Pokemon Changes for Pokémon

[professorlight]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

The in-world distinction between legendaries and non-legendaries, according to rowan, is that legendary pokemon achieved a higher than average degree of perfection, so speaking, and therefore they don't need to develop further (I'm paraphrasing here, it's been a long time since I've played DPP).
We know that, as of now, "not evolving" is, with "higher than average BST", two of the criteria to distinguish legendaries; manaphy can breed phione but phione can't evolve into manaphy, so they keep that criteria (leaving aside the question of if any one of them is superflous, since they're pretty much the same damn pokemon, conceptually and design-wise); similarly, in-game, carbink doesn't evolve into diancie, much to my chagrin.

The advantage of a simple form change over evolution, and maybe, breeding, is that it keeps the precedent of non-evolving, non-breed capable (most) legendaries and it's reversible, so you're not really locked into anything; it could even work with the mega evolution mechanic; and the mcguffin of the game is the item that acts as the pokemon's megastone.

Now that we're talking about this, I think this concept will fit nicely for my fakemon's legendary, I'll look more into it.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

The in-world distinction between legendaries and non-legendaries, according to rowan, is that legendary pokemon achieved a higher than average degree of perfection, so speaking, and therefore they don't need to develop further (I'm paraphrasing here, it's been a long time since I've played DPP).
We know that, as of now, "not evolving" is, with "higher than average BST", two of the criteria to distinguish legendaries; manaphy can breed phione but phione can't evolve into manaphy, so they keep that criteria (leaving aside the question of if any one of them is superflous, since they're pretty much the same damn pokemon, conceptually and design-wise); similarly, in-game, carbink doesn't evolve into diancie, much to my chagrin.

The advantage of a simple form change over evolution, and maybe, breeding, is that it keeps the precedent of non-evolving, non-breed capable (most) legendaries and it's reversible, so you're not really locked into anything; it could even work with the mega evolution mechanic; and the mcguffin of the game is the item that acts as the pokemon's megastone.

Now that we're talking about this, I think this concept will fit nicely for my fakemon's legendary, I'll look more into it.

The idea I suggested doesn't really conflict with this description, as the legendary doesn't evolve, the base form does. It simply means that the base form, for whatever reason that they can BS if they need to, are capable of evolving into a more perfect form.

 

[professorlight]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

But isn't "does not evolve from anything" a corollary to the "does not evolve to anything" criteria?

Following that, no pokemon should be "legendary" if it evolves from something else; evolving from something is actually a criteria for pseudolegendaries (not an official designation, of course, but implied by design).

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

But isn't "does not evolve from anything" a corollary to the "does not evolve to anything" criteria?

Following that, no pokemon should be "legendary" if it evolves from something else; evolving from something is actually a criteria for pseudolegendaries (not an official designation, of course, but implied by design).

From a strictly logical standpoint, no, that doesn't necessitate that it can't evolve from anything. That's the logical equivalent of saying that Lapras must be a single stage family because it's too strong to evolve, that says nothing about the possibility of a baby form. A legendary having a baby form would mean is that the Pokemon somehow became perfect upon evolution, which might require some backstory but is doable.

 

[professorlight]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

But lapras isn't restricted by being a legendary pokemon, unlike say, rayquaza, or palkia; lapras is for now, a single line, but tomorrow it could get a prevo, a baby or even an evolution, because it's not legendary, and it is possible to become more perfect.

A legendary having a baby may be that the baby became perfect upon evolution, but then what's the difference with any other evolvable pokemon? pikachu becomes more perfect upon evolution too, but raichu isn't legendary, how would then the prevo be legendary if it has to evolve to become more legendary?

In the case of legendary pokemon, "perfection" is absolute, it is a part of their concept; there can be no other pokemon that does what dialga does, or arceus, or reshiram (what does reshiram do?) or any other; they have a purpose, whatever it may be, and they're the best and only that can fulfill it. Yes, the game and its mechanics crap all over that, but some is there still. That is why manaphy/phione's case is so strange, and at least in my opinion, should be left outside of any discussion of legendary pokemon, because they just mess things up unnecessarily.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

But lapras isn't restricted by being a legendary pokemon, unlike say, rayquaza, or palkia; lapras is for now, a single line, but tomorrow it could get a prevo, a baby or even an evolution, because it's not legendary, and it is possible to become more perfect.

Having a baby form doesn't make it any more perfect.

A legendary having a baby may be that the baby became perfect upon evolution, but then what's the difference with any other evolvable pokemon? pikachu becomes more perfect upon evolution too, but raichu isn't legendary, how would then the prevo be legendary if it has to evolve to become more legendary?

That's something the storyline can explore.

In the case of legendary pokemon, "perfection" is absolute, it is a part of their concept; there can be no other pokemon that does what dialga does, or arceus, or reshiram (what does reshiram do?) or any other; they have a purpose, whatever it may be, and they're the best and only that can fulfill it. Yes, the game and its mechanics crap all over that, but some is there still. That is why manaphy/phione's case is so strange, and at least in my opinion, should be left outside of any discussion of legendary pokemon, because they just mess things up unnecessarily.

But clearly legendaries are not unchanging, we've seen several examples of that already. Phione, Carbink, and Mega Evolutions all serve as clear counterexamples to that notion. "Perfection" in this case then, does not mean that it can utilize its full power automatically, it's capable of becoming stronger throughout its life.

 

[Chaos Jackal]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

Legendaries represent perfect formes of Pokemon capable of manipulating certain aspects of nature and the world. Legendaries are unchangeable, at least the most powerful ones; only exception up until now being Primal Groudon and Kyogre, two Pokemon weakened by the titanic force of one another. Mewtwo, the only other legendary that can evolve (in this case, a Mega forme) is a man-made Pokemon, technically an evolution of Mew, made only to fight, without representing anything, while at the same time having virtually unlimited potential and the DNA of the ancestor of Pokemon. Mewtwo can keep evolving, because its purpose is to fight. Dialga won't keep evolving becaause its purpose is to control time, something it's capable of doing. Plus, according to the story, only by commanding Arceus' powers of creation can someone have another Dialga (see the Ruins of Alph event and the Pokemon manga).
Each major legendary is a one of a kind Pokemon, and having two of them contradicts their perfection and purpose. Lesser legendaries are different. Games (Explorers of Darkness/Sky/Time, Ranger), movies (Pokemon Ranger and the Temple of the Sea), Pokedex entries (Latios, Diancie), all these suggest that lesser legendaries are legendaries not by defning an element or aspect as its perfect embodiment, but rather by being so rare mortal eyes won't see them. For example, it is quite often suggested or implied that there are (or were) numerous Mew; however, Mew's status as a :mirage Pokemon" categorizes under a legendary status (in this case, there's also the fact that Mew carries the DNA of every Pokemon, except, possibly, that of the major legendaries). Diancie is not a unique Pokemon. There have been a lot of Diancie in the history of the world. Diancie is a Carbink mutation with higher intelligence, powers and beauty, but so rare it is considered legendary, since it's nearly impossible for a human to see or capture a Diancie in their lives, let alone more.
Major legendaries can't and won't have any evolutions or previous formes, unless it's in the spirit of their history and attribute. We might see Mega evolutions on legendaries other than Mewtwo, although I consider that improbable (Mega Groudon/Kyogre have been named differently and with a different backstory than Megas). Mega evolution unlocks a Pokemon's hidden potential, but does a legendary have hidden potential (other than Mewtwo the killing machine)? Remains to be seen.
Lesser legendaries can and will get evolutions or previous formes, like Diancie and Lati@s (Phione isn't Manaphy's previous forme, and we've seen Manaphy hatching on its own, so I don't consider them the same family despite their likeness), because simply they aren't unique or extra powerful; they are simply very rare, very strong Pokemon, but they're not time/space manipulators or aspects of the earth/water.
On the topic of having something other than the main major legendary as a mascot, this has only happened twice. Gen I (and their remakes) had the starters as mascots, which was helped by the fact that there were only two really strong legendaries (Mewtwo and Mew), one of which was a myth among the community, and also the fact that the starters were major hits in the anime. Same with Pikachu, the mascot of Yellow, a game made to imitate the anime. The other case was Suicune of Crystal, and that didn't work very well. The concept of a powerful legendary as the mascot serves as both a teaser and a factor of excitement. You take a look at the best the game has to offer, and you're excited to know that eventually this gargantuan weapon of destruction will fall into your hands and you'll use it to take out the pitiful CPU trainers who think they can stop you.
Based on the above, I see the concept of evolving or baby legendary and non-legendary mascots as something highly improbable. Not impossible, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Mitja]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

Even though they could limit it's "legendary-rareness" as simply as making the evolutionary stone one-off (instead of encountering 1 of said legend, you would get only 1 trigger for obtaining it), they would definitely make the pre-evolution non-breedable as well, otherwise you could breed for better stats.

With all that we've seen them play around on legends so far (regular formes, Phione, absorbing another legendary, Mega Mewtwo, Primal Kyogre/Groudon), it would not be surprising at all.

Major legendaries can't and won't have any evolutions or previous formes, unless it's in the spirit of their history and attribute.

Well obviously that's the way they would go if they decide to do it, but its not inherently impossible to the concept of legendaries as professorlight was stating to be the case.

It's like arguing that legendaries will never be able to breed in any way whatsoever before Phione came around.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

Legendaries are unchangeable, at least the most powerful ones; only exception up until now being Primal Groudon and Kyogre, two Pokemon weakened by the titanic force of one another. Mewtwo, the only other legendary that can evolve (in this case, a Mega forme) is a man-made Pokemon, technically an evolution of Mew, made only to fight, without representing anything, while at the same time having virtually unlimited potential and the DNA of the ancestor of Pokemon. Mewtwo can keep evolving, because its purpose is to fight.

That is, until they decide they want new Mega Evolutions/Primal Forms/whatever of a certain Pokemon to promote a new set of games like Primal Groudon/Kyogre do for ORAS. They design backstory around the gameplay, not the other way around. If they want to design a more powerful form of legendary, they'll find a way to write the lore around it.

Dialga won't keep evolving becaause its purpose is to control time, something it's capable of doing. Plus, according to the story, only by commanding Arceus' powers of creation can someone have another Dialga (see the Ruins of Alph event and the Pokemon manga).
Each major legendary is a one of a kind Pokemon, and having two of them contradicts their perfection and purpose.

Both of these statements contradict each other. The Ruins of Alph event clearly demonstrates that there can be more than one Dialga, which means that they're not quite one of a kind.

On the topic of having something other than the main major legendary as a mascot, this has only happened twice. Gen I (and their remakes) had the starters as mascots, which was helped by the fact that there were only two really strong legendaries (Mewtwo and Mew), one of which was a myth among the community, and also the fact that the starters were major hits in the anime. Same with Pikachu, the mascot of Yellow, a game made to imitate the anime. The other case was Suicune of Crystal, and that didn't work very well.

They weren't quite as experienced with game development back in the day, so of course it turned out badly. Modeling Yellow after the anime was a mistake, Pikachu was a fairly weak Pokemon and it wasn't really exciting being stuck with it the entire game. And Suicune is simply a result of poor planning, they didn't think ahead and create a third mascot for 2nd gen, so they had to make do with one of the Beast trio. Now that they have more experience, they can afford to play around with the concept of mascots, they'd be much more effective at designing a game like Yellow nowadays.

The concept of a powerful legendary as the mascot serves as both a teaser and a factor of excitement. You take a look at the best the game has to offer, and you're excited to know that eventually this gargantuan weapon of destruction will fall into your hands and you'll use it to take out the pitiful CPU trainers who think they can stop you.
Based on the above, I see the concept of evolving or baby legendary and non-legendary mascots as something highly improbable. Not impossible, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

Except you don't need it to be an eleventh hour "destroy everything the moment you get your hands on it" legendary to create that feeling. Hell, you don't even need a legendary for that either. Just something like Lucario would also create that feeling of excitement.

Even though they could limit it's "legendary-rareness" as simply as making the evolutionary stone one-off (instead of encountering 1 of said legend, you would get only 1 trigger for obtaining it), they would definitely make the pre-evolution non-breedable as well, otherwise you could breed for better stats.

I don't think they care if you breed it for better stats, it would be no different from SRing. I think they're more worried about restricting multiples.

 

[professorlight]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

I think we're mixing gameplay design and world coherence here.

Main legendaries:
In-world: If you look at pokemon like a consistent world (I know they don't make it easy, but let's try) main legendaries can't be more than one, because they also shouldn't be caught, and can't evolve; when legendaries are required to keep the world in balance you can't have multiple of them running around, nor in the hands of a trainer.
As a game: Naturally, since pokemon is a game, that concern goes out the window; multiple legendaries are catchable, possible and mandatory because then there would be only one player with a legendary pokemon; this goes also for the ruins of alph; it shouldn't be taken as a possibility in-world (you shouldn't even be able to have an arceus in-world)

Event and secondary legendaries:
In-world: These are rare pokemon, but they're not unique as the legendaries, therefore they're not restricted to not breed or evolve, yes. If we imply that there are many of them around, we also imply that they bred somehow. So, in-world, secondary legendaries should be found in the wild and catchable.
As a game: But as a game, they're supposed to be rare, and we've seen that players have absolutely no qualms on playing heinrich himmler to get their überpokemensch, so their rarity would be null were they able to breed (why they don't have gender anyway I don't know)

The point is that game design takes precedence over consistency for them; they're certainly free to do whatever they want; they have been creating hundreds of pokemon, moves, types and forms for years and then not giving us a plausible in-world reason why they never appeared on the previous games, so them making an evolvable legendary is a possibility.

However, there are some lines that not even they would cross; look at all the kooky change methods they came up exclusively for the legendaries to keep them from evolving; orbs, DNA splicing, special retro megaevolution, they obviously don't want to do evolvable legendaries, at least for now.

 

[xxashxx]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

That's a good point. When will they make it so legendary Pokemon evolve? That has never changed since gen 1 XD.

 

[Chaos Jackal]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

I think we're mixing gameplay design and world coherence here.

Main legendaries:
In-world: If you look at pokemon like a consistent world (I know they don't make it easy, but let's try) main legendaries can't be more than one, because they also shouldn't be caught, and can't evolve; when legendaries are required to keep the world in balance you can't have multiple of them running around, nor in the hands of a trainer.
As a game: Naturally, since pokemon is a game, that concern goes out the window; multiple legendaries are catchable, possible and mandatory because then there would be only one player with a legendary pokemon; this goes also for the ruins of alph; it shouldn't be taken as a possibility in-world (you shouldn't even be able to have an arceus in-world)

As a matter of fact the manga shows trainers capable of catching or controlling legendary Pokemon. Blaine had caught and can use Mewtwo, if only due to them sharing DNA; Pryce had caught and used Ho-oh AND Lugia; Ruby had Celebi for a while, although he never used it; the bird and beast trio were all caught and used by trainers; Norman controlled Rayquaza and Steven controlled the Regis (although Norman died since he controlled Rayquaza by sheer force of will rather than a Pokeball); team Rocket controlled Arceus to create a second Dialga, Palkia and Giratina. However, the uniqueness of main legendaries and the trios isn't challenged even there. To answer Bolt's statement of contradiction, the Ruins of Alph event and the manga story clearly show that it is impossible for a second Dialga, Palkia or Giratina to exist, unless Arceus creates them (something highly unlikely, unless Arceus is forced to do so, threatening balance as suggested in the manga, or unless GF wants to have an event that mirrors the manga). The above is an example of the impossibility of duplicate, breedable or evolving legendaries story-wise; secondary legendaries may eventually get evolutions or have concepts that suggest multiple exist however, and it's probably the most we can expect.

 

[Mitja]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

I personally don't think the main legends are one of a kind (except for Mewtwo I thought) or anything more than just powerful ancient pokemon, but even if that was clear, it would still just be the case for the main legends we've had until now. The idea was that they could play around with the concept in future generations, with their main legends, not have Arceus evolve or whatever.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

I also didn't say that legendaries should evolve in the first place. I was saying that they could have a weaker Pokemon that evolves into one.

 

[xxashxx]

RE: Changes for Pokémon (Opinion)

Yeah Baby legends would work. Look at Manaphy and Phione. You can breed Phione but he does not evolve into Manaphy.

 

[KamonSurge]

A Gripe With HM moves and Possible Changes

Let me express this now. I'm poor at communicating my thoughts. So, what I may say may not entirely make sense now until someone else repeats what I say and makes it make more sense.
I haven't been into Pokemon since, well since probably Pokemon Silver. I did play Diamond, Pearl, Black, etc. It just never had what I was looking for in a Pokemon game. Pokemon X and Y definitely got me back into the Pokemon scene. I'm practically obsessed with it now.

However, there was always something that bothered me about Pokemon. Now, rather than back then. That would be HM moves. I was having this discussion with a friend a few nights ago. I think HM moves should be replaced with Passive Moves.

It's basically a system I created. Where all HM moves become natural to different species of Pokemon depending on their physical traits. Depending on the Pokemon, they would either have 1 or 2 Passive Moves. And four regular moves you can teach them. The Passive Moves are things they were born with, that you the trainer cannot change.

That would be brid Pokemon or Pokemon with flying abilities passively know this move. Pokemon who can swim and go up waterfalls would know these things. Instead of relying on HM.
Now essentially that would mean in battle you'd have 6 or 7 moves. Now everyone is staring at me in horror and thinking, that would be unfair. That's where I say moves HMs, like fly, waterfall, cut, strength, rock smash, etc. Become special moves, capable of being used 1 time in battle. They would do more damage then what they originally did, but are completely exhaustive afterwards.

The reason I came up with this system is. I understand some people have an HM slave, one Pokemon to know all the essential HMs. I learned with EV training, how to incorporate HMs into my moveset. But it would be nice to have that one HM slot for a better move slot.
Though my Absol turned Rock Smash into a lethal weapon, even cut. Psycho Cut and Night Slash increase the critical hit ratio, then rock smash or cut, with that increase. Oh lordy you're going to have a bad time.

My point is that some of these Pokemon are capable of these moves on their own. Birds fly, Pokemon that break rocks, break rocks, without human intervention. You don't have to change everything though. Passive Moves would only be available to the trainer when they completed a certain milestone a.k.a gym badge to prove your strength to your Pokemon. And in battle, I'm thinking the Pokemon has to trust you enough to access it. Based on friendship with the Pokemon and a gym badge.

So those are my thoughts. Burn me at the stake. Tell me how stupid my idea is right now. I am more than willing for someone to bring me back to earth if they like.

 

[Mitja]

I've been waiting for something to happen to HMs for a long time now..

And yeah, separate overworld moves would do the job.
They would also encourage diversity in comparison to using an HM slave in the last slot..

But I think there is a more elegant solution like that, which keeps the HMs as moves too.
Imagine if HMs could be taught like regular TMs, or just used temporarily.
Meaning you wouldn't have to actually replace a move. For example, you go up to water, press A, and prompt a "Do you want to use HM Surf with >first viable partymember<?". Answering yes, you get to surf, without having taught your surfing pokemon the actual HM as a move, it's just "using the HM" for that time.
But you could still teach them as an actual move if you wanted to (with it being deletable like any other moves).

So basically, I'm suggesting there be a difference between "using" a HM and "teaching its move".

 

[xxashxx]

Yeah there are some good points in the last 2 posts. Why can they not make it so we can teach a Pokemon an HM move without it taking space on the moves list but still use the move ore moves anyway? This would leave one extra space for a move other than the HM move. If you want to teach it an HM move anyway why not make it optional to teach the move to use in battle?

For instance If Rayquaza came across the move Fly Naturally or by teaching it by HM it would ask teach Fly to Rayquaza? Yes or no? Then it would have a second question Teach Fly for battle use or for in Battle Yes or No?

If they did it this way it would be much simpler and would not eat up move space since you need more than 1 HM on some Pokemon. Boom that is 2 moves eaten by move space. If they could make future Pokemon games to operate like this that would make things a whole lot easier for me since I do have a couple Pokemon with all HM moves but it leaves no room for anything else. No matter how many HM's used the max would still be 4 HM's but at least the move space would not be used also.

Hope everyone understands what I am trying to point out. If not I will do it by steps next time.

 

[KamonSurge]

I'm going to jump onto another topic real quick. About what the OP was stating about friendship. Maybe I'm a greedy a-hole. But honestly why does the main trainer get overshadowed by people who did nothing?

Like the end of Pokemon XY, your friends are also praised, despite, Serena helping once or twice and you took out the whole plant without needing their help.

What I'd like though at least one RP element is the ability to say No.

Like, if your friend ask battle me

"Bring it on"

"Nah Not right now" <---I'd like that to actually mean something, not you can't pass to the next city until you fight your friend