potential where they are assigned 1 to 21, and the closest to 21 potential, the less exp the second bar needs, thus coromons with 21 potential have more stats than coromons with 1 potential. They basically fused the ev and iv systems, but they made it more straight forward by just letting you pick the stats vs having to battle specific mons or buying ev boosting items.
Main flunder imo was that they tied the two "shiny" forms coromons can get into potential, which decentivizes the devs into making 21 potential coromon more accessible because itd make the rarest type of shiny easy to obtain, making competitive much more cumbersome to achieve (just like old pokemon gens lol).
But I think a system similar to this would be really fun in pokemon. Fusing the iv and ev functionalities and making it easier to understand
The first one is pretty similar to pokemon: a coromon levels up, it gains some stats. The same species will always gain the same stats at level up, so X coromons will always gain 2 speed, 1 def, 1 attack 1 hp on level 4, for example.
The second bar is more interesting: whenever it levels up, it allows you to distribute 3 stats freely on your mon. It doesnt level up at the same pace as your main exp bar, rather, coromon have an iv like system called potential where they are assigned 1 to 21, and the closest to 21 potential, the less exp the second bar needs, thus coromons with 21 potential have more stats than coromons with 1 potential. They basically fused the ev and iv systems, but they made it more straight forward by just letting you pick the stats vs having to battle specific mons or buying ev boosting items.
Main flunder imo was that they tied the two "shiny" forms coromons can get into potential, which decentivizes the devs into making 21 potential coromon more accessible because itd make the rarest type of shiny easy to obtain, making competitive much more cumbersome to achieve (just like old pokemon gens lol).
But I think a system similar to this would be really fun in pokemon. Fusing the iv and ev functionalities and making it easier to understand
Don't you mean 1 073 741 824 (=32^6) combinations?
I dont think legends is a good counter argument that ivs are unnecessary to the variance design, as legends promotes a team switching, use multiple pokemon, catch everything you can playthrough. While not mutually exclusive to making bonds and memories with your pokemon, its much more likely that you wont grow many connections with anything but your starter (and even then you can replace it lol). The individuality of a pokemon doesnt matter when you catch hundreds of mons nonchalantly and use whatever looks more powerful/aesthetic pleasing for a time before swapping to somethibg elseYeah, about that...
Remember Legends?
Legends also barely has battles and threw out the normal EV system tooYeah, about that...
Remember Legends?
I suspect all the "capture" games will probably keep doing this
I don't really want to go into this, as my take on Legends is probably closer to an unpopular opinion and I don't have the time atm, but I think Legends fails from a game design standpoint on multiple levels. Not the least of which is how it treats Pokemon, as is relevant to this discussion.Yeah, about that...
Remember Legends?
Granted, I haven't played Legends, so my viewpoint is certainly limited. But, the reason why I haven't played Legends is specifically beacuse of these game design issues.
A very un-nuanced explanation is that Legends doesn't treat Pokemon as individuals - just things to collect to meet set goals. Gotta catch enough of a mon to depopulate the ecosystem and make it go extinct in the wild lol. But, you're specifically encouraged to catch and keep catching, as is the core game loop. That doesn't really make the mons equivalent to members of an RPG party, but rather more like cards from a TCG. In this instance, variance isn't the end goal, but collectability. Which, I feel is antithetical to Pokemon's core identity.
Idk, I have just one brain cell that looks like a potato and is just as starchy. I can't into maths for the life of me :P. But, that number seems closer to what I thought it was. I just quickly googled the answer, and on closer inspection it looks like the number I found is for Pogo
. I'll correct the post shortly, thanks!
Do you remember Chainmail?
I do. And that might seem strange if you remembered it too. After all, it had evolved beyond that name before I was born. But it was and is important, so I chose to remember it after looking back towards the past.
Chainmail was a fantasy wargame that used twenty-sided dice. It handled combat, and little else. I haven't played it personally, but it must have been good enough. Because the (honestly pretty primitive) story of the first D&D was built upon it. D&D became popular, inspired later video games, etc. etc. But it's important to note that there were other RPGs going on at the time, that didn't enjoy that level of success. Ones that were built from the ground up to be role-playing experiences, but lacked the solid core of actual game Chainmail had provided to D&D.
Is the point of an RPG in the RP, or in the G? I certainly lean towards the latter. Many video game RPGs are not capable of providing meaningfully different stories on several playthroughs, and several of those even dispense with the idea of a player-created character entirely. And yet, even after the story has been exhausted (that process perhaps being accelerated by skipping cutscenes), I still find myself putting time into those games. It's obvious, then, that a non-story factor is the reason for my enjoyment.
When I drill to the center of an RPG to find the critical part that makes the genre function, I don't find a story. I find Chainmail. A wargame. A game that exists to simulate combat between fictional constructions. Sometimes the story is even an obstacle to reaching the Valhalla that is a single postgame room that only ever asks one question: "would you like to continue battling?" That single question is enough for me to carry a genre on its back. And when I begin to answer 'no' because the combat system begins to fail, the game loses its foundation and crumbles.
In the hopeful light of the far future, let there be only war.
I do. And that might seem strange if you remembered it too. After all, it had evolved beyond that name before I was born. But it was and is important, so I chose to remember it after looking back towards the past.
Chainmail was a fantasy wargame that used twenty-sided dice. It handled combat, and little else. I haven't played it personally, but it must have been good enough. Because the (honestly pretty primitive) story of the first D&D was built upon it. D&D became popular, inspired later video games, etc. etc. But it's important to note that there were other RPGs going on at the time, that didn't enjoy that level of success. Ones that were built from the ground up to be role-playing experiences, but lacked the solid core of actual game Chainmail had provided to D&D.
Is the point of an RPG in the RP, or in the G? I certainly lean towards the latter. Many video game RPGs are not capable of providing meaningfully different stories on several playthroughs, and several of those even dispense with the idea of a player-created character entirely. And yet, even after the story has been exhausted (that process perhaps being accelerated by skipping cutscenes), I still find myself putting time into those games. It's obvious, then, that a non-story factor is the reason for my enjoyment.
When I drill to the center of an RPG to find the critical part that makes the genre function, I don't find a story. I find Chainmail. A wargame. A game that exists to simulate combat between fictional constructions. Sometimes the story is even an obstacle to reaching the Valhalla that is a single postgame room that only ever asks one question: "would you like to continue battling?" That single question is enough for me to carry a genre on its back. And when I begin to answer 'no' because the combat system begins to fail, the game loses its foundation and crumbles.
In the hopeful light of the far future, let there be only war.
Yeah... the motto has been gotta catch em all from day 1 lol.I don't really want to go into this, as my take on Legends is probably closer to an unpopular opinion and I don't have the time atm, but I think Legends fails from a game design standpoint on multiple levels. Not the least of which is how it treats Pokemon, as is relevant to this discussion.
Granted, I haven't played Legends, so my viewpoint is certainly limited. But, the reason why I haven't played Legends is specifically beacuse of these game design issues.
A very un-nuanced explanation is that Legends doesn't treat Pokemon as individuals - just things to collect to meet set goals. Gotta catch enough of a mon to depopulate the ecosystem and make it go extinct in the wild lol. But, you're specifically encouraged to catch and keep catching, as is the core game loop. That doesn't really make the mons equivalent to members of an RPG party, but rather more like cards from a TCG. In this instance, variance isn't the end goal, but collectability. Which, I feel is antithetical to Pokemon's core identity.
Idk, I have just one brain cell that looks like a potato and is just as starchy. I can't into maths for the life of me :P. But, that number seems closer to what I thought it was. I just quickly googled the answer, and on closer inspection it looks like the number I found is for Pogo
But I digress. Instead of IVs/EVs, they got "Grit Values" ranging from 0-10. (Basically a more controlled EV system. That's not the name Bulbapedia uses tho).
IVs in that game only affect a mon's base GVs, as in, they can start with 0-3 on each stat.
So they're still individualized but also trainable at any point assuming you have the necessary items.
Gotta catch em all was just made up for western audiences for marketing. The games never reflected this properly as there were many uncatchable pokemon, the whole game was made w the idea of needing to trade, and even in the bare bones late 90s kinda edgy pokemon are monsters oooo era of gen 1, there was still an incentive to bond with your guys and stick with a team much more than the legends "catch everything you see, finish tasks" gameloop
I mean, the Japanese slogan can also be translated as "Get Pokemon!" or "Lets Get Pokemon!", while it misses the "all" part it still has the same basic premise. And Pokedex completion has always been one of the goals in the game, and I doubt that a player would be able to bond with every single one they caught for the purpose of dex completion.
Something that always stuck with me was that the same franchise that tells you that love and care towards your team beats out trainers who seek out only power also has Giovanni and Blue be the 8th Gym Leader and soon-to-be Champion, like Oak scolds Blue for not treating his team with love and trust, but he sure got far enough to beat the strongest Elite Four member. I get that the player is the hubris breaker in the scenario, but being a jerk sure has its benefits in this league.
I think theres a difference nuance between "lets get pokemon" (inviting you to try out the franchises monsters/seek them out) vs gotta catch em all (more catchy FOR sure, but also much more focused on well, getting them all LOL)
Sure, you cant bond with every single pokemon you catch, but theres often an incentive to stick out with a team you enjoy and carry them through the game. You may travel and find pokemon you like more, and some pokemon are just really hard to use, but there still tends to be an incentive to stick out with pokemon you liked and felt like were your partners than the constant team switch and temporarity of arceus.
The dex is a goal, but its much more about finding and learning about these mons than catching a bunch of them. Gen 1 has many flaws and a lot of shitty game design, but I think its incorrect to say its close to legends imo
"Let's Get Pokémon!" is a much better motto because, while it invites you to try them out, it acknowledges you may not want to try them all.
Not to mention that "Gotta Catch 'em All!", if I remember correctly, spent a good deal of time in sort of obscurity after Gen 2 (or 3), until Gen 6.
I'll always go with "Gotta Catch what you like (and feel free to pretend the rest don't exist)".
Not to mention that "Gotta Catch 'em All!", if I remember correctly, spent a good deal of time in sort of obscurity after Gen 2 (or 3), until Gen 6.
I'll always go with "Gotta Catch what you like (and feel free to pretend the rest don't exist)".
I disagree slightly on the IV system being integral to the difference between Pokemon, simply because they're not that impactful unless you are specifically in an environment like PVP that encourages Min-Maxing as necessary (due to the likelihood everyone else will, and also just having opponents who snack on something besides Paint-Flavored Lays).I think an explanation has been partially explored by Cobalt Empoleon, but I'll try and provide a more succinct answer (as much as a potato like me can). While from a competitive/competitive accessibility standpoint IVs hold little value, from a gameplay perspective they're important. They add another degree of variance that is core to the identity of the main series.
At a fundamental level, Pokemon is a RPG. It's more specifically a Monster Tamer, but not only is that a subgenre of RPGs, but also Pokemon basically pioneered that subgenre. So, as a simplification (broadening?) it's an RPG. While RPGs are a highly diverse and broad genre, their fundamental purpose is right in the name "role-playing".
Your journey through the various mainline games is supposed to be your journey. You can name your character, choose who your partners will be, player customization is (now) a thing, etc. You're not playing as a character that GF has pre-designed, you decide who you want to be. Of course, that ignores the quality of this variance which is horrifically basic in Pokemon - but this is at least GF's intended goal.
But, this journey is not in a vacuum. Your gameplay needs to be compared to both A: other players and B: your other playthroughs. When in comparison to these other experiences, there are certain immutables. The story will obviously be the same, NPC's won't have variance, and while you might experience different random encounters depending on how you walk, that randomness won't really have much of a noticeable long-term impact. But, what randomness will stick with you are the Pokemon you choose.
When you capture a Pokemon, there a number of factors the define it as different from its peers. IVs, Nature, Level, and Moveset can all vary between Pokemon of the same species. But, let's break these factors down:
As you can see, for newly caught Pokemon, there is not a whole lot of variance available - except with IVs. If IVs didn't exist and you and your friend Timmy both went out and caught a Bidoof, the likelihood that they'd be exactly the same would not be improbable.
- IV: There are
4096Edit: 32^6 possible IV combinations - which while finite, is still quite a lot. You're unlikely to meet two of the same Pokemon with the exact same IV values in a single playthrough (unless they're fixed).- Nature: There are 25 possible natures. In terms of effect on battle performance, there's only 21 due to the neutral natures. But, it's quite possible that you will encounter multiple Pokemon with the same nature in your playthrough, assuming you regularly capture new mons.
- Level: On any given route, there is a fixed variance in possible levels. Most I've seen is 1-5 level difference, but I don't have time to double check every single game lol.
- Moveset: Moveset variance is tied to the level, so it makes it basically a non factor for newly caught Pokemon.
But what about over the course of a playthrough? There are other factors to consider: RNG certainly plays a role, but that's a whole other discussion. But, the main points of variance are moveset changes, level difference, and of course EVs.
All of this long-winded explanation is to say that while there are multiple ways Pokemon introduces variance in a playthrough, they are not all created equal. Many will end up being quite similar due to players facing the exact same game pressures, or aren't very broad in the first place.
- Movesets: Pokemon can obviously run different movesets. Your Bidoof might be running Rollout, while at the same point Timmy's Bidoof might be using that slot to run Sheer Cold (the superior choice for Bidoof :P). But, all Pokemon have the exact same possible moveset combinations for their species. Bidoof will always be able to learn Yawn at lvl 21, no matter who is using it.
- Level: Level/experience will vary depending on player choice. But, there's again a limited number of "good" options in terms of using a Pokemon. A NPC trainer with Fighting types will be a bad option to use Bidoof against. But a Ghost-type trainer? That's a good option to bring out your Bidoof. So, players with the same Pokemon will be led to use said Pokemon in similar circumstances - which leads to similar leveling.
- EV's: Perhaps the biggest point of possible variance between Pokemon is their EV's - and rightfully so. EVs are supposed to show the shared experience of said Pokemon over the course of a playthrough, and are influenced by when you used it to battle. But, like with the above blurb on leveling, there are a "good" and "bad" times to use your Pokemon. This leads towards an EV convergence, where players will use their Pokemon in similar circumstances, which will lead them towards gaining the same number of EVs.
But, why does variance matter in the first place? Let's bring it back to the first point: Pokemon is a RPG. It is your narrative to weave as you want - at least theoretically. Your experiences should be different from your friends and even other playthroughs you might undertake.
But, what happens if variance is limited? What if, when both you and Timmy caught your first Bidoof, they were exactly the same? Or if you caught any other mons they were exactly the same? Suddenly, your playthrough is not unique (or at least more obviously not unique). It's no longer your experience, but the same experience that everyone else will have.
That is of course a little dramatic, and there are other factors of variance as aforementioned. But, the important thing is the magic that you are going on a journey that is entirely your own is just a bit dimmer.
IVs are an important factor in adding variance to Pokemon - if not the most important. In terms of their overall impact, they reign as the least mutable with the greatest effect on making Pokemon unique from one another. And, if they were removed from the series, Pokemon would most certainly be worse off.
Hope this answers your question! And that you haven't decided to murder me for creating this text wall
IVs are how you see something like a Speed tie or a "just-barely" hit survived in competitive with everyone on level, but for in-game, very rarely is your level going to be the same as your opponent's in either direction, and you only see the ~31 Stat point difference (give or take for Natures or EVs/EV Breakpoints) at max level, with it generally applying more gradually for the level curve the main game has you on. Rare is the situation where it will make a noticeable difference compared to other factors mentioned like the Pokemon's innate statline/type/moveset. Most monster RPG experiences, including the ones I had long before I (or anyone) understood IVs existed, much less what they did, was just based on what Pokemon we thought looked cool or had moves we really liked using. Same in Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker, where most of my monster collection was fusing and experimenting with what funky movesets and combinations I could put together on different runs (that game didn't have an IV system to my knowledge, in that two identically obtained monsters would vary in their statlines).
This is not to mention the fact that Gamefreak is increasingly introducing methods to make your Pokemon become Competitive optimal, as in the ones you use in-game rather than creating a comp team after the fact (Gen 5 and 6 had a lot of Breeding and Egg Move QoL, but then 7 and 8 have the means to outright fudge/overwrite the stat effects of IVs or Natures). With the shift to mechanics to basically remove those differences as a factor by the end of the experience, at what point do you just decide to drop IVs and (the stat impact of) Natures then?
The invention of Nature Mints also helps circumvent a hatched Pokémon with perfect IVs getting the wrong Nature, just find the right one and give it to your newly hatched baby!
DrCoeloCephalo
Banned deucer.
Some higher up in Japan no doubt had to approve of them using that at all in the first place.
Due to how the Dex has always been set up, you learn about the monsters BY catching them because apparently the tech is so advanced, it can tell you all about the fantasy biology of a single monster by stuffing them in a gashapon ball.
They could make the games far more interactive with alternate career paths to make the experience much more unique, given Pokemon Researchers are such a big deal for learning more about their fantasy biology, but instead they decide to scrap things that allow for that such as Contests and PokeAthlon.
And they made them monumentally inconvenient to get for no reason. 48 BP just for one which is about 2 runs through the Battle Faciliteis, which are a feature they've done so little with in recent years. Yo-Kai Watch and Digimon have stat-changing personalities to the monsters but you can buy those items with money cheaply or find them lying around. They could have easily just made Nature Mints available from Dynamax Raids or something.
Dusk Mage Necrozma
formerly XenonHero126
Legends made them a lot easier to get so I think they’ll keep them pretty accessible going forward.
DrCoeloCephalo
Banned deucer.
I certainly hope so.
I would like an Adamant/Jolly Slakoth when I play through SV because I choose to raise one that way.
Respectfully, all of these points are fluff.
Grit Values add individual variance without being as rigid as IVs. The context of the game isn't exactly relevant to the discussion.