Should the maximum level cap be decreased/increased?

[Orion☆]

As you all know, the maximum level Pokémon can reach (not counting glitches in Gen I) has always been level 100. Training Pokémon up to this level is also seen as an achievement due to how difficult it can be, especially in earlier generations. However, the maximum level cap is adjusted to 50 for most battle facilities like the Battle Tower, as well as for online play. Similarly, some fan games have worked in levels beyond 100, with Insurgence having a level 120 cap, Reborn going up to level 150 in its final release, and Soulstones going up to 175.

My question is, are you content with the current level cap, or do you feel it should be decreased or increased? What would you do (or think GF would do) to accomodate for a new level cap or improve the current one?

In my opinion, it doesn't make much of a difference what level cap is implemented, because the final level always represents that the Pokémon has reached maximum strength. That said, out of tradition, I would rather keep the cap at level 100 - as in, the Pokémon being at 100% strength. What the aforementioned fan games did with the level cap just feels... off, somehow? I believe Game Freak would rather adjust experience gain to the amount of plot-related battles in the game than increase the level cap, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Drayton]

I'm really fine with the current level cap right now as it higher than 100 it would be troublesome to level up at that point, also how affecting the stats growth beyond cap stats and base stats total that means GF would have to readjust if they plan a new max level cap for a new base stats total.

 

[Devalue]

Prefers it left at 100. Feels better to reach a nice, round number.

Wishes for better level scaling to reach the cap. Cannot think of any Pokemon above level 80. Rarely cracks 70.

Encounters gym leaders #4 and #5 with level 35 Pokemon at present. Argues for level 45 instead. Represents a rough midpoint. Proposes a champion around level 85 to 90. Leaves room for people to overlevel to muscle through it.

 

[_confused_piplup_]

It's really good at 100. In older games it was quite difficult to even get a Pokemon to level 100. With Swo/shi it finally became easier, which is good for everyone who wants many pokemon to be level 100 without wasting to much time, for collectors and i guess for competitive players as well. So, yeah I would never change it and I actually like how faster it became to get pokemon to level 100 in gen 8, so I hope they will keep the same thing in next games too.

 

[ReKoil]

The highest level I've reached through natural play, without grinding for xp, but while completing the dex, has been around level 90.
Since mons don't really reach level 100 naturally without grinding, raising the level cap seems unnecessary.

I'm okay with the level 100 level cap. It is neither reached naturally nor do you need to excessively grind for it in the more recent titles.

 

[giradialkia]

I think a higher level cap would allow for more storytelling. As it stands, we're currently quite bound to completing the main storyline, without much wiggle room for a decent challenge in the postgame.

GSC/HGSS are an example of where the game would benefit from a raised level cap.
With all of the Kanto Leaders circulating around the level 45-50 mark (excluding Blue, who approached level 60), there's just a tremendous imbalance by the time you come to challenge Red, especially considering the strongest wild Pokémon are literally the ones encountered at Mt. Silver, again in the mid forties.

Basically, a broader cap would allow for better balance overall, if done correctly.

 

[Zeostar]

A current change doesn't feel necessary. Even with Full Party EXP share and lengthier story content such as Ultra Sun/Moon, I still seem to cap between levels 70-80.

 

[Corveone]

I'd actually prefer it capping at around 70-80, because other than legendaries what even still learns moves at that point?

I never seen the point of taking so much time raising a Pokémon (let alone an entire team) to level 100, when such levels are never needed in-game, and the competitive can just use an auto-level scalling system, rendering levels pointless.

So as I see it, the main purpose of having levels at all is for learning moves. Other than that I'd prefer levels being not so important. When I play Pokémon games I allways try to keep my team at around the levels of whoever I'm going to battle at that point in the game anyway. At level 10 I'll be probably battling level 10 things and at level 90 I'll be battling level 90 things.

So, since (in well balanced games) you're scaling with the game it really makes no big difference. Games won't get harder just because opponents get higher levels because your levels increase as well. And games that force difficulty through unfair level spikes are just inherently poorly designed anyway.

 

[Sprigatito]

Totally

 

[Sheep]

I'm happy with it staying the same. 100 is such a satisfying number and I'm always really content seeing my Pokémon hit that level, and not just because it's the cap. 120 also looks good and I wouldn't be opposed to that either, but 100 is already pretty good. o7

 

[Duck]

In my ideal world, I personally would change the level cap ... to 0, that is, getting rid of levels at all.

From a gameplay perspective, levels are just "line goes up" and an attempt to force a game progression but that implies that:

1) Overlevelling is a possible (and common) problem
2) Immersion is broken because you can have things like a 5 year old with stronger Pokemon than most gyms
3) There's almost always a level difference between your wild Pokemon and your actual team, so you need to waste time getting those Pokemon up to speed, thus discouraging people from doing team rotations.

In a system without levels, you essentially work with anime rules and you can start working on a game that focus more heavily in strategy.

Now instead of "grind and then spam SE" you'd need more time selecting moves and making a cohesive strategy.

You could also do things like an open world game because now there's no level curve to deal with, just place a mixture of Pokemon at different evolution levels at the overworld and go ham.

This will, of course, never happen because that'd make the game less approachable to little kids, but I just don't really think levels are that great of an idea for Pokemon specifically.

 

[colours]

i never really thought of dropping levels entirely, but Shooting Star makes a hell of a good case for it happening lmao

but nah, don't raise the level cap. i never really found there to be much of a point of getting to 100 in the first place, and the games don't provide much (if any??) reason for doing so, beyond maybe moveset reasons for the odd pokemon that learns a specific move super late. it's one of those ideas that sound nice on paper but doesn't have any real purpose in practice.

 

[Megan]

I don't think many people like grinding. So increasing the maximum seems kinda pointless. The official competitive format caps at 50 and inofficial formats use simulators for the most part. So they don't care either way.

Decreasing the maximum also brings up the question if we really need levels at all.

but nah, don't raise the level cap. i never really found there to be much of a point of getting to 100 in the first place, and the games don't provide much (if any??) reason for doing so, beyond maybe moveset reasons for the odd pokemon that learns a specific move super late. it's one of those ideas that sound nice on paper but doesn't have any real purpose in practice.

Even for Pokemon that learn moves at really high levels that doesn't always make sense. That's because most of them can access them via Move Relearner, as well.

 

[Aqua2201]

Level cap cannot be decreased. Its impossible to decrease the level, just like the other RPG games.

 

[Duck]

Level cap cannot be decreased. Its impossible to decrease the level, just like the other RPG games.

I don't think you quite understand the point? The level cap is the biggest level a Pokemon can get in the game, that can absolutely be decreased between games - Game Freak could, for example, say that instead of maxing out at level 100, Pokémon levels will max out at level 75 in Scarlet and Violet.

The only problem would be that it breaks compatibility between generations, any Pokémon at level 76 or higher wouldn't be able to be transferred into the newer game. That's a concern, but sometimes you need to break backwards compatibility if you want to fix some problems (like GF did with Gen III, for example).

And even if it was a case of just making Pokémon lower level than they currently are, like say, a "reverse Rare Candy". There's also no reason they couldn't do something like this in the game. It could even come in handy in a couple of places, e.g.:
- Make more Pokemon / moves available for Little Cup or other restrictive formats
- Make a strong Pokémon weaker to obtain obedience

If the item could de-evolve Pokemon or we got a Pokemon de-evolution item it'd also make completing Pokedex entries easier (less breeding / no need for Ditto).

And last but not least, there are some RPGs out there that do have items that do some stuff like that. The Digimon World DS RPGs have different level caps per evolution and to raise the cap you need to de-volve (and thus losing levels) and re-evolve (which is often needed to gain access to the stronger evolutions). I don't think that system was great, but it's a system that plays with level caps and losing levels in a way that's less niche.

 

[Corveone]

The only problem would be that it breaks compatibility between generations, any Pokémon at level 76 or higher wouldn't be able to be transferred into the newer game. That's a concern, but sometimes you need to break backwards compatibility if you want to fix some problems (like GF did with Gen III, for example).

Probably not a problem, since the modern games already have level downscaling mechanics for Battle facilities and that stuff. A traded level 100 Pokémon could have its stats downscaled to level 75, while keeping its IVs and EVs untouched.

 

[Sweet Serenity]

I hate how Pokémon games frequently adjust the levels to 50 when playing battle facilities or competitive ranked battles. I consider it a slap in the face to players, such as me for example, that actually grind their Pokémon to reach level 100. I believe that simply reducing them to level 50, even temporarily, nullifies all the hard work that went into either training your Pokémon to reach level 100 or grinding for the experience candies to increase their experience points and levels when playing Pokémon Sword and Shield. I believe that the level adjustment coddles players that are too lazy to grind their Pokémon to level 100. I believe that battles facilities and competitive battles should at least provide players with the option to choose if they want their levels adjusted or not to show respect for players that actually enjoy the grind. Nonetheless, with my rant already being made, to answer the question, I definitely wouldn't mind a higher level cap in Pokémon, mainly to change things up and make the games more interesting. I've seen builds in other RPGs where characters can reach level 200. I wouldn't mind if Pokémon, for example, had a "New Game Plus" feature that could allow for easier grinding, an even more difficult competitive experience, added difficulty within the new playthrough, new bonus content, and the ability to do the grind all over again with 100 more possible levels to gain. I believe that doing this would definitely transcend Pokémon games and make them more enjoyable.

 

[Palamon]

If Pokemon adjusts the level cap higher, then they'd have to make it so that it's easier to level Pokemon up to 100 before doing that. This would require a lot of adjustments to how EXP works currently.

But, no, they shouldn't. Pokemon is fine at the 100 level cap.

 

[Gardevoir1]

And even if it was a case of just making Pokémon lower level than they currently are, like say, a "reverse Rare Candy". There's also no reason they couldn't do something like this in the game. It could even come in handy in a couple of places, e.g.:
.

In fact, theres already a precedent for that in the Mystery Dungeon games with the "Doom Seed" that permanently lowers your level by one, probably to ensure people are still able to get evolutions, learn certain moves, and all that. Could be useful if there was a variant in the main series games for sure.

 

[cloa513]

In my ideal world, I personally would change the level cap ... to 0, that is, getting rid of levels at all.

From a gameplay perspective, levels are just "line goes up" and an attempt to force a game progression but that implies that:

1) Overlevelling is a possible (and common) problem
2) Immersion is broken because you can have things like a 5 year old with stronger Pokemon than most gyms
3) There's almost always a level difference between your wild Pokemon and your actual team, so you need to waste time getting those Pokemon up to speed, thus discouraging people from doing team rotations.

In a system without levels, you essentially work with anime rules and you can start working on a game that focus more heavily in strategy.

Now instead of "grind and then spam SE" you'd need more time selecting moves and making a cohesive strategy.

You could also do things like an open world game because now there's no level curve to deal with, just place a mixture of Pokemon at different evolution levels at the overworld and go ham.

This will, of course, never happen because that'd make the game less approachable to little kids, but I just don't really think levels are that great of an idea for Pokemon specifically.

How is the game approachable to little kids? It is bewildering. You can't work out how to the play the game from information inside the game. It is for teenagers.