Is this Dattebayo with a new account or something?
This belief of yours is based on what exactly? The point being here, you can't base Pokemon evolution on one unbased, and unlikely viewpoint.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Should Pokemon eventually get 4 or 5 stages of Evolution?
- Thread starter CAH
- Start date
Is this Dattebayo with a new account or something?
This belief of yours is based on what exactly? The point being here, you can't base Pokemon evolution on one unbased, and unlikely viewpoint.
Zazie
So 1991
Not every evolution raises state to the same degree (compare Magikarp-Gyrados to Weedle-Kakuna) an some lower certain stats. (porygon 2-porygon z). There is no rule that says a fourth evolution would have to be overpowered. In fact there is a pretty low chance of tha happening if a 3rd stage pokemon was made, because you know, the people designing pokemon most likely have enough sense not to design something deliberately overpowered to a ridiculous degree. (barring arceus or mew where it's part of the whole concept)
Not every pokemon needs an evolution, evolutions for the sake of evolutions are pointless regardless of how many stages a pokemon has.
Really, a few people here need to understand that good idea/bad idea and change/consistency are separate spectrums. (and a few more could probably use to think more critically about game design as well) And the reasoning that they shouldn't have stage 3 evolutions because "it's never been done before" is pretty dumb too. Now there is absolutely no need to go adding a crap-ton of 3rd stage pokemon or anything just because,but if Gamefreaks Pokemon designers just so happen to come up with a new pokemon idea that needs 3+ stage evolution they should give it a shot.
Last edited:
Squiddly Dee
∈ (⊙ ⊖ ⊙) ∋
I don't think 4th evos are needed. Pokemon with 4th evos will become far too overpowered, throwing off the balance of the whole game.
virizionx86
Better than Breloom.
So if the seventh generation included all new Pokemon but prevented old players from having access to their old Pokemon at all, it would still be breaking a standard, but would it be plausibly implemented?
Giving a fourth evolution to a third-stage Pokemon that is meant to be weak would be going against the design standards for that third-stage Pokemon.
No, I didn't suggest anything like that. In fact, you and I mention the exact same things when you bring up the point about a Beedrill evolution. Kakuna's base stat total is higher than Weedle's, and Beedrill's base stat total is higher than Kakuna's. All I said with what you erroneously quoted was that the fourth stage in the Weedle line would have a higher base stat total than Beedrill.
Please point out where I suggest that the fourth evolution to a Pokemon would have to be overpowered.
Standards may be constantly broken, but if the main argument for a fourth stage in an evolutionary line is solely to break a standard and to give Pokemon that were perfectly fine up until now an evolution, then it probably shouldn't be implemented in the first place.
If some sort of stat change isn't the main way to implement the evolution of a Pokemon, then what would be the point of the evolution in the first place? If the stats between one stage and the stage immediately after it are exactly the same, then there would be no point in making that Pokemon have an evolution.
Just because adding a fourth stage to an evolutionary line may not remind you of Digimon at all, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't remind anybody else of Digimon. As long as what is being proposed for the Pokemon series would make it more and more similar to what Digimon is to a specific person, that person can very well say that it reminds them of Digimon. There's no "counter" for or against such an opinion.
Piloswine, Electabuzz, and Magmar received evolutions within the standard that was already set up since the first generation. Yes, some adult-looking, third-stage Pokemon are pitifully weak and deserve an evolution, but the extra hoop that an evolution for Azumarill would have to jump through would be the break in standard that should not be implemented.
Making more Pokemon usable would mean that the ratio between "usable non-legendaries" and "usable legendaries" would be higher. While it doesn't have anything to do with the actual legendary Pokemon themselves, it does have a lot to do with the bias for and against the value of a legendary Pokemon, both in-battle (for certain people) and out (for others).
The same can go for you, too. You're welcome to bring a new argument that's in favor of fourth-stage Pokemon, too.
So yes, it can't be denied that the introduction of fourth-stage Pokemon is possible. However, it isn't very needed. The two primary arguments are that the fourth-stage Pokemon wouldn't be too overpowered, and that fourth-stage Pokemon would only be given to Pokemon that aren't deemed powerful enough in their third stage.
Pokemon that are labeled as "not powerful enough in their third stage", though, haven't been given a fourth stage in their evolutionary line, which shows that these Pokemon are fine as they are and that a fourth stage for these evolutionary lines would not be needed.
As I've said previously, if fourth-stage Pokemon are only given to evolutionary lines whose third stages aren't powerful enough, then that means that the fourth evolution would be implemented out of pity as a crutch, rather than genuinely improving on the Pokemon's design. This goes against what the first and second evolution in an evolutionary line mean for the Pokemon.
Agreed.
The majority of commotion, from what I've seen, is due to the proposed idea of "giving fourth stages to currently-existing Pokemon when the currently-existing Pokemon are fine as they are". I agree that the "it hasn't been done before and it would break standard" reason is not very persuasive, but it shouldn't be one of the main justifications for the idea that's being proposed.
That being said, though, if they do introduce fourth-stage lines in the sixth generation, then opinions as to whether or not pre-gen 6 Pokemon need four stages in their evolutionary line may differ. But the primary argument of "pre-gen 6 Pokemon lines having distributions of stats that were not designed for having four stages" would very likely still remain with some people.
Last edited:
I just don't think it would work, i mean pokemon evolve twice, if pokemon evolved three times then you wouldn't have a very long time using some of the middle evos.
Pokemon would also become too powerful, especially starters because they would obviouly have the 4th evolution in their line. Legendarys might have to evolve to stay the most powerful, and that's just.... no, just....no.
This probably didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Pokemon would also become too powerful, especially starters because they would obviouly have the 4th evolution in their line. Legendarys might have to evolve to stay the most powerful, and that's just.... no, just....no.
This probably didn't make a whole lot of sense.
I was just saying that, the remoraid should vanish not that it already does.
Starsurfer
Pokemon Idol
I'm not a fan of the idea. Like many people said before, adding a fourth evolution would make some lines extremely overpowered. But in addition to that, it would be rather difficult. If you think about how Pokemon evolutions tend to work, the basic Pokemon start as an idea template which they build off of. But usually by the second evolution, the idea is pretty much "used up" in a way. I mean, can you imagine how you would build upon a Pokemon like Magnezone, Magmortar or Electivire without it beginning to look like it's a bit too much? Making 4th evolutions for those Pokemon would take some SERIOUS effort to keep them from looking they were made by a kid who didn't understand that sometimes less is more. And that's just Pokemon that are based on concepts or forces of nature. What about the one's that are based on animals? How to you make a butterfly more than what it is? Or a Hornet? Or a Giant Tortoise with twin cannons on it's back? (They probably wouldn't do it for the starters, but it proves a point)
In short, while I feel there are a slew of Pokemon that might benefit from a fourth evolution, the effort and the difficulty of making another evolution without it looking silly aren't worth it IMO
In short, while I feel there are a slew of Pokemon that might benefit from a fourth evolution, the effort and the difficulty of making another evolution without it looking silly aren't worth it IMO
Yami_Wheeler
Stay forever young.
You're perfectly allowed to be reminded of Digimon, but pretending this is a valid argument for being against 4th stage evolution is foolish.
Normally, Digimon have 6 stages of evolution, from Baby to Mega, and some go far beyond that. Just the prospect of Digimon evolving is already similar to Pokemon, regardless of how many stages either one has. Adding more doesn't add or take away from this fact. Digimon has far more differences to Pokemon than just how many stages they are able to evolve to.
If it reminds you of Digimon, fine, but it's an irrational, unsubstantiated comparison.
penguinofhonor
Bay Watcher
Is any of this really a reason to stop from making fourth evolutions entirely? It just seems like several reasons they should be careful with it and not give fourth evolutions out to every Pokemon.
Abysmal Zero
Burninating
I'm not exactly against an extra evolution stage, if it's done correctly. I don't think they would overpower the pokemon, rather they'd tweak the overall base stat changes to equal out to about the same, with maybe a slight increase on the last stage. So, maybe instead of Beedrill having base stat 80 in attack, it would drop to 75, and an extra evo would round out to...85 or so.
I think my fear would be more of a sudden influx of baby Pokemon again to accomplish such a thing, without nerfing the pokemon's overall stats.
I would rather see the level of evolution more spread out. It was something kind of done in gen 5, with some of the pokemon not evolving until level 47 or higher. It made you work harder for the last evolutions to gain the more powerful pokemon like Ferrothorn and Haxorus.
In the end I think it's unnecessary. I'd rather see just the 2 significant jumps rather than 3 slight improvements which in the end accomplish the same gain. But, that's my opinion.
I think my fear would be more of a sudden influx of baby Pokemon again to accomplish such a thing, without nerfing the pokemon's overall stats.
I would rather see the level of evolution more spread out. It was something kind of done in gen 5, with some of the pokemon not evolving until level 47 or higher. It made you work harder for the last evolutions to gain the more powerful pokemon like Ferrothorn and Haxorus.
In the end I think it's unnecessary. I'd rather see just the 2 significant jumps rather than 3 slight improvements which in the end accomplish the same gain. But, that's my opinion.
Comparing something which is a limatation to something which is a benefit is a really bad argument. Adding a 4th evolution in no way prevents anyone from doing anything, whereas your example presents an awful idea in which would benefit nobody. Adding a 4th evolution is NOT that much of a stretch. I don't see why people find the idea so impluasible other than because of the limitations of their own mind.
Using that logic, every evolution that exists goes against the design standard for that Pokemon. E.g. Yanma was made as a weak Pokemon, but GameFreak introduced an additional evolution to make it stronger. You can't argue against the idea of a 4th evolution without also conflicting with any evolution given to a Pokemon which didn't previously have one.
You said "In other words, if the vast majority of evolution from one Pokemon to another involves the growth of base stat totals, then it should be the same for the evolution between the third stage and the fourth stage, no matter how powerful the third stage already is."
This shows that you think that this idea can ONLY be implemented by increasing stats drastically. You even go on to say "no matter how powerful that third stage already is", implying that you can only see this idea working if a Pokemon was made to be overpowered.
Wow. Why on earth would you think that the reason for this would solely to be to break a standard? That would be incredibly stupid. Then they may as well implement random things that make no sense just to break standards. The argument here is that Just because something WAS a standard, doesn't mean it can't be broken. Secondly, it is not for Pokemon that were "perfectly fine", it would obviously be implemented sensibly e.g. on something that could do with an additional evolution such as Beedrill. Yami_wheeler even went as far to prove the possibility of creating this.
Maybe in your limited mind, drastic stat raises are the only thing that makes evolution work, however a Pokemon can gain an advantage via redistribution of stats (porygon 2, porygon z/scyther and scizor) or from even gaining a new type entirely. Nobody said the stats would remain exactly the same, they simply would be sensibly altered either by redistribution or in some cases and increase (e.g. Beedrill has weak base stats anyway, so increasing them in no way makes it overpowered). Everyone on this thread who jumps to the conclusion "omg 4th evolution would make pokemon overpowered/legendaries redundant can't seem to grasp the idea that there are other ways of doing things.
Anybody who thinks Pokemon would become too much like Digimon by adding ONE ADDITIONAL STAGE of evolution clearly has something wrong with them. You arrogantly proclaim "there is no counter for such an opinion" but there obviously is. That opinion is called EXAGGERATION. The fact is, both series include evolution so they already had that similarity. 4 stages of evolution is nowhere near as many stages that Digimon had. This is a weak argument for why this shouldn't be implemented. There are tonnes of other things that make Pokemon similar to Digimon which are far more powerful and relevant examples than this.
Piloswine, Electabuzz and Magmar LOOKED fully evolved. They still got evolutions. That was the point. Regardless of what stage of evolution they were, it shows that it's possible to create a new design of Pokemon regardless of whether it looked mature already. Also you're using the whole "standards should never be broken argument" which has already been countered several times.
What? by adding like a few extra evolutions it would be that game changing? This again goes not against 4th evolutions but ALL evolutions to existing Pokemon. This is nitpicking at its finest. Implying that legendary Pokemon would be that drastically affected by this is a complete exaggeration.
I don't need to, I've already brought my ideas to the table. I'm now simply countering everyone who's come up with flawed reasons as to why this could never work. I only have to repet myself because of people who clearly can't read or comprehend previous posts and therefore use the same things again and again. If people actually directly countered what I was saying, I wouldn't have to point out to them all the things that have already been said.
I'd say that gives it a perfect reason to warrant being needed. It's about making Pokemon more useable. GameFreak have already done the same in gen 4. This is hardly any different. And seeing as they're the company who actually make the games, clearly they see it as relevant to improve certain existing Pokemon.
Wrong. Yanma wasn't given a second stage until gen 4. That didn't make it fine as it was. In fact, it was awful. Many Pokemon that could do with a 4th stage evolution have already been mentioned throughout the thread, one 4th stage evolution was even suggested for Beedrill.
Wow. So you're saying, that evolution shouldn't be given to weak Pokemon because apparently it's whole purpose is only about improving the design. Another narrow minded statement. The gen 4 evolutions on existing pokemon counter this argument, seeing as the the whole "pity" thing could be used against giving yanma an evolution, and yet GameFreak still did it. You seem to have you own ignorant ideas about what evolution MUST be like. I'm glad GameFreak don't have staff with your mindset, or there would be so many limitations to their game.
Anyone still claiming it isn't possible or wouldn't work, I encourage you to find flaw in the post above in which yami_wheeler designed a new evolution for beedrill. If any random fan of Pokemon can think of an idea that quickly, then GameFreak can easily implement such a thing.
Nightmareisalive
Well-Known Member
OK so people are against the idea of giving any old Pokemon a new evolution but what about a 4th line evolution for a new gen Pokemon? It doesn't disturb any of the old gen Pokemon and can be seen as a prototype. If done correctly it won't be too over-powered but still strong enough to stand up to other of the higher evolution Pokemon. It can be a bug type for example the first stage evolves at 10 the next at 16 and the last at 22. It is quite an early way to get it but it lets players get an early chance to try them out. Also if people say that isn't enough of a level gap remember Butterfree line? the only difference between its evolution stages are 3 it evolves at both level 7 and level 10. Also if anyone has a problem with the level suggested it can be changed its just an example.
Starsurfer
Pokemon Idol
Well I certainly think so. I mean balancing issues aside, just the designing of a fourth evo alone would be extremely difficult. Like I said, by the time two evolutions have been made for a Pokemon, whatever idea or theme that was being used for that line is usually spread pretty thin, if not used up. Plus if you observe how evolutions usually work, the progression in change of physical appearance is usually pretty swift. That means that most Pokemon reach the limit of reasonable change by stage 3. The jumps in appearance are so great that by the time we get to stage three, there's not much left to build with. Take Whismur for example. We don't get an evolution where it's appearance has taken on a couple of Loudred's features before becoming Loudred. It just changes, as drastic (and in my personal opinion ugly) as it may seem. So when Loudred jumps again and becomes Exploud, that's another chunk of smaller, less drastic evolutions thrown out the window.
I think most stage 3 Pokemon were designed to be the finished product of their line. It's hard to improve upon a finished product without either the design being so minor that it doesn't seem to warrant the stat boost or it getting so bizarre that it begins to seem ridiculous. (At least in this context) I know this comparison is used WAY too often, but think of Digimon. They have large jumps in their physical appearance too. The first 3 stages, at least usually, have a reasonable connection between them. But by stage four, they're getting metallic arms, wings are spouting out of nowhere, some of them start wearing clothes, all kinds of wacky stuff. Now that works for Digimon because that's the way their series has always been. Seeing things like that is nothing out of the ordinary. But after over a decade of Pokemon generally sticking to a certain formula, to start doing things like that now would come off as just being silly to current fans, as well as lead to some people making unfair accusations like "They're ripping ideas off of Digimon".
It's incredibly hard coming up with a fourth evo that both seems to actually change AND looks like something respectable. And even if you do manage to make a fourth design for a Pokemon that's decent, you then have to take the pre-evolved form's stats into consideration. Does it really need the stat boost that often comes with evolution?
I'm not saying it can't be done. But considering all the hassle, it hardly seems worth it. The only way I could see it happening is if it were to occur with an entirely new line of Pokemon, rather than attempting to build upon a current one. And even then, The end result probably wouldn't be (in stats or appearance) that different from the kind of Pokemon we have now.
Lol! Yeah, they aren't my favorite either, but I was having difficulty coming up with Stage 3 Pokemon that didn't have an obvious animal theme
shadowlord777
vigor mortis
some pokemon do not even evolve all three times which would help them like absol getting more speed. If it gave them better stats then that would be ok becuse that would make it less based on stats why a pokemon is OU or not. It would create more charizards. pokemon with good stats but not the abilities or the typing to use them. I think that would make things a little more complicated and fair for certian part of the game.
penguinofhonor
Bay Watcher
I don't think anyone needs to cite Electabuzz, Magmar, and Scyther again. They were all final designs that got new evolutions. What makes them different than something like Beedrill or Golem?
In addition, not all stage 3 Pokemon are the same. You keep saying that stage 3 pokemon don't need the stat boosts or the extra complexity. That's true for some of them, and nobody is arguing that those pokemon would get fourth stage evolutions. Nobody's saying Magnezone or Hydreigon would get a stage 4.
What we're suggesting is that some pokemon with simple designs or bad stats at stage 3 would get stage 4 evolutions to bring them up. Beedrill has lower stats than many unevolved Pokemon. Azumarill and Ampharos are both pretty simple designs that could be added onto.
Allowing stage 4 evolutions doesn't mean throwing them around haphazardly. They'd be treated just the same as additional stage 2/3 evolutions are treated now. If you can trust the developers not to give Scizor a stage 3, I think you can trust them not to give Alakazam a stage 4.
*~Silver*~
Well-Known Member
I think three is fine... When Pokemon evolves it gets a lot stronger, so I think that if we were to get a fourth stage the Pokemon would just overpower everything...
I don't think it's a good idea...
I don't think it's a good idea...
Diglett2013
Member
I also believe that there will never be a 4th generation. This would ruin the point of legendaries because pokemon would get so strong. In my opinion. But, an interesting concept!
Stereotypical Nerd
Well-Known Member
No. Unbalanced. Nty.