I see a lot of people that just want pokemon to be "harder" by "adding more pokemon to trainer teams" or "making the AI smarter", and I honestly think that just isn't enough.
First lets talk about what a level curve is. It's making sure that the player is the right level (not too high, not too low) for every fight they come across. This is so that the player won't feel the fight is too easy or that they feel they'll have to grind their pokemon to proceed. And in GF's point of view, they have to be sure "the player will be around this level when they reach this fight" to maintain a good level curve. What also helps them determine this is helping the trainers keep their party level balanced.
Let's take a look at Gen V's EXP system and how it contributes to "controlling" what level the player will be at when they reach each point.
>If you defeat a pokemon with a higher leveled pokemon, they get LESS EXP
>And if you defeat a pokemon with a lower leveled pokemon, they get MORE EXP
>When you switch in pokemon, the EXP that gets distributed is split up and each pokemon that was in battle gets a cut of that EXP
>EXP Share gives a cut of the EXP earned as if the pokemon holding it was in battle
This will ensure that the pokemon the player uses will always be up to par with the pokemon they face against. This also serves as a nice reward for using lower leveled pokemon in battle. (Cont~)
>>25514570
Now I said GF needed to make sure what level the player was at to determine how they should balance each trainer, basically having to "control" what level the player was at. But sadly, it seems that thought process was thrown out the window with the introduction to the Gen VI's EXP system. Let's list the problems:
>They removed the "get more EXP for using lower leveled pokemon and vice-versa" therefore discouraging the use of lower level pokemon and not discouraging using higher level pokemon
>Each pokemon that was in battle receive 100% of the exp as if it defeated the pokemon alone
>EXP share gives 100% of the EXP to every pokemon in battle and 50% to each pokemon that weren't in battle
Why is this a problem? There are too many ways the player can come up with EXP out of nothing. And there is no sense of reward for using an underdog pokemon. And to top it off, it's harder to keep your party level balanced. So GF basically stopped caring about creating a good level curve in Gen VI. It's not as simple as turning off EXP share and in the first place, the player shouldn't have to think EXP Share is a sort of "Easy Mode". But I understand that there are players that like to breeze through pokemon and GF assumed that everyone is like that in Gen VI. So what's the solution? (Cont~)
just TURN EXP SHARE OFF
>>25514583
Not only should they bring back Gen V's EXP system and EXP Share, but they should do it in only two of three difficulty modes.
Normal Mode
>Less pokemon per trainers
>Dumb AI
>Gen VI's EXP system
>Basically Gen VI
Why name it Normal? Because GF is now assuming most players like to breeze through pokemon. They don't want the player to feel 'stupid' for picking a mode called "Easy" and most casual players tend to go straight for Normal Mode.
Veteran Mode
>More pokemon per trainers
>Smarter AI
>Gen V's EXP System
>Basically a little bit more difficult than Platnium with Gen V's EXP system
Champion Mode
>Much more pokemon per trainers
>Way smarter AI
>Gen V's EXP System
>Basically for people who enjoy competitive and want a challenge
If you like breezing through pokemon without a care, Normal mode is for you. If you like playing pokemon and losing occasionally, and actually use your brain, Veteran is for you. If you like having to think your way through every battle otherwise you get wrecked, Champion Mode is for you. The key thing about Veteran and Champion modes is that you should still never have to grind.
As for EXP Share, they should add both and rename Gen VI's to EXP All. EXP All should only be available in Normal mode during the campaign, and accessible in Veteran and Champion during post-game.
Wow I wrote a shit ton. Feel free to tell me what you think.
>>25514589
Oh hey it's the obligatory gen 6 apologist who just regurgitates the same shit instead of actually reading the post.
>>25514613
DUDE THE GAMES WERE FINE! THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN MY SECOND GAMES BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>25514589
If you read the second post, he already mentioned EXP share should be a reward, not an easy mode. You shouldn't have to turn EXP share off the make the game artificially harder.
>>25514613
It's funny, my post made to inform people like that, and before I can even finish posting, I get this >>25514589
>>25514601
I wish Gen 7 lets you pick a difficulty. Im sick of slogging through 5 tutorials in 20 minutes teaching me the same shit i've been doing for 20 years.
Give me a hard mode with no tutorials, stronger pokemon on trainers with better moves. More trainers, more pokemon per trainer. Stronger wild pokemon, less money per trainer. Gen V EXP system. And don't lock it behind a "New Game+" or some shit.
>>25514762
Yeah I should've mentioned there should be changes in movesets and strategies for each mode too.
What's also interesting are pokemon growth rates. I'm playing through Emerald right now for example, Azumarill has Fast and Manectric has Slow. The difference in experience per level is pretty huge. Unfortunately Azu has put in a lot more work than Manectric. I'm struggling for a reason to keep a mediocre pokemon in the party that levels as slow as a legendary.
too complicated for children
>>25514849
It's not too complicated for children as long as they can read.
>>25514874
if they have to read to understand it's too complicated
>>25514821
Wait. Is this why my Gulpin and Makuhita leveled faster then my Ralts and Nuzleaf in Ruby?
>>25514889
>New Game
>Entire screen is covered by Normal mode option
>Small arrow pointing down
>Move down
>Veteran and Champion Mode options show
Most kids would just want to get on with it and pick Normal.
>>25514601
I like this idea. Hope Sun and Moon implement something like this.
Also, no weak-ass champions like Alder or Diantha. Somebody actually challenging like Cynthia would be good.
>>25514702
>You shouldn't have to turn EXP share off the make the game artificially harder.
Using the same reasoning you shouldn't leave it on to make the game artificially easier. In any case having exp share as a reward is ridiculous especially if every game is going to have the amount of Pokemon XY did during the main game.
I think the problem here is that you people are trying to use the exp share the way it was used before rather than using some common sense and adjusting to the new mechanics.
>>25514899
Pokemon have always had different growth rates, did you really not pick up on that? If you look at the total experience of two Pokemon at the same level they can be drastically different.
>>25514922
Child logic.
The highest setting makes you cool.
The bottom choice is always the hardest.
>>25514935
Adjust to the new mechanic that the game isn't even balanced around
Stellar idea
>>25514956
Definitley not how qll kids think, probably not how many think.
>>25514959
Except it's balanced around the mass of pokemon in the game, they want you to swap out your team often when using it.
This is what I mean about common sense.
If you want to use the same team then you turn it off.
>>25514993
You've clearly never been a kid.
>>25514601
>Basically for people who enjoy competitive and want a challenge
This cannot happen in game, stop trying.
>>25514956
Child logic, not manchild logic anon
>>25514601
This is pokemon anon. There's no inherent difficulty and there never will be.
Not without sacrificing proper progression and game balance.
>>25515027
Manchild logic is trying to make pokemon difficult.
Child logic is that hard = cool
>>25515053
Levels are not going to make the difficulty
What will are teams, moves, items, and an AI capable of manipulating those into playing smart. In fact I remember reading about how AI is actually smart enough to make decisions and come up with strategies that would piss off focus group players because it was too difficult for them to overcome and think about. Similar to how computer chess games seem to be so fucking impossible to beat
>>25515070
I mean, sure, but children barely play Pokemon these days anyway and if Pokemon isn't hard, why would kids be seen playing a game that isn't cool?
>>25514996
If it's only balanced around one possible playstyle then it's not balanced. Nowhere in the game does it say that you must play one particular way. The developer should account for multiple ways the player might go about going through the game. It's like putting a character that has a fast 1HKO move in a fighting game and saying it's balanced because the player isn't "meant" to spam the move even though nothing actually restricts them from doing so.
>>25515205
>Pokemon isn't hard, why would kids be seen playing a game that isn't cool?
Because their older sibling plays it duh. That in turn passes to the kids without siblings.
>>25514996
>Except it's balanced around the mass of pokemon in the game, they want you to swap out your team often when using it.
Source?
>>25515308
But if their older sibling is playing a game that isn't hard, why would they want to play it if easy things are not cool?
Hell, using legendaries is easy mode and children do it all the time
>>25514939
Maybe subconsciously i knew but until it was spelled out i guess i never gave it any thought.
>>25515283
Not him but what's with this false equivalence?
You can't compare a fighting game to an RPG that promotes different styles of play.
Also the old exp share wasn't exactly balanced due to the fact it essentially forced the player to grind more.
>>25515330
>But if their older sibling is playing a game that isn't hard, why would they want to play it if easy things are not cool?
Because they want to be like their cool older sibling.
You seem to be under the impression that there's only one way to be cool as a kid.
>>25514570
Turn the fucking thing off shit heads. It's super fucking great for leveling post-game teams.
Not to bring armchair psychology into this, but this chart explains why I feel what I do about a playthrough. In X/Y I felt relaxed because it was easy and new. Replaying an old game is boring because it's easy and I see everything coming. Nuzlockes can be anxiety inducing because skill can't stop crits and hax.
I've only recently begun playing Pokémon X and I think it's become far too easy. There's no challenge. I'm currently at Parfum Palace and I've got a team of 5. Frogadier and Fletchinder are at 20, Vivillon is at 19, Skiddo is at 17 and Espurr who I just caught is at 15. It doesn't feel like there's a challenge to the game anymore, which is sad because you had to either grind or strategically switch out your pokémon to have a balanced team in the past.
>>25515344
I dunno man, recently I've been using the EXP Share to grind my support Pokemon in Crystal version and I seem to be having a relatively fine job. But that might be due to Crystal's awful level curve
>>25515358
You're jumping through hoops to say Pokemon shouldn't have a hard mode, you know? I wouldn't be under the impression if you didn't say, "ALL KIDS PLAY HARD MODE TO BE COOOL" in the first place
>>25515344
It's not a false equivalence. Both things aren't balanced for certain styles of playing. The 1HKO fighting game character might be balanced for some specific people who like restraining themselves and not spamming the best moves. But it's not balanced in general because anyone can still just spam it. The same fucking thing applies to the EXP share.
>Old exp share forces the player to grind
No it doesn't. I've played every single Pokemon game without grinding just by exploring and fighting trainers.
>>25515371
And here's another idiot who can't seem to read past 2 sentences.
>>25515373
>In X/Y I felt relaxed because it was easy and new. Replaying an old game is boring because it's easy and I see everything coming.
This guy gets it. X/Y was still fun for me because shit was new. ORAS was the most boring pokemon game I have played in a decade.
>>25515378
With how broken Gen VI is and how many Pokemon there are the game probably intends for you to use more than 6 members for your team. The game seems unbalanced because it was so focused on reinventing the wheel for the 3DS than actually making a great game. Doesn't help that it came only a single fucking year after BW2
It's funny, I sometimes get the impression that we think we deserve some special treatment because we've been fans for so long. Fact is, the target audience is "anyone with money". Think of issues in the games like backwards compatibility, lack of move tutors, version exclusives, unavailable legends, popular features removed in the very next game. All by design so you'd buy it, not so you'd have fun. It's been this way since yellow and I doubt it'll change...
>>25515970
Doesn't mean we can't hope for the best.
>>25515408
>X/Y was still fun for me because shit was new. ORAS was the most boring pokemon game I have played in a decade.
XY was miles better than ORAS, and mainly because it had a lot of new stuff.
However I could have enjoyed it a lot more with it being slightly less easy. Just because you enjoyed a game doesn't mean it can't be improved.
>>25516035
I'm right there with you bro, I hope I'm wrong. It'd be a nice surprise.
>>25516169
Yeah, I remember playing Y non-stop when it came out but when OR came, I just played it on and off randomly for a few days and ended up dropping it in the middle, then forced myself to finish it for the Delta Episode (which sucked by the way) a couple months later.
