Randoms keep asking me for trades and showing shiny legends. Alternatively, I try dumping starters on seemingly new players only to find they too have all kinds of hard to get stuff. The latter I kinda get because poke bank but the former makes it feel like I'm late to some weird secret economy.
I find it best to just let the other guy put something up first, quit if I don't have anything worthwhile, and use a level 3 power as a polite parting gesture. I did get a few safaris this way though so I guess it's not a total loss.
>>187345 In White 2 I tried the trade thing and I kept getting people with Pokemon I needed but would sad face everything I offered. Everything, including starters, legends and event Pokemon I didn't think they'd have. I honestly got so frustrated I never traded on that again
Gen 2-5 starters do well on the XY GTS even without shiny status or hidden ability. Don't bother looking at offers though, just make your own. Usually someone will pick it up in a day unless you want legendaries or something very specific.
I got hidden ability Whirlipede, Ivysaur, Frogadier, Dragonair, Tangela, Heracross, and Torchic this way which is good since I don't have them in any safaris.
>>187353 You really want them to fuck up yet another design? They'd probably just extend the antenna till they curl, spikes on the legs, more spines at the end of a longer tail, and longer wings with a dumb diamond pattern.
Whatever the outcome, I'll be happy to have more options for an all-mega-capable team to screw with people's puny minds. Which one is it?! they might think, only to find that none of them were holding mega stones because they're beautiful killing machines just the way they are.
I'm probably gonna switch to it myself, doubles or no, because Stone Edge keeps missing for me. I don't know what KOs I'll be missing, and I'll probably miss with Rock Slide, but ehh. Sadly, there isn't even an alternative for Focus Blast.
Traded with a newbie random a while ago, gave them a bunch of starters and other hard to find stuff. Eventually they ran out of pokes and gave me their own starter. I've been meaning to give it back but I haven't seen them since. I trained it and everything in the mean time.
>>187351 It's even worse. Just check the GTS >LOL NIDORAN FOR LEVEL 100 VICTINI LOL
Trading in pokemon is absolute shit-tier unless you're on a forum or something else with people who actually have an iota of intelligence, negotiation, and understand that Shiny's are super fucking rare.
>>187674 I'm pretty sure only hackers take up those trades. The good news is you can make your own offers and people will generally follow through. The bad news is you can't specify a lot, though you can imagine what the above would look like if it included moves, abilities, or shiny status.
>>187698 Given today fludding do to global warming problem I guess Magma is "dumb". I still like the "choise your side" plot they brought. >also Team Aqua are all black pirats now Um.... This COULD bite them in the butt. Just saying.
I'm okay with all the designs, but I'm baffled as to why Mega Sceptile gets Lightning Rod. It would already be 4x resistant to Electric attacks, and it loses the surprise factor because it needs to be active to Mega Evolve, losing the surprise factor of switching in for a free Sp. Att. boost.
Then there's the fact it seems to be leaning towards Sp. Attacks when the physical Leaf Blade used to be its signature.
Unless ORAS has a Mega Altaria available before the Elite Four, I guess I'm going with Mudkip after all. I think I'll name him "Popeye".
>>187710 >Trees are frequent conductors of lightning to the ground. Since sap is a relatively poor conductor, its electrical resistance causes it to be heated explosively into steam, which blows off the bark outside the lightning's path. In following seasons trees overgrow the damaged area and may cover it completely, leaving only a vertical scar.
Not all stats and abilities are made with the intention of competitive play. Hell, I'd argue outside of Dragons and Legendaries, most of the time a pokemon's viability in competitive is coincidental
>>188006 The board software is funky; when you make a change to board settings, it clears out some options for board (even if they were selected). You have to go back in, re-select options, update again, and then it will take hold. Someone changed /cog/'s settings without re-enabling things like spoiler, which is why >>187908 didn't have the spoiler option available.
>>189165 >>189149 Absolutely. Even when it was Pokemon Red, when they instated the Democracy/Anarchy system, the game was almost always in Democracy mode which made everything a whole lot less of a hassle. Really, while it is still pretty impressive they got through Red or any of those games, it's not as impressive as many people make it out to be.
>>189166 Yes, at this point the novelty has faded (and with it, the participation.)
What I found more interesting was that they were able to play X by hooking up the controls for an actual 3DS to a computer, since there is no 3DS emulator. Even more interesting is that Nintendo didn't try to shitcan the whole thing, as far as I know.
>>189179 Honestly....while Nintendo could've certainly sent C&D's that would have required the courts to step in to overturn, I wonder if Twitch couldn't have won that court battle. Twitch Plays Pokemon is clearly not the same experience as actually playing a Pokemon game by yourself, and transforms the whole thing into something more akin to performance art. No one would confuse it with the original product, and it's not in the same medium. A fair use defense might very well have worked.
It wouldn't be a slam dunk either way, I think. It would largely depend on the judge who oversaw the case. And regardless of all of that, assuming Nintendo was aware of it, they might have had the same thoughts--and while they may not have been scared to send the C&D anyway, they might have also worked out that the only effect that TPP was likely to have on their sales would be to INCREASE them, as people decided they wanted to experience the "real thing" again after going through the clusterfuck that was TPP. They certainly weren't going to LOSE sales over it.
>>189351 Not a fan of the concept, not a fan of at least 80% of the designs. That, I think, more than anything is the main contributor to my failing interest in the series.
That and all the half developed concepts they tried to jam into X and Y. Customization is only interesting if you have a decent amount of options. Honestly, beyond all the hype, the game feels a bit rushed.
Happy 1 year anniversary XY, I still haven't beaten you.
In other news, RS continues to give more OP users megas. But then they go and give megas to shitty pokemon like Beedrill and Pidgiot which is nice since they've been over shadowed by their replacements.
Interested in the Pokemon TCG? Here are some things to keep in mind when building:
Generally speaking, 1/3 to 1/2 of your deck is going to be trainers. These establish your engine. You will go through these like a fat kid through M&Ms.
About 10-15 of your cards will be energy. If you only run one type of energy, you'll be down near the 10 there, depending on the demands of your Pokemon (if you have expensive attacks and a way to get lots of energy to them, you might go as high as 12). If your Pokemon need two types of energy, it'll be up near the 15. If your Pokemon need three types of energy, god help you.
About 8-16 of your cards should be Pokemon. The vast majority of these should be basics. Some stage 1 evolutions, for instance some versions of Gyarados, are justifiable here, in which case you want as many of the stage 1 as you have of the basic: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, or 4-4. Make sure it's a damn good stage 1, though.
If you want to run a Stage 2, you have exactly two options on how to run it, and no room to argue against a community that has spent a decade figuring out how to do this right: first, you need 4 Rare Candy. Then, you need to run the set as either 3-1-3, or 4-1-4. Basic and Stage 2 in even numbers, a single copy of the middle.
How do you know if you want 3-1-3 or 4-1-4? Easy. If you only want to evolve it once in a game -- because it's really really hard to get rid of, for instance, or not THAT critical to your strategy -- 3-1-3. If it's absolutely crucial and you can't live without it, or it's not that hard to kill if it gets Catcher'd out, 4-1-4.
So you have your 8-16 mons and your 10-15 energy. The rest of the deck is your 29-42 trainers. Most decks will run a core set of trainers that are the same between all decks because they're just that good.
If possible all your Pokemon should be basic or stage 1, except for a single stage 2 that you have 4 copies of, if that and it better do something amazing.
Best way to run a stage 2 evolution in a deck is 1) pick an evolution with a damn good ability that works on the bench, because you do not want to spend all that time setting up only to get ground down in combat, and 2) run 4 of the basic, 1 of the middle, 4 of the end, and 4 rare candy. The middle stage is a last resort. (as stated earlier)
Your main attacker(s) should almost always be basic or stage 1, never stage 2. Why? Consistency and minimizing needed resources while maximizing efficiency.
Yep. Unless Beedrill gets a bitching movepool in the remake (it won't) it will still be pretty bad and I doubt the mega will ever see play on any level other than casual because it's still just not good enough and it doesn't even have the added benefit of a weird ability to build around.
>playing through X for first time ever >in fairy town >beat Pokeball Factory Flares >go to route 15 >finally have a chance to evolve Pancham >go to play with Pangoro in Pokemon Amie because yay it's cute
>game glitches out and closes, lose all progress of past hour
D-damn... it's like the days of GBA and living on the edge with batteries.
>>191171 >>191170 I love those games, but they suffer in a big way. Namely that they are the easiest pokemon games in the series. The level curve is laughable and the only fight that ever poses a challenge in the main game is Whitney.
>>191174 Are you joking? X and Y was by far the easiest Pokemon game I have ever played. Not once did I need to switch out my main six (the first six I captured), even without the exp share I found myself constantly over leveled, mega forms made battles a total joke, and pokemon will endure moves simply because you fed and tapped them enough.
My friend was playing Red and trying to catch a Chansey in the Safari Zone. Something happened after he threw a rock (Chansey went to run) and his first party Pokemon fainted (but the animation was Red fainting and the text skipped a line and said "FAINTED"). He was able to send out another Pokemon and throw more Safari balls. Chansey couldn't escape because it was technically in a Pokemon battle but there were only Safari Zone options and Chansey started attacking.
Anyone heard of this glitch? It was beneficial to him since he really wanted a Chansey and was having a hard time catching one but it was weird as hell and I can't find anything about it on Bulbapedia.
>>191221 Your starter really only matters in the first gym or so. Choosing Charmander makes Brock a lot harder, and maybe Misty, but by the time you catch an Abra and evolve it into a Kadabra, Blue and Red stop being challenging.
>>193335 I don't enjoy grinding and I don't enjoy gambling in games not built around it. Having to choose between hours of repetitive no-effort battles or getting my run ended by a bad die roll is not something I consider fun. Trying to turn Pokémon into a roguelike does not make it any less repetitive.
>>193338 I enjoyed Drayano's hacks of the Gen 5 games. They make most Pokémon available early enough for nice varied team options, give all NPCs better teams and also buff many underwhelming Pokémon. They're worth checking out if you're looking for a good but not unreasonable challenge. I don't have personal experience with his previous-gen hacks, but I've seen those recommended too.
>You'll start with five "Hearts," -- Shuffle's in-game currency -- and win or lose, each stage takes one Heart to play. Hearts take 30 minutes to refill -- I haven't been able to get the StreetPass functionality to refill limited Hearts working yet. Within 15 minutes after the first five tutorial stages, I was waiting 30 minutes to play again. Not good.
>>193343 I'm actually enjoying the game a fair bit. I see nothing wrong about the free-to-play methods it uses and it's really not that different from most other free-to-play games. I always find the time-based energy as a great system, allowing me to play a few matches, leave to do whatever else I want or need to do, and then come back to it and repeat.
As far as him not being able to catch some of the early Pokemon, I hate to say it, but that just sounds like he simply didn't do well enough. The catchability success rate is governed by your score and how many moves you have left remaining. You do well, you'll almost always have at least an 80% success rate. At least in the beginning. Yes, the game will get harder and yes, you won't always catch them the first time. But you level up your Pokemon with each battle thus making them stronger and being able to defeat other Pokemon in less turns. So it's like, you know, a Pokemon game.
In short, I can't say I agree with the writer, even just his first impression. It's a fun game. And it's free; the game can be played without spending a dime and all it asks is that you wait some time between sessions. You earn jewels as you play which you could use to get more hearts if you so wish, so there's still an out to the time thing that isn't spending money.
>>193364 >I see nothing wrong about the free-to-play methods it uses and it's really not that different from most other free-to-play games
"Others do it so it's okay." If anything, Nintendo jumping on that particular bandwagon should worry you. Do you want to see this in the next main Pokémon game?
>I always find the time-based energy as a great system
Yeah, game companies telling you how long you're allowed to play is totally a good thing! Maybe we should do away with yesteryear's idea of being able to buy a game once and then being able to play it when you want for as long as you want and switch back to the arcade model, after all having less control over your entertainment is GREAT!
So is Dungeon Keeper Mobile.
The cancer killing videogames spreading to Nintendo is NOT A GOOD THING. I don't want a future where what could have been good games are instead built around making the players weigh their time versus their money. "Pay-to-not-wait" is a terrible business model for anyone who actually likes to play games because those games are designed around getting you to fork over your dosh.
"But only crap games do it" and "but only crap companies do it" are the excuses people brought up before it happened to games they liked. Nintendo taking a hint from EA cannot possibly be interpreted as positive.
Any game that is "free" with the business model being inconveniencing you in hopes of you paying up effectively does not exist to me. I refuse to play games that are broken by design as part of their monetization strategy.
>>193369 It's doubtful Nintendo will make a microtransaction-filled main Pokemon game just because they put them in a free Pokemon puzzle game. And of course I wouldn't want them in a main game. Like come on, no one would. But if it's a game that I don't need to pay anything to play, then stuff like energy and premium currency sounds like a fair trade.
And that was my bad on the wording. To clarify, time-based energy is a fine system for free-to-play games. It's another small compromise of giving you a game for free, one that never seems as bad as some make it out to be. Nobody is saying that we should replace it with actually buying a game because, really, that'd just be a ridiculous thing to say.
As far as Dungeon Keeper Mobile goes, yes, that is an absolutely shitty free-to-play game with terrible microtransactions and time-based caveats. But to compare it to Pokemon Shuffle just because it's free is not a good comparison. Dungeon Keeper Mobile may very well be the worst case scenario of free-to-play, but not every free-to-play game is that bad. Pokemon Shuffle is not that bad.
But if you don't like Pokemon Shuffle, if you don't like free-to-play games, that's fine too. You don't have to. Yes, some DLC/microtransactions can be disgustingly bad and we've reached the point where almost every game will have DLC for better or worse, but we can't immediately assume that every game will be as bad as what EA does. We have to at least give some credit that companies can be and are paying attention to what we, the consumers, are saying. If the crowd is largely against these implementations and they end up not making any money from them, companies will back away from it. Except EA. And maybe Ubisoft. And kind of Activision, except they are making money just from Call of Duty maps and skins and Snoop Dogg voice packs. But I digress.
The "too long; didn't read" version: Pokemon Shuffle is a simple, fun puzzle game. It's free. Would it be better if it wasn't free? Who knows. But just because it is shouldn't be a red flag that Nintendo is going to ruin their other games. It's completely playable and no where near as bad as other free-to-play games.
>>193373 >It's doubtful Nintendo will make a microtransaction-filled main Pokemon game just because they put them in a free Pokemon puzzle game.
If you told everyone a year or two ago that Nintendo will release a F2P game with a pay-to-not-wait mechanic people would also have found that "doubtful".
If you told people in 07 that Nintendo will jump on the DLC money train eventually, people would've laughed at you and called you a Sony/MS fanboy. Now? Get ready for the inevitable limited-edition exclusive amiibo event Pokémon, you know that'll happen.
>Like come on, no one would.
The people trying to maximize profit do, and they're thankful for every player who accepts the idea.
>companies can be and are paying attention to what we, the consumers, are saying
And if the customers are saying that they're fine with this, you'll see more of it. There's a reason they're implementing it in a minor spinoff first. If 1.) they can get enough money out of it and 2.) the customers accept the business model, you will see it in the main games.
>If the crowd is largely against these implementations and they end up not making any money from them, companies will back away from it.
And if that doesn't happen, it's one more company that monetizes its games via anti-features. One would hope that Nintendo won't sink that low, but here they are, testing the waters for it.
>we can't immediately assume that every game will be as bad as what EA does
Pissing in people's faces and telling them to like it is the industry standard.
>not every free-to-play game is that bad
F2P games that aren't ripoffs are the exception, not the rule. Especially when it comes to the pay-to-not-wait model. That was invented as a ripoff scheme to prey on the mentally fragile, the "whales" (actual term used in the industry) who spend 10k on shitty mobile/"social" games that most people had the sense not to put a single cent into.
Injecting that model into games that aren't inherently trash is basically the worst case scenario, because now they're trying to teach new gamers that this crap is just how videogames work.
More regarding pay-to-not-wait and the mentality behind it: http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/ A bit dramatic, but it gets the point across.
>>193373 Also >It's another small compromise of giving you a game for free sounds like you're falling for marketing speech.
F2P games are never "free" and aren't intended to be. The core idea is to get the player to spend more on the game than they would have by just buying a full game because the spending is supposed to continue forever. In practice, this generally means punishing the player for not paying.
Fair F2P games are the exception because they deviate from the core idea to some degree, thus not maximizing the potential profit.
>>200568 >I want to live in a universe where the number of pokemanz is limited (to 500 or even 1000), and the games are centered NOT on collecting new ones, but different kinds of quests and new gameplay ideas. You should probably play a new pokemon game then, turns out some have come out since Gen 2.
>>200620 It's not about it being a competition or about the series being above criticism, it's about me not understanding what you're saying you even want. You said you wanted something different using Pokemon as a basis, I pointed out all the different genres available in spin-off games, then you said you didn't actually want things to be THAT different, just like....the same but tweaked in different ways than the main series tweaks things, I guess?
>>200690 Wonder if its evolution will go in opposition to the usual. Bigger and Meaner looking (aside from a few specific female Pokemon in existence) And that Muddy becomes more sleek and sexy..er cute.