Pokemon The Pokemon Punett Square, Pokemon Heredity.

RotomRules64

RotomRules64

I'm actually a... MAGIC MAAAAAAAAAAN!!
Member
OK, so today I was in Science class, and we were talking about traits, genes, and alleles.
I start thinking: What if there were "alleles" for Pokemon natures?
Pokemon Heredity sounds like a fun thing. If you breed two Pokemon, then there could be sort of a punnet-square for the "alleles" of the Pokemon's nature (or characteristic). But since there is always one dominant allele and one recessive allele, then all Pokemon should have 2 natures. I know that sounds stupid, but one could be the "reccesive" nature. So it's there, but doesn't affect the stats at all (Or maybe only affect the stats halfway than normal).
And so, the game could assemble a little "Punnet Square" which is used to determine a human/animal's traits, with the alleles of the mother and father.
So if I was breeding two Pokemon, one with Bold as primary and Quirky as secondary nature, second one with Calm and Modest, the square would look something like this:
B q
C
m
(lowercase is recessive/secondary, uppercase is dominant/primary.)
Then the offspring could have either have BC (Bold and Calm) Cq (Calm and Quirky) Bm (Bold and Modest) or qm (Quirky and Modest)
This could add a layer of complexity to Pokemon Breeding, or make it easier to breed for natures. Discuss!
 
The majority of expressed traits are the result of deep polygenic inheritance. There are tens of thousands of SNRPs that account for appearance, therefor, your basic mendelean punnett square is useless for determining what you speak of. Something as simple as the placement of a mole on ones cheek has a punnett square of about 500,000 boxes.

(Bio major :3)

To put into prospective how fast genetics are changing, I attended a genetics conference today that explained how everything we've known about genetics has pretty much been completely changed over the last few weeks.
 
OK, so I see it would be a bit more complex. (Im only in middle school Advanced Placement science.)
Another thign I noticed, is that with that punett square, if there was a third factor, like "?" which would resemble a random gender that is passed on to the offspring, so it wasn't limited to 4 choices.
...Wait, that kind of makes it obsolete. Then it wouldn't be any different from the breeding we have now.
Oof, I need to think...
 
IDK that that would work for Natures, but I would like to see IRL genetics implemented into Pokemon breeding. IDK for what, though.
 
Gender is controlled by having two X chromosomes (Females), or an X and a Y(Males) (Although You can actually have more X chromosomes but those are just polar bodies)
 
This is a terrible idea to say the least. It's hard enough to breed Pokemon for ideal Natures, IVs, and movesets, but this would add an unnecessary degree of difficulty to that. In a real case, genetics would determine everything a Pokemon would be born with, but videogames shouldn't incorporate it because it would be too much for players to manage.
 
Incinermyn said:
This is a terrible idea to say the least. It's hard enough to breed Pokemon for ideal Natures, IVs, and movesets, but this would add an unnecessary degree of difficulty to that. In a real case, genetics would determine everything a Pokemon would be born with, but videogames shouldn't incorporate it because it would be too much for players to manage.
Click to expand...

Implying Punett Squares are difficult to understand. It might take a bit of explanation for those who aren't familiar with it, but it is definitely not beyond anyone's understanding.
 
Bolt the Cat said:
Incinermyn said:
This is a terrible idea to say the least. It's hard enough to breed Pokemon for ideal Natures, IVs, and movesets, but this would add an unnecessary degree of difficulty to that. In a real case, genetics would determine everything a Pokemon would be born with, but videogames shouldn't incorporate it because it would be too much for players to manage.
Click to expand...

Implying Punett Squares are difficult to understand. It might take a bit of explanation for those who aren't familiar with it, but it is definitely not beyond anyone's understanding.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that tying Pokemon moves and traits into genetics would add an unnecessary degree of difficulty, not Punett Squares. Breeding is already complex enough in the games. It shouldn't be tampered with anymore, that's all I'm saying.
 
Incinermyn said:
What I mean is that tying Pokemon moves and traits into genetics would add an unnecessary degree of difficulty, not Punett Squares. Breeding is already complex enough in the games. It shouldn't be tampered with anymore, that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's actually quite simple.
 
Hmmmm. It would add a degree of complexity, but it shouldn't make things incredibly hard. In fact, it should be somewhat easier to breed for natures.
And even if we pitch the heredity, then we should still keep the ideas of a secondary nature (which would affect stats only halfway, or none at all?)
Interesting.
 
I want a adamant jolly garchomp. lol. I do think that making new species would be cool but over complicated.

Also, in BW2, a pokemon holding an everson when breedin now has a 100% chance to pass down nature.
 
Breeding pisses me off already and I don't see why adding realistic genetics into a video game can get us anywhere. Besides, I doubt there would be enough spare code leftover in games to make all this happen.

It's a decent idea tbh, but if it ain't broken don't fix it.
 
Cooltrainer Alan said:
Also, in BW2, a pokemon holding an everson when breedin now has a 100% chance to pass down nature.
Click to expand...

This basically defeats the purpose of a Punett Square setup. Furthermore, Punett Squares don't account for everything. Some genes are sex-linked and will only appear in either males or females. For instance, the end of a female Pikachu's tail has a heart-shaped notch where a male's doesn't. Ideally, that would always be the case because females would have a gene that codes for it and males wouldn't.
 
This is getting awkward ;_;
But I still think the idea of a secondary nature is possible.
 
That'd be very strange in the competitive community. Walls could now have Calm+Bold or Impish+Careful. Sweepers can have Adamant+Jolly or Modest+Timid. The whole point of chosing 1 nature over another is to either A)Have more power or B)Exchange power for speed. It isn't entirely gamebreaking but I just don't think it'd do much for the game just complicate things to an uneeded extent.

Poor guy who gets -Atk,+Def,-SpA,+Spe or something.

A long time ago I did think of new natures like +Atk +SpA and just +Spe. I thought that the chance of getting one of these should be rare but then I remembered RNG and realized it wouldnt matter.
 
The biggest issue is that this idea is broken and completely ruins the current setup. It's already enough work to try and get proper natures. Doubling up on them makes it that much harder. This is the same reason Pokemon don't have more than one ability when you catch; it ruins the system and gives players an unfair edge or makes things harder for them to do in-game.
 
Abilities. Do you realize how broken Cinccino would be with Technician+Skill Link?
 
Cooltrainer Alan said:
Abilities. Do you realize how broken Cinccino would be with Technician+Skill Link?
Click to expand...

That's my entire point. Likewise, doubling up on natures could ruin things for guys trying to get ideal ones for Attack/Special Attack. A lot of natures contradict each other, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top