PDA

View Full Version : [Discussion] 1 Million Pokemon in your PokeDex?


Harvey_Create
July 18th, 2013, 7:24 PM
Recently I have been spending time scrolling through all of the fan games in development. A great majority of them have their main features as: All 695 Pokemon can be captured and used. Now, in theory what is a wonderful idea. Who wouldn't want to actually catch them all? But if you think about it, that can be a bit overwhelming.
It was fun to catch all the Pokemon in the first and second Generations, as there wasn't a lot, and we had a way to know where they were. With Fan-made games, they Pokemon encounters are kind of random (In a demo i played, i found a Patrat in the ocean.) So, why not change up your Pokedex? Instead of adding all 695 Pokemon, why not compile your own collection to catch?
Examples being only a specific generation (mine is only going to be 3rd generation) or 1-200 of your favorite Pokemon? it makes your game more unique and less frustrating.
My question is how do you guys think about that. A Custom Pokedex. What are you doing with yours, or what would you do?

Nickalooose
July 19th, 2013, 3:38 AM
I think adding Pokémon whether it's 1-151 or all Pokémon, is not a feature.
A feature is something that isn't in any other game and since every game catches Pokémon, it's irrelevant to say the least.
In my game I'm adding Pokémon depending on the situation (i.e water, grass, forest etc.), so I can have in mind I won't add a Phanpy, but then the time may call for me needing it.
There's nothing wrong with adding them all providing it's not too overwhelming and Route 01 has like 15 encounters... I think though, choosing your favorite Pokémon is the wrong way to go about it, since your favorite Pokémon is never going to be a Wingull, for example.
By removing Pokémon or adding Pokémon, the game will immediately become in-balanced and anyone who says the game is balance with the custom dex, is lying... Since rareness will become a factor, it's unlikely anyone would waste a rare Pokémon in an area on a Raticate or Meowth, so straight away, Normal types become more common... Bottom line, each to their own... If the downloader doesn't like it... Don't play it.

Harvey_Create
July 19th, 2013, 6:10 AM
I think adding Pokemon whether it's 1-151 or all Pokemon, is not a feature.
A feature is something that isn't in any other game and since every game catches Pokemon, it's irrelevant to say the least.
In my game I'm adding Pokemon depending on the situation (i.e water, grass, forest etc.), so I can have in mind I won't add a Phanpy, but then the time may call for me needing it.
There's nothing wrong with adding them all providing it's not too overwhelming and Route 01 has like 15 encounters... I think though, choosing your favorite Pokemon is the wrong way to go about it, since your favorite Pokemon is never going to be a Wingull, for example.
By removing Pokemon or adding Pokemon, the game will immediately become in-balanced and anyone who says the game is balance with the custom Dex, is lying... Since rareness will become a factor, it's unlikely anyone would waste a rare Pokemon in an area on a Raticate or Meowth, so straight away, Normal types become more common... Bottom line, each to their own... If the down loader doesn't like it... Don't play it.
You do make a good argument. It is pretty hard to come up with a balanced Pokedex and still be good. Now, i happen to like a lot of those "Unwanted" Pokemon like Wingull, Ratatta, and others that are crammed as the most commons to catch. As for having all of them in, Some of these Fan games aren't going to be big enough a;; 695 Pokemon. In order to have all the Pokemon, and make it balanced, you would have to have 20-30 encounters per route.

the__end
July 19th, 2013, 9:30 AM
As for having all of them in, Some of these Fan games aren't going to be big enough a;; 695 Pokemon. In order to have all the Pokemon, and make it balanced, you would have to have 20-30 encounters per route.

If you take out the evolved versions there are a total of 329 Pokemon. Take out the 48 legendary Pokemon and there will be 281 left. Lets say you have 2-3 regions with a total of 50 routes (if you include caves there will be much more but well, lets use 50) you need to have 5-6 new Pokemon in every route. And you have to consider that this calculation is made without taking into account starter Pokemon, Pokemon that you get from NPC, safari zone(s), and in-game trades. I am sure there are some more ways to make a Pokemon obtainable without making it an encounter. So yeah it is (still) possible to include them all.

Harvey_Create
July 19th, 2013, 9:38 AM
If you take out the evolved versions there are a total of 329 Pokemon. Take out the 48 legendary Pokemon and there will be 281 left. Lets say you have 2-3 regions with a total of 50 routes (if you include caves there will be much more but well, lets use 50) you need to have 5-6 new Pokemon in every route. And you have to consider that this calculation is made without taking into account starter Pokemon, Pokemon that you get from NPC, safari zone(s), and in-game trades. I am sure there are some more ways to make a Pokemon obtainable without making it an encounter. So yeah it is (still) possible to include them all.

I never said it wasn't possible. I just wouldn't do it. I love the idea of a custom Pokedex, or limiting to certain regions pokedex instead. I like variety, but I, personally don't like that much variety.
The whole point about this thread is what you would do with a Pokedex if you made your own game, not whether its possible to do certain things.

Wootius
July 19th, 2013, 1:24 PM
I was initially planning on rebalancing every FEP and including them how the_end suggested.

I stopped at ND #362. It was really just way too many pokemon. Now I plan for all of GenI/II and a liberal use of the other generations.

Harvey_Create
July 19th, 2013, 4:03 PM
I was initially planning on rebalancing every FEP and including them how the_end suggested.

I stopped at ND #362. It was really just way too many pokemon. Now I plan for all of GenI/II and a liberal use of the other generations.

Sounds like a good idea. For Apex, we are going to be using all gen3, with some switched out and replaced with gen 1 and 2 pokemon. then all evolutions in thier line. then for my side game(which might not be the average pokemon game) im only using 3rd gen.
I started playing at 3rd gen, and then played all of them besides 5th gen.

But the thought of that many pokemon. :T

Elaitenstile
July 21st, 2013, 5:58 AM
It should be remembered that the majority of water Pokémon are only found in water, and also the fact that some of them are exclusive to fishing rods. We should also keep in mind that many Pokémon are found only in nighttime xD.

Also, we are talking about the normal Essentials game. I fully agree with what you are saying, but Essentials is just a starter kit, not a complete system which you must just simply use just like that, right?

Meaning, as you progress through Game Dev, you should learn how to modify some features of Essentials to your liking. Game Dev is also about personal and skill development. Remember, the sky's the limit here :).

As you suggested, it is very important to create a Regional Dex roster, but there's no harm in implementing an all Pokémon catchable National Dex system. The reason being by that time of development,
a) You will have created enough maps and regions altogether to have enough encounters
OR
b) You will have implemented a new idea (eg. mass swarming, changed encounters in old maps etc.)

So yes this is all the developer to choose. Of course, your idea taking into account it is imperative to create a regional dex, yes. It does feel a lot overcrowded with the "all Pokémon in one" idea.

Personally, my own dex isn't really decided yet until I make a better name for myself and create some Fakemon. But I will not of course get this feature done straightaway. As I progress through the story, I will eventually make more and more Pokémon available, instead of fixing a quantity from the start. If it goes on, maybe I will finally get 649 or more ;).

You're right, though, the thought of that many Pokémon squeezed into a game is... haunting.

Wootius
July 21st, 2013, 11:54 AM
For me it's a daunting idea. I'm trying to make every included FEP competitive at least in one role: even at Lv100, with better then average IVs, EV trained, and with a good egg move.

So each Pokemon isn't just plopping it down somewhere and finding a few trainers for it. It's deciding on team roles, BST review, movepool review, and ability review(with an idea toward "does this pokemon lend itself reasonably to a completely new ability?). So for me it's not making them encounterable that's the problem, but using them that is.

Harvey_Create
July 22nd, 2013, 9:29 AM
It should be remembered that the majority of water Pokémon are only found in water, and also the fact that some of them are exclusive to fishing rods. We should also keep in mind that many Pokémon are found only in nighttime xD.

Also, we are talking about the normal Essentials game. I fully agree with what you are saying, but Essentials is just a starter kit, not a complete system which you must just simply use just like that, right?

Meaning, as you progress through Game Dev, you should learn how to modify some features of Essentials to your liking. Game Dev is also about personal and skill development. Remember, the sky's the limit here :).

As you suggested, it is very important to create a Regional Dex roster, but there's no harm in implementing an all Pokémon catchable National Dex system. The reason being by that time of development,
a) You will have created enough maps and regions altogether to have enough encounters
OR
b) You will have implemented a new idea (eg. mass swarming, changed encounters in old maps etc.)

So yes this is all the developer to choose. Of course, your idea taking into account it is imperative to create a regional dex, yes. It does feel a lot overcrowded with the "all Pokemon in one" idea.

Personally, my own dex isn't really decided yet until I make a better name for myself and create some Fakemon. But I will not of course get this feature done straightaway. As I progress through the story, I will eventually make more and more Pokemon available, instead of fixing a quantity from the start. If it goes on, maybe I will finally get 649 or more ;).

You're right, though, the thought of that many Pokemon squeezed into a game is... haunting.

Personally, i'm not a big fan of Fakemon. Only because they will never look Official. I like how the officials look. Now as for a Fakedex, 200 Pokemon sounds about right. Currently there are 137 Pokemon in Apex, as i just edited them. The pain for making your own pokedex is the Pokemon.TXT, and tm.TXT. If you don't get rid of everything, or don't add everything right, you'll screw it up. Then you run into the problem of setting Encounters. Do you see this Pokemon too much/ Not enough? Having a Large set of Pokemon is the only advantage for that. But yeah.

For me it's a daunting idea. I'm trying to make every included FEP competitive at least in one role: even at Lv100, with better then average IVs, EV trained, and with a good egg move.

So each Pokemon isn't just plopping it down somewhere and finding a few trainers for it. It's deciding on team roles, BST review, movepool review, and ability review(with an idea toward "does this pokemon lend itself reasonably to a completely new ability?). So for me it's not making them encounterable that's the problem, but using them that is.

Well, I think it would be easy to balance a Encounter system if you have enough Pokemon. As for using them, iv'e always caught maybe 20 Pokemon. Never really "Caught them all" in one game. I've caught them all, but through about 8 different play through s. I never use all of the Pokemon, Rather i have a set team i use.

Nickalooose
July 22nd, 2013, 10:20 AM
Well, I think it would be easy to balance a Encounter system if you have enough Pokemon. As for using them, iv'e always caught maybe 20 Pokemon. Never really "Caught them all" in one game. I've caught them all, but through about 8 different play through s. I never use all of the Pokemon, Rather i have a set team i use.

Off topic but, this is me too lol, Dratini, Bulbasaur, Glaceon, Wigglytuff and Clefable are musts in my team, the last one is generally a PowerHouse (Garchomp, Magmar, Electabuzz, Pokémon like that)

As for screwing things up, that's called rushing or not paying attention (we all do it).

I don't think it would be... "A good idea"... To use all Pokémon anyway, since as the_end already said, you'd need a new encounter every route, it will make the game crowded and "unrealistic" so to speak.

Harvey_Create
July 22nd, 2013, 10:24 AM
Off topic but, this is me too lol, Dratini, Bulbasaur, Glaceon, Wigglytuff and Clefable are musts in my team, the last one is generally a PowerHouse (Garchomp, Magmar, Electabuzz, Pokémon like that)

As for screwing things up, that's called rushing or not paying attention (we all do it).

I don't think it would be... "A good idea"... To use all Pokémon anyway, since as the_end already said, you'd need a new encounter every route, it will make the game crowded and "unrealistic" so to speak.

My team has to involve a Torkoal, and a Snowrunt.

And that is why we are getting rid of what pokemon we think are unusable

Worldslayer608
July 22nd, 2013, 11:25 AM
I see absolutely no reason to give your players a restriction on flexibility of their team. When it comes to design, it is actually more methodical and time consuming to balance what is and is not available.

When you factor in things like NPC's trading pokemon you don't want the player to bump into in the wild, event pokemon like legendary, pokemon you can purchase at the casino, underwater, night/day, caves etc. It really become easy to actually fit them into the game, easier than it is to customize your dex and balance them out.

Nickalooose
July 22nd, 2013, 1:32 PM
Something I might add, I add Pokémon encounters at that specific time, if I'm eventing a cave, I put cave Pokémon in there, I don't generally think who or what I'm doing, I just do it... So in theory I could end up with all Pokémon, I might not etc.

Wootius
July 22nd, 2013, 6:49 PM
The last one is generally a PowerHouse (Garchomp, Magmar, Electabuzz, Pokémon like that... I never use all of the Pokemon, Rather i have a set team i use


I'm not trying to balance encounters, the above is the exact thing I'm trying to change. I'm hopefully going to be able to say when I'm done that ANY Pokemon can a "Power house" at their role. If every pokemon was great, you could be more inclined to test out "new" ones, new in that you just overlooked it.

It's a combination of bad BST/Movepool/Abilities that cause a great deal of Pokemon to be meh. The only way to fix that is to change those things, which is a lot of work. So I made the call to only include ~(nfe)400 pokemon.

Plopping a Skitty down in an encounter list is easy. Making people WANT to use Skitty aside from some Skitty/Wailord action(and just straight buffing it) is hard.

Harvey_Create
July 22nd, 2013, 7:24 PM
I'm not trying to balance encounters, the above is the exact thing I'm trying to change. I'm hopefully going to be able to say when I'm done that ANY Pokemon can a "Power house" at their role. If every pokemon was great, you could be more inclined to test out "new" ones, new in that you just overlooked it.

It's a combination of bad BST/Movepool/Abilities that cause a great deal of Pokemon to be meh. The only way to fix that is to change those things, which is a lot of work. So I made the call to only include ~(nfe)400 pokemon.

Plopping a Skitty down in an encounter list is easy. Making people WANT to use Skitty aside from some Skitty/Wailord action(and just straight buffing it) is hard.
I like the idea. I am not the best when it comes with trying new pokemon (hence why i havent played BW yet) But if they could all become equally powerful, it wouldnt matter which ones i had.

Wootius
July 22nd, 2013, 7:40 PM
I like the idea. I am not the best when it comes with trying new pokemon (hence why i havent played BW yet) But if they could all become equally powerful, it wouldnt matter which ones i had.

That's the idea, but hopefully I can avoid taking out all of the unique traits individual pokemon have in the process.

Utility/Bulky/Tank/Offensive are the roles I see with almost no pokemon being "pure" at one role.

Blastoise is a mainly a General Tank in stats/moves but with some Offensive Utility(Water Dragon Tail)moves added in also.

Charizard is Mixed Offensive statwise, but Roost gives it a bit of Bulky nature.

Venusaur is a Physical Bulky stats/movewise, but the Powder moves and a good Grass Clamp for optimal switch ins give it Utility.

FL
July 28th, 2013, 10:37 AM
I like the BOTH ways, National Dex since the start or Regional Dex and, maybe at the end game the National Dex.

It's easier to people that never played pokémon or only played one game to know about 200-300 pokémon (types, strategy, etc...) that more than 600. And it's nice the feeling of unlocking the National Dex. But also it's good to unlock every pokémon from the start and hunting for your favorites

Things that I didn't like are putting too many pokémon avaliable in several areas that you almost don't spend time, so you miss a lot of pokémon and the small regional dex of DP. This pokédex has ONLY two Fire pokémon families and one is the starter, so I suggest to use 200-300 pokémon for a regional dex.

I don't think it would be... "A good idea"... To use all Pokémon anyway, since as the_end already said, you'd need a new encounter every route, it will make the game crowded and "unrealistic" so to speak.The official games ARE unrealistic in this aspect, specially when talking about Unova being far away and, after you unlock the National Dex, hundreds of foreign species become avaliable. Also, since RBY some pokémon can be obtained by trades, Game Corner shop, give away (like Eevee), etc... You can also create new methods.