The cuts for the Sw/Sh dex were worse than even the most pessimistic predictions

[JWeinCom]

Lonely_Dolphin said:

JWeinCom said:

It's a lot easier to balance a metagame with less Pokemon for one thing.  And a lot of the Pokemon that are gone were a bit on the unbalanced side.

Fewer potential strategies means less depth but more accessibility.  The more potential threats that there are, the harder it is to make a team that can be adequately prepared for all of them. With a small number of Pokemon you can be reasonably prepared for whatever your opponent throws at you.  The more Pokemon, the more potential strategies, and you're at a point where you just have to pick and choose which threats you're going to be ready for, and if the opponent sends something out that you didn't prepare for, no amount of smart play will help, and you just have to take the L.

There's also the element that it's a more even playing field for new players since long time players already have a boatload of options to pick from.  And there's the fact that legendaries had become so insane that they had to be moved to their own metagame, and maybe this time they could actually be folded back into the main meta.

Of course, the same thing could also be accomplished with a national dex only battle mode.

It's sad you're trying to spin less options as a positive by saying people are too incompetent to adapt to new strategies and that new players somehow don't have access to the same boatload of options, but I digress. This is just your made up excuse you know, Game Freak never said this was a reason for the snap, naturally as they clearly don't really care about balancing the metagame. Even if this was true, it's a terrible reason, ban list already exist to limit what Pokemon can be used without deleting them from all aspects of the game.

padib said:

I find this kind of ridiculous. What exactly do you know of Gamefreak's effort and budget for the game? It is not a 2D pokemon game, with a lot more effort required per pokemon.

I don't think it's really logical for you to say that chrkeller is just paying for less, you honestly have no clue what would have costed Gamefreak more to dev.

That you think this is a valid excuse is what's ridiculous, as if Game Freak isn't responsible for managing their time and budget.

If you don't think having less Pokemon is less then it's you who isn't logical and in denial, this is just basic math.

First off, please show me any point where I said or implied that Game Freak said this was a rationale for reducing the number of Pokemon.  It will be hard to do because I didn't.  I for one don't make assumptions on the rationale of others without good reason.

Second of all, please show me where I said that anyone was incompetent.

Third, longtime players have access to a boatload of options because they have access to previous games and can transfer Pokemon.  If someone already has them from previous gens, a new player will have to spend a significant deal of time to catch up.  I thought that was self explanatory but if it wasn't, that's what I meant.

Fourth and most importantly, are you capable of having a respectful argument in good faith, or are you simply going to assume motivations and put up strawmen? If you can, I can clarify my points.  If you expect me to defend points I never made, I'm not going to bother.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 05 November 2019