have the current game mechanics made competitive play less fun?

[SketchQueen]

The talk about IV's and EV's and how they've existed since generation 1 is probably the result of a miscommunication. It's more like the discovery of these mechanics.

When people played RBY back in the day, they still had fun, even when the most powerful Pokemon were still just ones obtained from training in game, rather than manipulating stats as if they were expert geneticists.

It's pretty safe to say nowadays that had IV's and EV's and these "more obscure" mechanics not been discovered, less people would use Pokemon in a way that leads to what many people complain about as "boring" or "uninteresting" competitive play.

 

[PrismaticPrincessAnna]

Well when i came back after 6-7 years for Pokemon, I didn't know what the heck those were. It took me months to know them - I'm still confused until now about it since why they're needed. Doesn't matter to me. I train them normally as what I did as a little kid years ago, nya~

 

[randomspot555]

The talk about IV's and EV's and how they've existed since generation 1 is probably the result of a miscommunication. It's more like the discovery of these mechanics.

When people played RBY back in the day, they still had fun, even when the most powerful Pokemon were still just ones obtained from training in game, rather than manipulating stats as if they were expert geneticists.

It's pretty safe to say nowadays that had IV's and EV's and these "more obscure" mechanics not been discovered, less people would use Pokemon in a way that leads to what many people complain about as "boring" or "uninteresting" competitive play.

This post is based on an assumption that no one knew about the mechanics in Gen I. This is false. People made battle simulators to play the games on, websites existed detailing the mechanics, and I remember even the VGC tournaments had people talking about them. In one particularly hilarious issue of Nintendo Power that covered that years official tournament, one of the players talked about "EV training" and the magazine misquoted him as "Eevee training".

Nothing has changed since Gen I. Advance mechanics existed and were known about then, and existed and are known about now. Just like then, they can still be ignored and are not required to know about to play the main game or play against other people.

Anyone who enjoyed Pokemon in the "good ol days" but doesn't know probably says more about them than it does about the game, as far as the advanced mechanics go.

 

[Hidden Power]

This post is based on an assumption that no one knew about the mechanics in Gen I. This is false. People made battle simulators to play the games on, websites existed detailing the mechanics, and I remember even the VGC tournaments had people talking about them. In one particularly hilarious issue of Nintendo Power that covered that years official tournament, one of the players talked about "EV training" and the magazine misquoted him as "Eevee training".

Nothing has changed since Gen I. Advance mechanics existed and were known about then, and existed and are known about now. Just like then, they can still be ignored and are not required to know about to play the main game or play against other people.

Anyone who enjoyed Pokemon in the "good ol days" but doesn't know probably says more about them than it does about the game, as far as the advanced mechanics go.

The existence of stat exp and IVs in generation I makes little difference in gameplay to most people since:

1) Technology isn't as ubiquitous and advanced as what we have today. Sure, those mechanisms existed, but I'm between sure back in the 90s no one in my whole school would know anything about it. I didn't even send out my first E-mail until in like 2001, while kids who are at the age when I got my first Pokemon game can handle smartphones and google the basic stuff. It's a difference of not knowing at all v.s. knowing (because you will read or hear about it sooner or later) and actively ignoring it.

2) There's little you could do to "customize" those stats. From the article on Bulbapedia it would seem that every Pokemon get the same stats exp as long as you train your Pokemon up, and when it comes to IVs there's no breeding; it's pretty much up to luck as to what you get from the wild. And I would guess that the 'websites' you're talking about served as an analysis of game codes rather than game guides for the average player. The impact of those mechanisms really matter when GF made the stats more variable than before while handing out more in-game tools to modify them, starting from Gen II and III.

Generalizing the fact that some form of stats modifying mechanisms exists both in Gen I and later gens to assume that it makes no difference back then and now is a pretty narrow point of view.

 

[Nutter t.KK]

There are EV and IV in Gen 1.. Most fans today call them Stat Exp and DV just to seperate them from their 3rd Gen+ versions. Until GSC, the only way to get better Pokémon was catching them. At least there where only 4 DVs you needed to worry about. (HP's DV worked differently in Gen 1 & 2)

And hey, there's a "DV" Calculator on a website: http://www.upokecenter.com/data/statchecker.php

Before you ask, we don't have one.. All we can do is 3rd gen or later: http://serebii.net/games/iv-calcdp.shtml

 

[randomspot555]

The existence of stat exp and IVs in generation I makes little difference in gameplay to most people since:

1) Technology isn't as ubiquitous and advanced as what we have today. Sure, those mechanisms existed, but I'm between sure back in the 90s no one in my whole school would know anything about it. I didn't even send out my first E-mail until in like 2001, while kids who are at the age when I got my first Pokemon game can handle smartphones and google the basic stuff. It's a difference of not knowing at all v.s. knowing (because you will read or hear about it sooner or later) and actively ignoring it.

2) There's little you could do to "customize" those stats. From the article on Bulbapedia it would seem that every Pokemon get the same stats exp as long as you train your Pokemon up, and when it comes to IVs there's no breeding; it's pretty much up to luck as to what you get from the wild. And I would guess that the 'websites' you're talking about served as an analysis of game codes rather than game guides for the average player. The impact of those mechanisms really matter when GF made the stats more variable than before while handing out more in-game tools to modify them, starting from Gen II and III.

Generalizing the fact that some form of stats modifying mechanisms exists both in Gen I and later gens to assume that it makes no difference back then and now is a pretty narrow point of view.

Congratulations. You are a technology literate 20-something year old and can easily find stuff like fan sites that explain these things. Similarly, children today are ignorant because they aren't on fan based sites. They aren't on computers unspervised often and do other things when they are on them.

And even so, the knowledge that advance mechanics exist shouldn't be a mind blowing fact to anyone (they pretty much exist in any number of games), nor does it change anything in how one plays. There is never a point in the game where you are forced to chain breed for an egg move or catch a Pokemon with a certain nature with Synchronize or anything advanced like that. Just like 10+ years ago. Pokemon has largely stayed the same in how it treats advanced mechanics. They're there, and it is up to you the player if you want to use them or not.

The original post is based on the premise that there are no advanced mechanics in the old games. That is false.

As to your point: Regardless of how the exact stats are calculated between Gen I and II, why does that matter? Does the change in a mathmatic formula suddenly make it THAT much of a difference? Or is it still something that competitive players will seek out and everyone else can safely ignore?

If anything, modern mechanics make it much easier for the casual player to understand the advanced mechanics and join in the advanced play if they want to. Rather than the games getting more grindy over time, it is now easier than ever to breed a decent Pokemon for a competition.

 

[Hidden Power]

Congratulations. You are a technology literate 20-something year old and can easily find stuff like fan sites that explain these things. Similarly, children today are ignorant because they aren't on fan based sites. They aren't on computers unspervised often and do other things when they are on them.

You're ignoring how the demographics of internet users have changed over the years, by assuming that kids of X age today are exposed to the same level of internet content as kids of the same age back in the 90s. They're not.

And even so, the knowledge that advance mechanics exist shouldn't be a mind blowing fact to anyone (they pretty much exist in any number of games), nor does it change anything in how one plays. There is never a point in the game where you are forced to chain breed for an egg move or catch a Pokemon with a certain nature with Synchronize or anything advanced like that. Just like 10+ years ago. Pokemon has largely stayed the same in how it treats advanced mechanics. They're there, and it is up to you the player if you want to use them or not.

It isn't mind blowing per se, but it does irk players when they know they have the means to maximise the potential of their favorite Pokemon at the expense of time and perhaps, overall enjoyment of the game. Besides, which other game you speak of falls into the same category as Pokemon, which is a hybrid of RPG and pet raising game? Even if I were to go through the likes of Final Fantasy series with an in-depth guide to max out my character and basically do everything 100%, I do so with the mindset that that's the endpoint. For Pokemon it's a never ending process if you're into these mechanics, whenever you choose to train a new Pokemon.

The original post is based on the premise that there are no advanced mechanics in the old games. That is false.

Congrats on winning an argument on the internet over technical grounds then.

As to your point: Regardless of how the exact stats are calculated between Gen I and II, why does that matter? Does the change in a mathmatic formula suddenly make it THAT much of a difference? Or is it still something that competitive players will seek out and everyone else can safely ignore?

Uh, I'm think the maximum difference is 15 points per stats for a zero IV and max IV Pokemon in Gen I, assuming both Pokemon were trained without any specific means to level 100. Today we're looking at a difference of 31 IV, 64 points from manipulating EV spread to the desired stats and up to a 20% difference in stats with nature. Of course it makes a lot of difference. Just pick any Pokemon on Bulbapedia and look at its min/max for any stats.

Even for the casual players, they would find themselves in a position where their Pokemon isn't "as strong as what everyone else says", simply because they grind too much at the wrong place with the wrong Pokemon.

If anything, modern mechanics make it much easier for the casual player to understand the advanced mechanics and join in the advanced play if they want to. Rather than the games getting more grindy over time, it is now easier than ever to breed a decent Pokemon for a competition.

Pretty sure the 'mechanics' we're talking about has become more complex rather than simplified. What's simplified is the means to modify them: the ease of passing natures, IVs, training EVs etc. In fact I would think that Game Freak could have decided to shift Daycare to post-E4 in B2W2 so that players focus less on the breeding and more on the playing, at least during the main game.

Since the OP's title was whether the mechanics have made competitive less fun, I'll just say that personally I have no time for those various manipulation in-game, especially when competitive play usually requires you to optimize your team with time and changes to the metagame rules, which is why I just use a battle simulator whenever I'm up for a bit of competitive fun. All it matters to the program is the min/max of each stats, just distribute the points and it's good to go.

 

[randomspot555]

You're ignoring how the demographics of internet users have changed over the years, by assuming that kids of X age today are exposed to the same level of internet content as kids of the same age back in the 90s. They're not.

I'm not ignoring that at all. The fact is they're still not going out and seeking out fan sites that explain in-depth mechanics. Laws and parental involvment typically prevent children under 13 from even signing up for a forum like this. I'm sure it isn't impossible that kids find out about them. But in my experience of having little cousins who play Pokemon and meeting their friends, they certainly are unaware of the deeper mechanics outside of anything that isn't explained in the game such as natures boosting stats, paralysis slowing down Speed, and the physical/special split.

It isn't mind blowing per se, but it does irk players when they know they have the means to maximise the potential of their favorite Pokemon at the expense of time and perhaps, overall enjoyment of the game. Besides, which other game you speak of falls into the same category as Pokemon, which is a hybrid of RPG and pet raising game? Even if I were to go through the likes of Final Fantasy series with an in-depth guide to max out my character and basically do everything 100%, I do so with the mindset that that's the endpoint. For Pokemon it's a never ending process if you're into these mechanics, whenever you choose to train a new Pokemon.

If you're narrowing games down to "hybrid RPG and pet raising", admittedly, you're limiting it a lot. If you expand it to any game that allows players to face eachother, there's tons that have hidden mechanics and a competitive scene that the casual player is ignorant of. Smash Bros has all types of strategies and mechanics that are abused and freeze framing and crazyness that the average player never even thinks about.

Uh, I'm think the maximum difference is 15 points per stats for a zero IV and max IV Pokemon in Gen I, assuming both Pokemon were trained without any specific means to level 100. Today we're looking at a difference of 31 IV, 64 points from manipulating EV spread to the desired stats and up to a 20% difference in stats with nature. Of course it makes a lot of difference. Just pick any Pokemon on Bulbapedia and look at its min/max for any stats.

Somehow I don't think the complaints of casual players would cease if the games reverted to Gen I mechanics. Gen I was hilariously bad when it comes to messed up mechanics, glitches not fixed, and so on. There's always going to be a degree of luck factor in Pokemon, but Gen I ranked it up a bunch.

The complaint isn't "there's a bunch of variables and if there just a few less, I'd be good", it is that they exist at all and that an EV trianed Pokemon will always win against the starter they raised from level 5. This isn't an uncommon belief in Pokemon of playing it casually and "for fun" (though I hate using that term myself), and there's no shortage of people who play similarly that would be glad to battle other casual players.

Even for the casual players, they would find themselves in a position where their Pokemon isn't "as strong as what everyone else says", simply because they grind too much at the wrong place with the wrong Pokemon.

Then casual players in Pokemon should do what casual players do in Smash Bros and MArio Kart and every other game series of all time: Play with other casual players. There's a reason why junior varsity leagues don't play against NBA and NFL teams.

Pretty sure the 'mechanics' we're talking about has become more complex rather than simplified. What's simplified is the means to modify them: the ease of passing natures, IVs, training EVs etc. In fact I would think that Game Freak could have decided to shift Daycare to post-E4 in B2W2 so that players focus less on the breeding and more on the playing, at least during the main game.

You knew what I meant. It's easier now than ever to customize your Pokemon and bring out it's power. And just like 10 years ago, it is entirely optional and is never needed to do so or understand it to complete and enjoy the game.

The focus has always been on the main game, regardless of the location of the Daycare.

 

[Hidden Power]

I see the need to separate Pokemon from other PvP games because of several fundamental differences. There's involvement of time and effort to build up a team, the game promotes a sense of ownership of the virtual companions who fight for you, and the battle mechanics pretty much excludes all form of manipulation except your decision making skills. This differs greatly from games like DotA, or Mario Kart, and ironically Pokemon battle simulators as well, because these games exclude variations in the 'potential' of your character/race car and move on straight to test your competitive skills, and the former two examples in particular depends on how good your reflexes are.

And you would think that with all the RNGing or hacking to optimize Pokemon teams for all the official tournaments it would be easier if there's some sort of official battle simulator such that players 'create' their team and fight it out, while the program simply excludes 'impossible' set-ups, but that would not have been in the interest of Game Freak or the franchise, since they do want to encourage people to buy and play the games.

The focus on the main game hasn't shifted, that I agree, but we're talking about competitive play here, which can be considered a post-game activity (unless someone decided to get themselves stuck before a gym just to train up a team of competitive Pokemon). If we're talking about casual players and how they could have not known about all these in-depth mechanics at all, the same could be said if such mechanisms did not exist; they wouldn't have noticed it. The mechanics to maximize your Pokemon's potential, which even though is easier nowadays, is still a hassle that most competitive player would just bypass by means of simulators, hacking and whatsnot because they have no value to competitive play.

And honestly I don't get the term 'casual competitive'. Leagues exist because of the variation in how good you are (just like the various tiers in the metagame), not because the lower leagues are casual. Who doesn't play to win? And unfortunately there isn't exactly a clear-cut definition for casualness or some sort of league brackets for Pokemon.

 

[SketchQueen]

This post is based on an assumption that no one knew about the mechanics in Gen I. This is false.

I never made that assumption. I realized that advanced, more hidden mechanics existed since the very beginning. But it can't be denied that the percentage of people that knew about these advanced mechanics that existed in RBY back then is less than the percentage of people that know about them in DPP or BW2 now. And this increase in percentage of people that know about advanced mechanics such as EV's and IV's may very well be the difference between a "more fun" and a "less fun" competitive scene.

Nothing has changed since Gen I. Advance mechanics existed and were known about then, and existed and are known about now. Just like then, they can still be ignored and are not required to know about to play the main game or play against other people.

Yes, but the number of people that knew about these mechanics back then and the number right now are vastly different. Such a huge increase in this advanced mechanic knowledge means more people with the perfect team instead of just teams made as a result of experimentation, which leads to more monotony, which leads to "less fun".

Of course, I don't agree with monotony automatically meaning less fun all on its own.

 

[Auraninja]

How some fans react to these "complicated mechanics".

You are talking about Pokemon, which still markets to younger people. You could write essays about competitive battling, sure, but you could obsess that much about almost any substantial statistical multiplayer.

 

[SBaby]

I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.

 

[shadorai]

The talk about IV's and EV's and how they've existed since generation 1 is probably the result of a miscommunication. It's more like the discovery of these mechanics.

that'a exactly what i meant.

 

[ShinyMienshao]

I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.

This is me, totally me.

 

[Ti4558]

The game mechanics don't really bother anymore since I'm using poke dit so it's really easy to make Pokemon with the best evs and ivs.

 

[Serebii!]

I understand the mechanics of the games though I do not battle competitively, I think the current mechanics are good and should stay with the possibility of them getting improved in future titles as it does make everything more complex, challenging and interesting

 

[Dragalge]

It's not that hard to understand EVs and all of that really. Personally I think the mechanics are find as they are and have made competitive play more fun but I wouldn't mind if they were changed in some way.

 

[Mr Dragon]

I'll be honest. I never really liked competitive battling. I tried it, but it's way too elitist. If it ever stopped being elitist, maybe I'd try it again. But I don't think that's going to happen.

So I just play the games normally and only battle people that I've actually met in real life. It's pretty much the same thing anyway in terms of mechanics, when you think about it. Not to mention, it's more fun to see their faces as you battle them, rather than battling names with no faces.

How's competitive battling in itself 'elitist'?

 

[PokemonTrainerKaden]

I retired from competitive back at the beginning of 2012. Now I'm just looking for casual battles, but I still have all of my Pokemon, and occasionally use a few of them in my casual battles haha. I don't think it's less fun because of those things. I think competitive is less fun than the actual game itself because people take it too seriously.

 

[aswertyuiol]

I understand what Nintendo and Gamefreak were thinking when they added competitive prospects ("competitive battling will appeal to older gamers too") but I've never been so good at it myself, so generally I just ignore it and beat the cr*p out of trainers anyway.