Challenge Ideas & Discussion

[pokepokemo]

I've a question for you all.

Under normal challenge circumstances, that don't set Pokemon limit (Duo, Trio), how many Pokemon are needed for the challenge to count? Some are restricted (Dragon monotype RBY, where you have 1 family to choose from), but many (Blue Color challenge on DPPt, for example) have plenty of options. Obviously there's no limit to the maximum number of Pokemon you can use, but what's the minimum? 1 is much too low (and I'd be done with all the challenges in just a few playthroughs lol), but 6 definitely isn't needed? Is 2 enough? 3? 4? What do you guys think?

I agree with jd, as you said, 1 or 2 is a bit low for even the most restricted challenges (Except for of course, challenges that is like a duo or solo). So 3 should be a good minimum.
Of course, I can't say for Gen 4 or 5, since I get bored from just playing them since it's so slow without a speed up. But for the first 3 gens, playing with 1 or 2 pokemon is not that hard,
since the pokemon would be overleveled by then, a great deal so. ( Save if you use terrible pokemon of course).
But if you use, 3 pokemon, even if you are stronger than the champ for each pokemon, the elite four would still be able to eat through you if you don't be wary enough.
Let's say the champ's pokemon are at an average 60, that's six pokemon. And your's would be about lv 70~75 at average, maybe even less. But if it were a duo, it would be at and average 60 for the champ and about 80~85 for you! ( I'm not saying that this would mow down the opponents though ) A solo would be even more one sided, the champ's would be 60 and you would be at about 90~ 100! But then again, the gyms would be mowed down, but the champ and the elite four can make life hard for your solo.
So all in all, a 3 pokemon is a good minimum!

 

[myrrhman]

I think it depends. My view is that 3 is really the minimum, if you have enough good options, to really have a chance at beating the game without either massive overleveling/grinding or item spamming, both of which I dislike. I really hate having to revive pokemon mid-battle, especially against the Champions. It feels unfair in my mind since they can't do that, and using tons of full restores to PP stall sucks too.

I think it depends both on the challenge and the game you're playing. For example, in my BW monotypes, I try to get a team of 5 if I can for the pregame (5 unova pokemon), which isn't as much of a hardship because of the Lucky Egg, and it ends up being somewhat challenging to fight N and Ghetsis, while also being able to see how the new Pokemon play out. Then I fill out any remaining spots in the postgame with Pokemon from earlier gens that I either like or want to try out. The Lucky Egg is really the only reason I am able to do that without getting bored.

That's just an example, and I play that way because it's fun for me.

If I had to say that there was an absolute minimum, it would be two, since these aren't solos! but three should be the minimum in a perfect world imo.

See, back in the day when I started doing challenges, I would have full teams of 6, like every time (I think my first challenges were the Water RBY monotype and a Challenge where you use Team Rocket's Pokemon.) However, over time, I came to realize that you really didn't need that many Pokemon AT ALL to beat the game. Now, I don't remember when I voluntarily used 5-6 Pokemon for a challenge.

Now, we both know that its not that hard to solo the game with a Pokemon, even with a type disadvantage, a level 80 Pokemon can take out most of the Elite Four with a Body Slam or something. 2 Pokemon is a little tougher, and one might faint from time to time.

I think with 3 Pokemon, a lot of grinding around Victory Road is needed before you take on the Elite Four.

4 and up is just silly imo.

But, I sort of feel dirty just beating the game with 2 Pokemon. It feels like I'm not even trying. maybe its just because I'm that good at challenges. But, I feel like my main objective is quantity, not quality. So, minimal amount of extra grinding is super fun.

I agree with jd, as you said, 1 or 2 is a bit low for even the most restricted challenges (Except for of course, challenges that is like a duo or solo). So 3 should be a good minimum.
Of course, I can't say for Gen 4 or 5, since I get bored from just playing them since it's so slow without a speed up. But for the first 3 gens, playing with 1 or 2 pokemon is not that hard,
since the pokemon would be overleveled by then, a great deal so. ( Save if you use terrible pokemon of course).
But if you use, 3 pokemon, even if you are stronger than the champ for each pokemon, the elite four would still be able to eat through you if you don't be wary enough.
Let's say the champ's pokemon are at an average 60, that's six pokemon. And your's would be about lv 70~75 at average, maybe even less. But if it were a duo, it would be at and average 60 for the champ and about 80~85 for you! ( I'm not saying that this would mow down the opponents though ) A solo would be even more one sided, the champ's would be 60 and you would be at about 90~ 100! But then again, the gyms would be mowed down, but the champ and the elite four can make life hard for your solo.
So all in all, a 3 pokemon is a good minimum!

I can't speak for all generations, but in Gen I, without excessive grinding, a normal growth rate Pokemon gets you at about 82 at the end of the game, and 2 Pokemon gets you at about 70 each. Gen II is about the same, I think you might be a little lower; about 68 for 2 Pokemon. For 3 Pokemon, I think my last run through Red Version ended with 47, 57, and 62 or something.

 

[Sydian]

After what Sydian said, I really hope I get approved

Nope. :3c You didn't include your sign up, which to me says "I'm just posting this, not taking part in it" and that's a no no.

That in mind, I want to punch this forum...why do people think it's the place to post threads to ask for advice on challenges? Why do people like to advertise here, when OBVIOUSLY an advertisement won't get approved? Y U NO READ RULES :( :( :(

Though almost everyone that posts in this thread has read the rules and has run successful challenge threads. So...idek. There's a few things I'm thinking of doing in this section, but it involves making more rules that no one would read, and tbh I don't like the idea of this forum getting any more strict. LE SIGH.

Also, I would consider 3 the minimum. It's half a team, and it's good enough. Going through with 3 Pokemon isn't as bad as 2 or 1, and it can give you the balance you need. So I'd put 3 as the minimum, even though technically, it's more of the median.

 

[Jellicent♀]

Y U NO READ RULES :( :( :(

Because they're as lame as old soda cans with dead ants in them. :c

There's a few things I'm thinking of doing in this section, but it involves making more rules that no one would read, and tbh I don't like the idea of this forum getting any more strict. LE SIGH.

I say make more rules. If people can't listen to them, forget them, they don't need to be here. :/
Don't follow the rules, don't get to play.

Also, I would consider 3 the minimum. It's half a team, and it's good enough. Going through with 3 Pokemon isn't as bad as 2 or 1, and it can give you the balance you need. So I'd put 3 as the minimum, even though technically, it's more of the median.

I agree with this. There's already a Duo Challenge thread, and a solo thread (correct me if I'm wrong), so if someone just posted that they were using only two Pokemon, they could have just signed up for the Duo Species challenge.

 

[myrrhman]

Also, I would consider 3 the minimum. It's half a team, and it's good enough. Going through with 3 Pokemon isn't as bad as 2 or 1, and it can give you the balance you need. So I'd put 3 as the minimum, even though technically, it's more of the median.

I feel ya. And I think we all agree that 1 being the minimum would just be silly. But if its a matter of needed balance, or easiness, I feel like 2 is plenty. Is minimum a person to person basis because of these things, which would make my minimum 2, or is it something more?

It should probably be said now that I've used 2 Pokemon before for runs, and I've caught a 3rd Pokemon before when 2 Pokemon certainly would have sufficed. I don't really know where I stand on this, which is why I guess I brought it up. If someone convinces me that 3 should be the minimum, I'll go with 3, and if someone convinces me that 2 should be the minimum, I'll go with 2.

During my last challenge, Red Color on Red, I caught a Krabby (at level 15) even though my Charizard and Vileplume were plenty strong enough to duo the rest of the game. I had already obtained 6 badges. I caught the Krabby, and then went to Rock Tunnel and trained him on wilds until he evolved, at which point he soloed Blaine's Gym, and soon after, Giovanni's Gym. However, I beat the Elite Four almost exclusively with Charizard and Vileplume, and I know I could have if I didn't catch the Krabby. As far as Blaine and Giovanni, Charizard had Earthquake, which would have made short work of Blaine's team, and Vileplume was equipped with Mega Drain and Petal Dance for Giovanni. Basically, the Krabby wasn't needed, and didn't really play an important part in me beating the challenge, because the rest of my team could have done it without him. Was I right in catching the Krabby, spending the time training him on wilds, and then using him in Gyms that effectively just took exp away from my other two Pokemon?

 

[Sydian]

I would say that minimum thing is a personal preference. Like how you were saying you don't like using teams of 6, I can't stand having any less than 6 once I'm ready for the E4. I plan out my teams and such before restarting a game and I'm a loser and have teams and movesets written in my notebook and YEAH I'm just a bit silly like that... :( So 6 is my minimum and, obviously, my maximum haha.

I say make more rules. If people can't listen to them, forget them, they don't need to be here. :/
Don't follow the rules, don't get to play.

There was another rule I was considering adding that will be more of a benefit to y'all, but I'll have to ask another mod about their approach to it so I'd know how to keep it in check etc.

 

[Jellicent♀]

I would say that minimum thing is a personal preference. Like how you were saying you don't like using teams of 6, I can't stand having any less than 6 once I'm ready for the E4. I plan out my teams and such before restarting a game and I'm a loser and have teams and movesets written in my notebook and YEAH I'm just a bit silly like that... :( So 6 is my minimum and, obviously, my maximum haha.



There was another rule I was considering adding that will be more of a benefit to y'all, but I'll have to ask another mod about their approach to it so I'd know how to keep it in check etc.

Oh don't worry, I'm the same exact way with my teams. >->"
(has seven notebooks, most of the pages are old and worn from erasing and re-writing moves and whatnot) I've even planned out the team I'm going to use for my valentine's run I'm doing in Emerald. >->"


Why not ask some of the regular members who frequent this forum, too?

 

[myrrhman]

I would say that minimum thing is a personal preference. Like how you were saying you don't like using teams of 6, I can't stand having any less than 6 once I'm ready for the E4. I plan out my teams and such before restarting a game and I'm a loser and have teams and movesets written in my notebook and YEAH I'm just a bit silly like that... :( So 6 is my minimum and, obviously, my maximum haha.



There was another rule I was considering adding that will be more of a benefit to y'all, but I'll have to ask another mod about their approach to it so I'd know how to keep it in check etc.

Aight, I guess I'll stick to 2. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I think three is needed, I guess I just think 2 is the absolute minimum.

I do that too sometimes when I'm bored! I guess I don't really write them all out, but I certainly plan my exact team and movesets before I start a challenge.

Oh, and I certainly would love a benefit rule! Make it happen, cap'n!

 

[jdthebud]

I feel ya. And I think we all agree that 1 being the minimum would just be silly. But if its a matter of needed balance, or easiness, I feel like 2 is plenty. Is minimum a person to person basis because of these things, which would make my minimum 2, or is it something more?

It should probably be said now that I've used 2 Pokemon before for runs, and I've caught a 3rd Pokemon before when 2 Pokemon certainly would have sufficed. I don't really know where I stand on this, which is why I guess I brought it up. If someone convinces me that 3 should be the minimum, I'll go with 3, and if someone convinces me that 2 should be the minimum, I'll go with 2.

During my last challenge, Red Color on Red, I caught a Krabby (at level 15) even though my Charizard and Vileplume were plenty strong enough to duo the rest of the game. I had already obtained 6 badges. I caught the Krabby, and then went to Rock Tunnel and trained him on wilds until he evolved, at which point he soloed Blaine's Gym, and soon after, Giovanni's Gym. However, I beat the Elite Four almost exclusively with Charizard and Vileplume, and I know I could have if I didn't catch the Krabby. As far as Blaine and Giovanni, Charizard had Earthquake, which would have made short work of Blaine's team, and Vileplume was equipped with Mega Drain and Petal Dance for Giovanni. Basically, the Krabby wasn't needed, and didn't really play an important part in me beating the challenge, because the rest of my team could have done it without him. Was I right in catching the Krabby, spending the time training him on wilds, and then using him in Gyms that effectively just took exp away from my other two Pokemon?

The problem with your example IMO is that you are using the Gen I games, which are riduculously easy to beat in comparison to the later games, considering that the AI is a joke. The later games (Gen III and on) are a lot harder to beat with two pokemon. For example, I can solo the E4 in Gen I with a L60 Pokemon easily, if it has a decent moveset (lol Nidoking L50). Cynthia can be really hard to beat without reviving since her team is so versatile.

As for Gen II, Red can be difficult to beat with a team of two at L60, but a team of 3 at L60 can take him down pretty decently. If yout team of 2 is around L70, Red isn't as hard. However, that assumes your duo has decent moves, and you don't get stuck with Charizard spamming Flamethrower in the sun, lol.

So IMO, Gen I doesn't really apply when I talk about a minimum of three, although you would need a couple decent pokemon (Charizard is a great one, he doesn't really have any counters in the E4 aside from Blastoise and maybe Onix if he survives Earthquake). FireRed would be harder to beat with Charizard and Vileplume because the AI is a lot better.

How about this, Myrrhman? Next time you play a game, deposit your HM slaves before the E4 (unless you already do this). That will make it more challenging because you won't be able to revive your team with them. :)

 

[Enigma]

A little late to this discussion, but nonetheless, I am here. Personally, my minimum for most challenges is three or four. Four is more common of an amount for me to use, but if my choices for Pokemon are pretty slim, that's when I use three. It bothers me to use only use one or two Pokemon in a challenge, unless it's a solo or duospecies of course. Also, it may be just me, but I like seeing a few different Pokemon in my party. I appreciate the diversity factor as well, but like what was already said, diversity isn't always dependent upon your amount of party members.
So yeah. Three or four for me personally.

 

[myrrhman]

The problem with your example IMO is that you are using the Gen I games, which are riduculously easy to beat in comparison to the later games, considering that the AI is a joke. The later games (Gen III and on) are a lot harder to beat with two pokemon. For example, I can solo the E4 in Gen I with a L60 Pokemon easily, if it has a decent moveset (lol Nidoking L50). Cynthia can be really hard to beat without reviving since her team is so versatile.

As for Gen II, Red can be difficult to beat with a team of two at L60, but a team of 3 at L60 can take him down pretty decently. If yout team of 2 is around L70, Red isn't as hard. However, that assumes your duo has decent moves, and you don't get stuck with Charizard spamming Flamethrower in the sun, lol.

So IMO, Gen I doesn't really apply when I talk about a minimum of three, although you would need a couple decent pokemon (Charizard is a great one, he doesn't really have any counters in the E4 aside from Blastoise and maybe Onix if he survives Earthquake). FireRed would be harder to beat with Charizard and Vileplume because the AI is a lot better.

How about this, Myrrhman? Next time you play a game, deposit your HM slaves before the E4 (unless you already do this). That will make it more challenging because you won't be able to revive your team with them. :)

Maybe I just need to hurry up and finish the Gen I challenges then. You're probably right, I'll have a harder time with the later games. I've been playing nothing but RBGSC, because the emulator runs them fastest, maybe I should do some RSE or something.

And yeah, I deposit HM Slaves before fighting E4. Either that or I just don't buy revives (you can do that in RB, don't know about the other games.

 

[heLLkitsune]

I was thinking about a challenge "Monkey see, monkey do!". The major rule of the challenge is: You can't use a Pokemon unless you haven't seen someone using it. For example, in FR/LG the first pokemon you could use (if you battled those trainers of course) would be Weedle,Caterpie, Kakuna, Metapod or your rival's Pidgey, but you can't evolve them further, until you see someone using a Beedrill, Pidgeotto etc. This would give you a nice variety of Pokemon to choose from and also some restrictions. There could be an extra rule that you can't use Pokemon gym leaders use. What do you guys think of this idea, would it be enough "challenging" to become an actual challenge and do you have anything to add?

 

[myrrhman]

I was thinking about a challenge "Monkey see, monkey do!".The major rule of the challenge is: You can't use a Pokemon unless you haven't seen someone using it. For example, in FR/LG the first pokemon you could use (if you battled those trainers of course) would be Weedle,Caterpie, Kakuna, Metapod or your rival's Pidgey, but you can't evolve them further, until you see someone using a Beedrill, Pidgeotto etc. This would give you a nice variety of Pokemon to choose from and also some restrictions. There could be an extra rule that you can't use Pokemon gym leaders use. What do you guys think of this idea, would it be enough "challenging" to become an actual challenge and do you have anything to add?

You should obviously call it "Mankey see, Mankey do!"
Do you mean You can't use a Pokemon unless you see someone use it?
This would make Brock hella fun. Sand Attack will probably have to save the day.
Damn, this means I can't do it, because I don't know how to not speed button, and they always evolve on accident.
Seeing everyone starting the same and ending different would be pretty cool, actually.
Would it still count if another trainer uses the Pokemon? Like you see Brock's Geodude, but then later in Mt. Moon you see a Hiker's Geodude. Would that count? Also what about Giovanni in Silph? I'm pretty sure that's the only time that you see a Nidoqueen other than the last gym in Red and blue.
I think this challenge is pretty good, actually. And hey, not all challenges have to be pull-your-hair-out-hard.
Nothing else needs to be said here.
Just some pretty colors.

 

[Gulpin]

I was thinking about a challenge "Monkey see, monkey do!". The major rule of the challenge is: You can't use a Pokemon unless you haven't seen someone using it. For example, in FR/LG the first pokemon you could use (if you battled those trainers of course) would be Weedle,Caterpie, Kakuna, Metapod or your rival's Pidgey, but you can't evolve them further, until you see someone using a Beedrill, Pidgeotto etc. This would give you a nice variety of Pokemon to choose from and also some restrictions. There could be an extra rule that you can't use Pokemon gym leaders use. What do you guys think of this idea, would it be enough "challenging" to become an actual challenge and do you have anything to add?

I think that a pretty cool spin that you could put on this challenge would be to pretty much flip the idea: You can only use Pokemon that you haven't seen other trainers use. The amount of Pokemon that you will have the ability to use would shrink as you make progress in the game. Plus, it can have two different strategies - either play through battling most trainers, limiting the amount of Pokemon you can use or play through skipping as many trainers as possible to keep the amount of Pokemon usable high.

 

[myrrhman]

I like both of them. Put both in a thread!

 

[jdthebud]

Alright, my monocolor thread got approved, everyone who's in that, move to that thread, and if you have ever completed it before, post your color and the game you played in the thread and I will add you.

 

[SuperKirbyFan]

How about this, Myrrhman? Next time you play a game, deposit your HM slaves before the E4 (unless you already do this). That will make it more challenging because you won't be able to revive your team with them. :)

Wait... you're allowed to use HM slaves in a battle??? I've been playing my Weedle solo run under the impression that you can't do that (or are solo runs different?) If you can use slaves, that might make it so I can finally defeat Red!

 

[Gulpin]

I've always wanted to know what people think of this: When do you think that a challenge should end? When reading through challenges that I might potentially participate in, one of the rules is always when the challenge ends. The one thing that I don't like is that for many challenges they end after you beat the E4 in RBY, RSE, FRLG, and DPPt, which I think is fine, but then for GSC, HGSS, and BW they end after you beat Red or Alder, respectively. I personally think that all challenges should end when the credits of the game roll. Whenever considering doing a challenge on GSC, HGSS, and BW it always discourages me because I see that I would have to continue after the Elite Four and play the postgame to beat Red or Alder, which I think is a lot of work for a challenge.
So my question is when should a challenge end? And should there be a general rule for when all challenges should end?

 

[psyanic]

So my question is when should a challenge end? And should there be a general rule for when all challenges should end?

Honestly, the challenge ends when you complete the game. That's ambiguous, sure, but it's a general rule of thumb that beating everyone you possibly can in-game is what constitutes as completed. So it's only natural that for HGSS/GSC, you'd have to beat Red, since he is a challenge. What's the point of a challenge if there's still someone left to beat? Also, for Emerald, I see a lot of people requiring you to beat Steven to complete a challenge. In my opinion, that's a lot harder since the Elite Four is only at 58 ish, while Steven jumps up to 75.

On another note, not sure if there's already a thread up on this, but what if there was a challenge where you had to renew your team every gym? Like just dump your party and start fresh?

 

[jdthebud]

Wait... you're allowed to use HM slaves in a battle??? I've been playing my Weedle solo run under the impression that you can't do that (or are solo runs different?) If you can use slaves, that might make it so I can finally defeat Red!

Well, I don't think HM slaves are allowed, although your Weedle solo might be an exception, lol. Ask Myrrhman about that.

I've always wanted to know what people think of this: When do you think that a challenge should end? When reading through challenges that I might potentially participate in, one of the rules is always when the challenge ends. The one thing that I don't like is that for many challenges they end after you beat the E4 in RBY, RSE, FRLG, and DPPt, which I think is fine, but then for GSC, HGSS, and BW they end after you beat Red or Alder, respectively. I personally think that all challenges should end when the credits of the game roll. Whenever considering doing a challenge on GSC, HGSS, and BW it always discourages me because I see that I would have to continue after the Elite Four and play the postgame to beat Red or Alder, which I think is a lot of work for a challenge.
So my question is when should a challenge end? And should there be a general rule for when all challenges should end?

The reason Red and Alder are the end for those games is because in GSC, beating the E4 is real easy, and otherwise the game would be way too short imo. As for Alder being the final battle in BW, that's because you never beat the champion the first time.

IMO, the challenge ends when you beat the Champion of the game. I actually think that Wallace is a good ending for Emerald, but Red and Alder are the real champions of their respective games.