>Johto and/or Unova with forced EXP share and other soulless changes

Grinding IS tedious. It's not a challenge, it's just killing shitmons until your number is big enough to beat over another number with 4x effective damage.

Except all of those games are piss easy, moron.

Grinding is not a “challenge,” it’s an exercise in tedium

>Grinding is not a “challenge,” it’s an exercise in tedium

EXP share being off adds no challenge to the game, just tedium. You are actively wasting the more precious, valuable resource in the UNIVERSE, time, on an activity that could be avoided altogether.

>Many people want the option of an EXP share
Yeah, for the erroneous reason that they think it will magically make the game challenging when it doesn't. Just make the games actually hard and literally no one will care just like literally no one cares with every other JRPG in existence that uses forced shared exp.

> Pokemon games' difficulty lies entirely on whether or not you're leveled similarly to your enemy or not
Fighting the USUM lv49 Totem Kommo with a lv60 is 10x harder than fighting DP Cynthia’s lv66 Garchomp with a lv56. If you think levels are the only thing that contribute to difficulty you have a very poor understanding of the game’s mechanics.

>the lv49 with maxed out EVs with perfect AI that gets a +1 boost to all its stats that effectively make it statistically equivalent to a lv80 Pokemon AND has a free ally who’s attacking you at the same time is totally easier than the lv66 with no EVs and AI that picks moves literally at random bros!
This is why no one takes EXP Share whiners seriously. They have such a poor understanding of how the game works their opinions are literally worthless when it comes to game design.

> Status moves can make my mon effectively a higher level too
Now which one is going to be harder to use status moves on? The one with EVs and stat boosts that enable it to outspeed and KO you on top of the fact it has an ally able to support it, or the higher leveled shitmon with terrible stats that uses suboptimal moves? Use your brain zoomie! I know you can do it!

> With optional EXP share you could further control whether you want any of these to be easier or harder
Or they could simply forget about optional EXP share and simply make the game harder like a good game designer instead. How about that?

this, I don't play pokemon for le difficulty xddd but for the freedom it provides at the time of making a team

>y-you just don't understand!
Where di I get something wrong you fricking moron? Point to it. Because it's obvious you're retreating into a defensive shell when shown you're just playing stupid.
>Then the EXP Share is perfect for you
What if he doesn't want to be absurdly overleveled constantly?

>muh edge cases
so just EV train your mons in Alola as well, with status move making you even more advantaged

Popping in to say that designing a game around multiple difficulties is usually pretty dumb for RPGs since most of the time it's just adding more power to enemies or weakning the player: it just means more time is needed to do the same thing, grind up and beat the boss. There's a lack of difficult decisions or situations that would ask the player to really use their noggin, so I don't think difficulty sliders would work for something like pokemon.

In this case it's the easiest programming decision ever.

I'm not saying the game should be worse designed in other ways.

ii actually agree with you for the most part. I just think it'd make all the sense in the world to bury EXP ALL off somewhere in menus for those who want it, as no one complained before the option was taken away.

Really? That's interesting. Ca you surf the archive for anyone who wanted them to remove that option?
Also, what's your logic when it wasn't bothering you, as you could have jus left it on at all times?

How was it bothering you if you could just leave it on at all times?

What is wrong with that? It may as well not exist for you because you don't plan on ever disabling it. Just let other people have it if they want to especially if you are not affected.

well that objectively cheapens the experience. I don't really see the equivalence

>Giving the option to use global exp share in a game balanced around exp share off cheapens the experience
I agree, that's why it used to be an item you get later on
>Giving the option to disable it if the game is balanced around exp share on will just be confusing for the player and meme him into soft locking himself due to being underleveled
I don't get how anyone would be confused by that. Just choose how you want exp distributed and that's it. Also, the game is never designed perfectly around one or the other, so toggling on when under leveled and off when overleveled was very common practice.
You're only reason for calling the option stupid is because it can offset their relationship with the level curve, when the option gives them the ability to stay within it in imperfectly designed games (all of them) if they want, whereas denying the option locks people into non-optimal positions when they don't want to be
Your last point makes decent sense.

You'll know which when you realize you're either under leveled or over leveled. If options are that bad for you why didn't you complain when there was no option at all from Gens 1-5?

>the game is never designed perfectly around one or the other
It is when there's no option and it actually picks a side.

Or you could be like the ALola games and still do both. Devs being shit in one category doesn't mean they HAVE to be shit in all categories.

>the game is never designed perfectly around one or the other
It is when there's no option and it actually picks a side.

Most players are

>What is wrong with that?

Not bait. I don’t like entering a game and then it has a bunch of arbitrary options to decide the game’s mechanics. That’s the game designer’s job to decide, not mine. It creates this obnoxious situation where you have no fricking clue which options you’re supposed to pick to balance the game. Which is why before gen 8 you had a bunch of morons going
>YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO TURN THE EXP SHARE OFF ITS THE INTENDED WAY TO PLAY THE GAME!!
Only to do that then you end up with a completely miserable experience because Gen 7 is balanced completely differently than Gen 6.

Garchomp after I use a save editor to give it max IVs and EVs in Attack and Speed with an Adamant nature, because I'm not a compshitter and I'm not autistic enough to sit down and grind pikachus for 65 hours.

>behind like 20 levels compared to everything else
no because
1. the game has curved exp that heavily favors underleveled pokemon and
2. you can simply use it so it gets more exp than everything else

Anon, Gamefreak TRIED hard mode, and they couldn’t even do that right. They somehow raised all of the levels, but kept every trainer mon’s stats the same, so you actually get MORE EXP for beating the same enemies, making the game even easier. THIS is why I can’t trust GF to make the game organically harder. Putting the difficulty in the player’s hands with an EXP share option is the only realistic way to do so.

>click PvP button
>game suddenly has a hard mode that actually works unlike the exp share toggle which does fricking nothing
wow

there was a guy just the other day who nearly got to top 8 of a regional using fricking lycanroc
you have no excuse

> People here are asking for a harder campaign
If you were really doing that you would asking for a harder campaign, not for an exp share toggle.

Is that why almost all the games without exp share are easier than almost all the games with exp share?

That sounds better, but I don’t think GF has the talent to implement it. Remember that it took them four generations to make Fire PUNCH do PHYSICAL damage.

Nah, you’re just being unrealistic with what you expect Gamefreak to be capable of. Toggle can’t be stupid, because some people actually want it, and even if you don’t, you can just keep it off. Taking away the option takes happiness away from the people that don’t want EXP share on, but it also doesn’t produce any happiness to the people that want EXP share, because they could have EXP share on either way. That’s a net loss of happiness. The only person who NEEDS the EXP share option taken away is a psychopath who explicitly cannot feel happiness unless he is taking it away from others. And why would you support a psychopath unless you ARE a psychopath?

Is that why almost all the games without exp share are easier than almost all the games with exp share?

Proof? All the complaints about Pokemon being too easy come from the new games and not the old ones.

But then how come when you replay those games as an adult, they still feel harder than the new games? Besides obvious stuff, like the fact that most people play on Battle Set, while the new games force you to use Battle Shift.

But an anon did that for Emerald with Blaziken and really struggled at the E4. So clearly the older games are harder since it's really difficult to beat them with the "optimal" strategy of mashing A with your starter and nothing else.

>Gif ends at Norman
What, you couldn't get past that? For the record, here's the write-up on the experience
https://archive.palanq.win/vp/thread/53122753/#53130820
The thread is actually a pretty interesting read, overall.

So partway through the game you decided that just mashing A with your starter wasn't good enough and decided to use different Pokemon? And also that you'd take pictures with your phone instead of taking screenshots? And also rename your Blaziken?

gen 7 is only harder if you ignore most of the mechanics
>party-wide exp. share
>affection bonuses which are easy as frick to get with rainbow beans
>z-moves
>roto-lotto
and probably some other stuff i'm forgetting

I mean that's arguably true of most Pokemon games, given the most fun way to play is a decent team with no items in battle or optimizations (nature hunting should be the most you ever do, and only if you know the Pokemon is a shitmon and you want it to do better). BDSP and maybe XY are exceptions, given how both of them are still easier than the previous games even if you ignore as much as possible (BDSP exceptionally so given how much it forces on you, there's a huge power gap between it and XY). At least SS has Dynamax for major bosses to provide a challenge if you chose not to use it yourself.

>I mean that's arguably true of most Pokemon games, given the most fun way to play is a decent team with no items in battle or optimizations
there's a reason i listed things only present in modern titles. if you add in all the other stuff it gets even worse.
the point is that if someone says gen 7 is harder than other pokemon games, you can be certain that they're trolling.

>because you’re still ignoring that the NPCs in Gen 7 are drastically harder than everything before it.
LOL
LMAO

I did a run of Emerald with minimum exp, but it's not easy even with one Pokemon. With only Swampert, I had to pray for good RNG as early as Roxanne, rely on evasion hax for rival 2 and 3, and use items in battle for T&L, Juan, and Wallace. If you don't use Rayquaza, Swampert ends at the brink of reaching level 55, which is quite underleveled. It would be undoubtedly worse for Sceptile and Blaziken.

Elden Ring is advertised as being balls-hard difficult and unapproachable for casuals, and thus Easy Mode would rob you of the prestige of beating it. Pokemon is not; it is meant to appeal to all audiences, and thus should accommodate varying skill levels.

>Set option was always moronic and shouldn’t exist
What? It should be the only option if anything since the AI can't use switch mode.

If they could properly balance anything it'd be great, but we live on Earth. Let me decide how I want exp distributed in case the devs frick up their jobs. No one complained about that specific option existing before it was removed.

>Do you have an aneurysm like this over every in-game item?
No, because presumably the game should be balanced around the in-game items.

That argument doesn't make sense though. Less options are not magically good because you call it a mechanic. It used to be a toggle. Now it's not. That's removed functionality.

>That argument doesn't make sense though
It makes plenty of sense.

>Less options are not magically good because you call it a mechanic
It is magically good when the game designers actually design their fricking game instead of blindly leaving it to the player.

>It used to be a toggle. Now it's not
Yeah, they actually improved the games. Amazing right?

>That's removed functionality.
They removed functionality when they removed the Withdraw and Deposit options from the PC, yet no one ever complains about those. They removed functionality when they removed Switch mode from PLA, yet no one ever complains about that. It's almost like more options aren't inherently a good thing.

>you should never have to many any decisions ever
Those decisions fall within the infrastructure of the balance. It's literally what the game is. What I don't want to decide is the design of the game itself.

Deciding which pieces I move and to which position in chess = good
Deciding the rules of which squares each piece is allowed to move to = bad, that's the game designer's job

If it's inside the game's balancing, making it an option is moronic because objectively there's no reason to ever turn it off because it gives you a perpetual advantage. This is the same reason they removed Withdraw and Deposit. They're redundant and just add meaningless clutter to the game's UI.

If it's outside the game's balancing, making it an option is moronic because the player shouldn't be the one designing the game balance.

Hey, look at that! Making it an option is moronic either way!

>Maybe I want to not use it and intentionally put myself at a perpetual disadvantage
You can arbitrarily whine about this with any mechanic in the game.
>WAAAAAAH WHY DO MY ATTACKS ALWAYS DO 100% DAMAGE WHY ISN'T THERE AN OPTION TO MAKE THEM DO 25% DAMAGE? WAAAAAAAAAAH
Shut the frick up and just find any arbitrary way of the thousands of ways to handicap yourself.

You're not asking for a difficulty toggle. You're asking for an exp share toggle. If you want a difficulty toggle why not just ask for a difficulty toggle, fricking moron?

Nta but exp share off increasing the difficulty is purely incidental and wasn’t the intention of having it as an option, the perception that it’s supposed to be “hard mode” is probably part of why it got taken out

they would just be spending hours of their day defending the removal of set mode instead, because at the end of the day all they care about is getting attention

Yeah, I love how set mode makes it even more tedious and pointless to use more than one Pokemon and then DSzoomers proceed to whine that I’m supposed to use more than one Pokemon.

Your point is that all the game’s mechanics in the older games discourage using more than one Pokemon?

More things I genuinely believe:
Required HMs are a good teambuilding parameter
Random encounters were never bad, if you're that bothered use a repel like the b***h you are
Omnidirectional movement was a mistake and completely fricked the design of overworld areas and entire regions
If it doesn't have gyms and an elite four, it doesn't feel like a Pokémon game
Affection mechanics are bloat

>still need to keep bird shitmon on my team just to fast travel
no

Why do you like the games being permanently on baby mode? Did you find them too difficult before?

Must suck being so bad at pokemon games lol.

>to make using more than 1 party member completely redundant
it's almost like there are ways for the game to prevent this like having type string against your bromon. Not a single individual complained about this beforehand anon.

Literally nobody finds the games unplayable without the PS split
We just say they’re better with it
Every pre PS split game has a stall focused meta

Link a single person saying the games without PS split are unplayable

That guy is undoubtedly a homosexual but he said gen 1 was unplayable due to the glitches not the PS split, he only said the PS split made frlg "worthless" whatever he meant by that.

How would it be objectively worse? It doesn't have the problem of too many menus like you complain about, and the game would be made around not having exp share.

Or maybe Hoenn is just better-designed than Johto?

another reason to keep HMs :^)

You do realize the game you posted had EXP share as a toggle, right? And again, it’s not “pointless” if somebody wants it. Why can’t it be an option so both sides can be happy? Why do you want to force one side to be unhappy when you’ll get to use EXP share either way?

Why do you never address the part where all of this arguing is pointless because if it were a toggle, both sides could get what they want? I’ve asked you multiple times across multiple threads, and you always avoid the question.

Is it because there’s no way you could actually answer without sounding like a tryhard edgelord, because you’d literally be admitting that you need other people to be unhappy in order for you yourself to be happy?

But you already admitted that you prefer to play with EXP share on. You can't pretend like you "don't know what option to pick" when you are vehemently defending the option you want to pick in this thread right now. So play with it on, and be happy, and I'll play with it off, and be happy. Why can't you let us both be happy?

But not once have you ever pointed out a game where you'd prefer EXP share to be off. You clearly prefer it to be on, and I clearly prefer it to be off. Why can't you let us both be happy?

But you already admitted that you prefer to play with EXP share on. You can't pretend like you "don't know what option to pick" when you are vehemently defending the option you want to pick in this thread right now. So play with it on, and be happy, and I'll play with it off, and be happy. Why can't you let us both be happy?

>losing to fricking furfrou
LMAO! this is why you must never take yawngay seriously