What's with all the hatred for the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system?

[Sweet Serenity]

The Exp. Share makes everything easier when you play. When you're leveling up, you no longer have to grind by leveling up every single Pokémon in your party individually. In addition, the Exp. Share makes EV training much more easier because every single Pokémon in the party gets rewarded with the same EV, even if they didn't battle. Thus, when you need to EV Pokémon for Speed, you can simply put all of the necessary Pokémon in your party at once instead of doing it one at a time. The friendship/affection feature offers added perks during a regular playthrough, such as a boosted critical hit ratio, the ability to endure KOs, increased evasion, and so on. This makes casual battles much more dynamic and helpful. What is with the hatred for these features?

 

[Explorer of Time]

The issue is that a lot of us don't want to make everything easier when we play. The Exp. Share leads to overleveling in some games, and the friendship/affection system buffs player-controlled Pokemon in a way that AI-controlled Pokemon can't take advantage of. In games where they're mandatory, both the Exp. Share and Affection interfere with people who want single-player Pokemon to be more challenging.

I really enjoy figuring out how to beat various boss battles with an underleveled team, but in games with a mandatory Exp. Share, it's really hard to have that experience because Pokemon get too strong too fast.

 

[Nah]

Everybody plays these games for different reasons and has different things they want out of them. But what's pushed it over the edge for some people these days is that these things have in recent years become mandatory instead of optional like they used to be. If you didn't like or want to make use of the Exp All system or the affection system, you didn't have to, and so there was little to complain about. But now that it's forced (though the only game so far to force the affection system is BDSP), people who didn't want to play with those things now have to, when Game Freak gains nothing and loses nothing by making it mandatory.

Personally I really don't mind the modern Exp Share mechanic not being toggleable, I really don't play Pokemon to be challenged during the main story, though I don't care of the affection system out of a personal dislike of mine of "sheer willpower and bonds between people trump literally everything else" stuff, plus how it tends to slow down the games' often already slow and clunky/unoptimized flow of battle.

 

[Corveone]

The issue is that a lot of us don't want to make everything easier when we play. The Exp. Share leads to overleveling in some games, and the friendship/affection system buffs player-controlled Pokemon in a way that AI-controlled Pokemon can't take advantage of. In games where they're mandatory, both the Exp. Share and Affection interfere with people who want single-player Pokemon to be more challenging.

This.

Exp. Share > overlevelling, which many players don't like. In order to avoid this we have to:

-Skip a number of trainer battles and/or optional areas, which basically means skipping content.
And/or
-Use more than one team, temporarily boxing Pokémon that reached or are reaching the level cap, something not everyone wants. Some want to pick a team and stick with it for the whole game.

Affection bonusses: Unfair and completely unnecessary one-sided advantage that the AI doesn't have, in a game series that already offers little challenge to begin with. Forces players not to use Amie, Camp, etc. to prevent these bonusses from happening.

They also overlap with certain Abilities and moves rendering them pointless. It's hard to appreciate Sturdy if any of your Pokémon can survive hits with 1 HP through the power of love. Or Shed Skin and Items/moves that get rid of status conditions when any of your Pokémon can shake them off for free. Or damage/crit boosts when Pokémon randomly do more damage so you wouldn't feel sad.

 

[Angel-of-Light-Kelly]

I'm not one to really play the games for the challenge, but I can agree that the exp share always being on can be really annoying. I personally get around it by carrying around Pokemon I need leveled up to evolve or need to grind friendship with, though that's annoying in itself because then I don't have my full team when I need it.

 

[Squirtkipfan01]

People get annoyed with the exp share because its forced, no option to turn it off when you could prior. Doesnt personally bug me but i see why other are annoyed who want SOME challenge. And the friendship thing just gives you an unfair advantage against AI, furthering the less difficulty. At this point though the games seem to be made more and more beginner friendly and easy so not the biggest surprise

 

[Sweet Serenity]

The issue is that a lot of us don't want to make everything easier when we play. The Exp. Share leads to overleveling in some games, and the friendship/affection system buffs player-controlled Pokemon in a way that AI-controlled Pokemon can't take advantage of. In games where they're mandatory, both the Exp. Share and Affection interfere with people who want single-player Pokemon to be more challenging.

I really enjoy figuring out how to beat various boss battles with an underleveled team, but in games with a mandatory Exp. Share, it's really hard to have that experience because Pokemon get too strong too fast.

The Exp. Share itself doesn't lead to overleveling. Overleveling happens based upon your actions, such as the Pokémon you chose for your team and their level-up rate, how often you choose to battle or catch wild Pokémon, whether you choose to run from wild Pokémon or not, or, in the case of Pokémon Scarlet and Violet, how often you choose to engage in battles with trainers. As for the friendship/affection system buffing player-controlled Pokémon in a way that the AI can't take advantage of, that isn't exclusive to the friendship/affection system. Even in games where this feature never existed, the ability to spam items during battle, which could essentially prevent you from ever losing, is something that the AI can't take advantage of as well. Even with the Exp. Share and the friendship/affection system, the games can still be very challenging depending on how you play. Because the friendship/affection system provides additional benefits during battle, it does not make your team invincible. The best way to play Pokémon without overleveling is to avoid engaging in many battles or choose a team of Pokémon with a slow leveling rate. It is also possible to use more than one team during a playthrough.

Everybody plays these games for different reasons and has different things they want out of them. But what's pushed it over the edge for some people these days is that these things have in recent years become mandatory instead of optional like they used to be. If you didn't like or want to make use of the Exp All system or the affection system, you didn't have to, and so there was little to complain about. But now that it's forced (though the only game so far to force the affection system is BDSP), people who didn't want to play with those things now have to, when Game Freak gains nothing and loses nothing by making it mandatory.

Yes, Exp. Share is optional nowadays, but my question is why does it matter? I expect different answers to that question and I look forward to hearing them so that I can see different people's opinions and determine whether or not I agree with them.

This.

Exp. Share > overlevelling, which many players don't like. In order to avoid this we have to:

-Skip a number of trainer battles and/or optional areas, which basically means skipping content.
And/or
-Use more than one team, temporarily boxing Pokémon that reached or are reaching the level cap, something not everyone wants. Some want to pick a team and stick with it for the whole game.

As I explained to Explorer of Time, Exp. Share doesn't result in overleveling, but rather the actions of the player. The ways you listed to avoid overleveling are valid and prove my point. Skipping a number of trainer battles and/or optional areas does not mean skipping content because if your main concern is overleveling, then you're mostly likely referring to not wanting to be overleveled for certain aspects of the story. Thus, it is possible to return to the areas that you skipped after finishing those aspects of the story that you wanted to take on. Saving content for later is perfectly reasonable. Using more than one team is valid as well, but if people want to use a single team for their entire playthrough, then, as I explained to Explorer of Time, players can find solutions such as building a team of Pokémon with a slow leveling rate and/or simply not engaging in every single trainer or wild Pokémon battle until you're finished taking on everything that you wanted to take on at an even level.

Affection bonusses: Unfair and completely unnecessary one-sided advantage that the AI doesn't have, in a game series that already offers little challenge to begin with. Forces players not to use Amie, Camp, etc. to prevent these bonusses from happening.

The player has an advantage over the AI regardless. As I explained to Explorer of Time, the AI does not have access to an unlimited amount of Potions and Revives to keep itself in the battle either. It's this, as well as other gameplay aspects such as most trainers using monotype teams and Pokémon with no IVs, EVs, or held items, that make Pokémon less challenging than it could be. Yet, the friendship/affection system doesn't make players invincible. Simply because you might land critical hits more often or survive a KO at times doesn't mean you can't be challenged by or even lose to something that is programmed to be difficult, such as a battle with Cynthia in BSDP (who supposedly has fully EV-trained Pokémon with perfect IV and correct Natures) or Pokémon like Ultra Necrozma.

They also overlap with certain Abilities and moves rendering them pointless. It's hard to appreciate Sturdy if any of your Pokémon can survive hits with 1 HP through the power of love. Or Shed Skin and Items/moves that get rid of status conditions when any of your Pokémon can shake them off for free. Or damage/crit boosts when Pokémon randomly do more damage so you wouldn't feel sad.

I disagree. It is very possible to appreciate all of the above. Some Pokémon also perform better with the affection system, making them more useful. Almost every Pokémon has a "niche" for lack of a better word. For instance, some Pokémon are meant to do really well in the sun while others are designs to inflict critical hits more often, like Honchkrow. By the way, I'm using Honchkrow because I'm assuming it's your favorite since you're using it as your avatar and your username is based on a nickname you gave it. 😄 With max affection, Super Luck, a Scope Lens or Razor Claw, Honchkrow would be almost unstoppable during a regular playthrough. Being able to make personal favorites better should be something to consider as well.

 

[Corveone]

Thus, it is possible to return to the areas that you skipped after finishing those aspects of the story that you wanted to take on. Saving content for later is perfectly reasonable.

What's the point in returning to a route to defeat level 25 trainers when my team is at level 60? If the level curve was calibrated with permanent Exp. Share in mind (or if the games didn't remove the option to toggle it off temporarily) I wouldn't have skipped those trainers to begin with. When playing RPG games, it's allways more practical to clean up areas as you go through them, rather than rushing to the next town/important fight and have to remember or take notes of all the stuff you've left behind. I mean, I wouldn't need to do that in an RPG that I'm playing for the story, because I probably wouldn't mind overlevelling in that scenario, but that's not the case with Pokémon.

The player has an advantage over the AI regardless. As I explained to Explorer of Time, the AI does not have access to an unlimited amount of Potions and Revives to keep itself in the battle either.

We can choose to never use items during battle, we can choose to never switch on KO, we can decide not to use more than three Pokémon against a gym leader who only has three Pokémon... But we can't stop Pokémon from getting Affection bonusses if they reached enough affection to awaken them. It would be as simple as adding an option to keep Affection but remove the in-battle bonusses. There's even a cheat code that does that for BDSP.

Some Pokémon also perform better with the affection system, making them more useful.

Every Pokémon performs better with the affection system, it's not something that only benefits certain Pokémon. Besides, last time I checked Super Luck Honchkrow with Scope Lens had 50% crit ratio, and 100% for Night Slash, without Affection. More than enough to make it a great Pokémon for an in-game playthrough.

 

[Soaring Sid]

Say if you want a challenge, the Exp Share is quite the hindrance with pokémon ending up overleveled.

What I feel is, it just needs a little merf but i personally have no issues with it. Most of pokémon players who complain about EXP share are over 20 by this point and have played through generations where the Exp Share didn't apply to all and have had fun ( and also a bit of frustration) leveling up their pokémon.


Due to the introduction of Exp share between all pokémon in a party, games have become relatively easier for this part of the demographic.

At least this is what I've experienced from people I've spoken to, both IRL and online.


As for friendship it's cute but again reduces the difficulty of already easy games. Nonetheless it's really satisfying and wholesome to see a pokémon you raised up from a hatchling endure a hit and stand on a single point of HP for you

 

[Duck]

I think the problem here is that you're trying to make a global statement about something that's inherently local.

Based on previous interactions I feel I can safely say without misrepresentation that your playstyle is overwhelmingly focused on online play with the single player campaign being in some way less important.

A lot of the people complaining about affection and the Exp Share have the opposite playstyle, they focus a lot on single player, usually try to make it a more challenging experience, and barely (if at all) engage with online play. Which means that things that make the single player campaign easier or remove content or things like that are a massive deal because it ultimately means that you have less game in your game.

"The games are too easy, and forcing a mechanic that makes it even easier is not a design choice I appreciate." is fundamentally the point of view of the people complaining.

but my question is why does it matter?

Because they want the option to make the game harder for themselves and those mechanics are robbing them from that option. This isn't a subjective opinion, this is objective fact: forced Experience Share and forced Affection (and Exp Charm for that matter) make the game easier than it would otherwise be.

The game without them might not be something you'd call "hard", but it'd still be harder than the game without them. Are there better ways to solve the problem of difficulty? Sure, there are many, some of which work better with the Experience Share and Affection, but until Game Freak deigns to implement them, "I want to be able to opt-out of this" is a very reasonable request since it's almost trivial to implement and has minimal effects on the game design.

You can agree or disagree if you want, that's your prerogative, but saying something that basically amounts to "It's easy anyways" doesn't address the root cause of the complain, it addresses what seems to be your feeling and opinions about the complaint. This will lead you to talking past other people, since you're just not really engaging with what they're saying.

 

[Drayton]

EXP share isn't really big fuzz if you really not bother battling wild pokemon and only focus trainer battles, you get tiniest much from wild battles than trainers, honestly why the hate for EXP Share it one doesn't utilized decently. I wouldn't say EXP share is overrated and if you neglect wild battles, then your other party might not get much exp needed

 

[Amore]

I didn't play in the optional years, skipping from Gen V to VIII. I didn't mind in SwSh - I put most of my over-levelling down to spending over a week in the Wild Area capturing everything I could before entering Motostoke. But in BDSP, a remake of games where it was a held item, the level curve really needed to be adjusted. There's a balance to be found where leaving it off would make it reasonably challenging, whilst turning it on would be good for newbies.

As for affection - again, SwSh made it optional and that was great. BDSP making it mandatory meant that I felt robbed of a really good match against Cynthia when my Garchomp lost the speed tie but pulled through with 1 HP against hers (my remaining Pokémon were neutral against Garchomp).

SV has a different issue, which is that the freedom of the open world combined with a completely illogical "ideal route" means you'll definitely end up over-levelled at some point. That I managed to do it whilst going straight up the right and so doing what should be the 'last' gym fourth (Glaseado) is more down to my playing style of exploring every inch (and a brief period of shiny hunting - 120-odd Dreepy and Shuppet means a lot of XP!)

 

[Palamon]

Because people think it makes Pokemon too """""""""""""""""""""""""""'easy""""""""""""""""". I find the complaints about the EXP Share annoying as hell. Every single game has a shared exp system and yet when Pokemon gets it, everyone literally whines and complains. I've never been bothered by this change.

Affection doesn't bother me either. I do think it can be overpowered sometimes, but it's nice when sometimes, my Pokemon dodges an attack from its sheer love for me. But, like if it bothers people so much don't use Pokemon Amie. Don't use Pokemon Refresh, don't use Pokemon camp, etc. It's not that hard to just avoid the feature altogether as it's optional for this one in particular.

 

[Sweet Serenity]

What's the point in returning to a route to defeat level 25 trainers when my team is at level 60? If the level curve was calibrated with permanent Exp. Share in mind (or if the games didn't remove the option to toggle it off temporarily) I wouldn't have skipped those trainers to begin with. When playing RPG games, it's allways more practical to clean up areas as you go through them, rather than rushing to the next town/important fight and have to remember or take notes of all the stuff you've left behind. I mean, I wouldn't need to do that in an RPG that I'm playing for the story, because I probably wouldn't mind overlevelling in that scenario, but that's not the case with Pokémon.

As for the point of returning to a route to defeat low level trainers when your level is high, the point is based on what you said, which is to avoid missing content. I would assume that if the goal is to avoid overleveling, you want your levels to be on par with the more challenging aspects of the game, such as the Gym Leader battles, villain team bosses, the Elite Four, the Champion, and so on. Once you've already completed the game to a satisfactory level without overleveling, returning to fight the trainers you missed shouldn't be an issue if you truly value not skipping content. It's impossible to calibrate the level curve with the permanent Exp. Share because, as I mentioned beforehand, leveling up depends on how you play the game, not the Exp. Share itself. Regardless of how Game Freak programs the level curve, it is possible that your team will be overleveled. The possibility also exists that you can avoid skipping trainers and still not overlevel your team, depending on how you play the game.

We can choose to never use items during battle, we can choose to never switch on KO, we can decide not to use more than three Pokémon against a gym leader who only has three Pokémon... But we can't stop Pokémon from getting Affection bonusses if they reached enough affection to awaken them. It would be as simple as adding an option to keep Affection but remove the in-battle bonusses. There's even a cheat code that does that for BDSP.

Yet, friendship/affection bonuses don't provide much of an advantage in the first place.

Every Pokémon performs better with the affection system, it's not something that only benefits certain Pokémon. Besides, last time I checked Super Luck Honchkrow with Scope Lens had 50% crit ratio, and 100% for Night Slash, without Affection. More than enough to make it a great Pokémon for an in-game playthrough.

Some Pokémon benefit in better ways than others, which is what I meant. With max affection, Honchkrow can land critical hits with any move when considering the setup that I mentioned, not just Night Slash. Thus, Pokémon that have a critical hit niche perform the best out of all the other Pokémon that benefit from the affection system. Thus, using the friendship/affection system, you can make great casual playthrough teams centered around it and still be challenged depending on how you choose to play.

Say if you want a challenge, the Exp Share is quite the hindrance with pokémon ending up overleveled. What I feel is, it just needs a little merf but i personally have no issues with it. Most of pokémon players who complain about EXP share are over 20 by this point and have played through generations where the Exp Share didn't apply to all and have had fun ( and also a bit of frustration) leveling up their pokémon. Due to the introduction of Exp share between all pokémon in a party, games have become relatively easier for this part of the demographic. At least this is what I've experienced from people I've spoken to, both IRL and online. As for friendship it's cute but again reduces the difficulty of already easy games. Nonetheless it's really satisfying and wholesome to see a pokémon you raised up from a hatchling endure a hit and stand on a single point of HP for you

Again, as I said to many people in this thread, I reiterate that the Exp. Share does not overlevel your team, but rather the way you play the game. While the players that complain about the Exp. Share might often be older, I played the older games as well. I can assure that the lack of the Exp. Share as it exists today does not make the games more challenging. Instead, it just makes the games more tedious and forces you to battle a ton of wild Pokémon with each Pokémon in your team individually just to catch up before moving on. If anything, that ruins the fun of the single-player campaign. You can enjoy the single-player aspects more, such as the story, when you're not required to go through a bunch of grinding just to catch up. I'm also not convinced that friendship/affection reduces the difficulty as well.

I think the problem here is that you're trying to make a global statement about something that's inherently local.

I'm just going to throw this out here for future reference: I don't make global statements about anything unless it involves facts. This entire topic is based on personal preference, not fact. Simply because I might not agree with people's personal preferences does not mean that I am making global statements about such preferences or the topic in general.

Based on previous interactions I feel I can safely say without misrepresentation that your playstyle is overwhelmingly focused on online play with the single player campaign being in some way less important. A lot of the people complaining about affection and the Exp Share have the opposite playstyle, they focus a lot on single player, usually try to make it a more challenging experience, and barely (if at all) engage with online play. Which means that things that make the single player campaign easier or remove content or things like that are a massive deal because it ultimately means that you have less game in your game.

I don't understand what you mean here. My "playstyle" is overwhelmingly focused on online play? My playstyle is based on using my favorite Pokémon for an adventure, mainly with different teams comprised of my favorites. With that being said, my single-player campaign is extremely important to me. Playing online is the end goal. It's not all about the destination; it's about the journey too. Competitive players complain about the Exp. Share as well as the friendship/affection system. With me, the single-player campaign simply doesn't challenge me in any way, and I am not interested in limiting my play just to be challenged. The game should be responsible for challenging me, not me. Yet, the reasons that the games aren't challenging for me have nothing to do with the Exp. Share or friendship/affection systems. Rather, it's because the trainers are weak, barely use held items, often have poor AI, don't have Pokémon with good EVs and IVs, and too many elite trainers use monotypes, making them easy to beat. The very few things that actually did challenge me, such as Ultra Necrozma and Steven Stone's Champion battle in the remakes, did so even with the Exp. Share and friendship/affection systems enabled. I also went into the battle underleveled despite the Exp. Share.

"The games are too easy, and forcing a mechanic that makes it even easier is not a design choice I appreciate." is fundamentally the point of view of the people complaining.

Yet, I'm not convinced that these features actually make the games easier.

Because they want the option to make the game harder for themselves and those mechanics are robbing them from that option. This isn't a subjective opinion, this is objective fact: forced Experience Share and forced Affection (and Exp Charm for that matter) make the game easier than it would otherwise be.

Yet, those mechanics don't rob any player of the option to make the game harder, as the game can still be difficult based on how players choose to play their game. That's also not "objective fact." An objective fact is a universal truth. A subjective opinion is a personal truth, preference, or experience. Pokémon being easier because of Exp. Share and friendship/affection is not a statement that is true for every player. Whether a player considers something difficult or not is personal, no matter the reason.

The game without them might not be something you'd call "hard", but it'd still be harder than the game without them. Are there better ways to solve the problem of difficulty? Sure, there are many, some of which work better with the Experience Share and Affection, but until Game Freak deigns to implement them, "I want to be able to opt-out of this" is a very reasonable request since it's almost trivial to implement and has minimal effects on the game design.

I disagree. I don't think the game would be harder without them. Instead, the games simply becomes much more tedious without them. Leveling up to 100 takes much longer, as well as getting your Pokémon's levels ready for the next gym or whatnot because you have to level each Pokémon individually. EV training becomes much more time consuming because you also have to train each of them individually. When I said the Exp. Share makes the game easier, I meant it improves the quality of life when playing. As for the friendship/affection system, simply because a Pokémon has a higher chance of surviving an attack, landing a critical hit, and/or shaking off a status condition doesn't automatically make the game easier depending on how you play. The possibility always exists that you can do other things to make the game harder for yourself.

You can agree or disagree if you want, that's your prerogative, but saying something that basically amounts to "It's easy anyways" doesn't address the root cause of the complain, it addresses what seems to be your feeling and opinions about the complaint. This will lead you to talking past other people, since you're just not really engaging with what they're saying.

Yet, you practically said something to a similar effect in your previous paragraph. You said, "The game without them might not be something you'd call hard." I agree. Pokémon is one of the easiest games that anybody can play, at least in terms of single-player. Yet, despite believing that, that doesn't mean that I'm not engaging with what others said. However, what people have said doesn't make much logical sense to me. For instance, regarding Exp. Share, the typical reasons are "you can't turn it off," which doesn't really explain why you'd want to turn it off in the first place, and "it causes overleveling," when in reality, overleveling is caused more by playstyle than by Exp. Share itself. Regarding the friendship/affection system, it's said that "it gives the player an unfair advantage," when, in reality, it doesn't give too much of an advantage other than a few added perks that don't make you invincible. With that being said, I am definitely engaging with what they're saying; it's just that what they're saying doesn't convince me of anything because it's illogical.

 

[Duck]

I don't understand what you mean here. My "playstyle" is overwhelmingly focused on online play? My playstyle is based on using my favorite Pokémon for an adventure, mainly with different teams comprised of my favorites. With that being said, my single-player campaign is extremely important to me. Playing online is the end goal. It's not all about the destination; it's about the journey too. Competitive players complain about the Exp. Share as well as the friendship/affection system. With me, the single-player campaign simply doesn't challenge me in any way, and I am not interested in limiting my play just to be challenged.

And other people are, and that's why they don't like the system.

The game should be responsible for challenging me, not me.

And that's your philosophy that isn't shared by the people complaining. The fact that there is an entire forum in this very board devoted exclusively to "doing challenge runs of the game", there are similar forums / threads in other boards such as Serebii, there is an entire board dedicated to the Nuzlocke challenge, and there is an entire thriving Youtube / Twitch subcommunity dedicated to challenge runs, means that there is a sizable comunnity with a different philosophy.

Yet, the reasons that the games aren't challenging for me have nothing to do with the Exp. Share or friendship/affection systems. Rather, it's because the trainers are weak, barely use held items, often have poor AI, don't have Pokémon with good EVs and IVs, and too many elite trainers use monotypes, making them easy to beat. The very few things that actually did challenge me, such as Ultra Necrozma and Steven Stone's Champion battle in the remakes, did so even with the Exp. Share and friendship/affection systems enabled. I also went into the battle underleveled despite the Exp. Share.

Cool, good for you.

As I have said before, "toggling exp share / affection" is not the only way to make the game harder, nor is it necessarily the best. But it is one way that was the default standard for a long time.

If you went against Ultra Necrozma and Steven Stone without affection / exp share the fight would have been harder unless you explicitly ground to catch up to where the Exp Share would have sent you. You would have been even more underleveled - or perhaps you would have fought more trainers and therefore engaging with more of the content of the game, who knows, but it is fundamentally giving more choice to the player about how to handle their playthrough.

Yet, I'm not convinced that these features actually make the games easier.

Yet, those mechanics don't rob any player of the option to make the game harder, as the game can still be difficult based on how players choose to play their game. That's also not "objective fact." An objective fact is a universal truth. A subjective opinion is a personal truth, preference, or experience. Pokémon being easier because of Exp. Share and friendship/affection is not a statement that is true for every player. Whether a player considers something difficult or not is personal, no matter the reason.

Affection means you deal more damage, avoid attacks that would otherwise not hit, tank hits you otherwise wouldn't (up to a 1 in 4 chance) and might be able to shrug off status conditions. The Exp Share / Exp Charm means you get stronger faster.

It fundamentally makes you stronger in every relevant part of battling. That is making the game easier than it otherwise would. You have yet to make any cohesive argument about how higher DPS, not being hit by attacks, preventing sure death and shrugging off status conditions can possibly not make the game easier. Affection status heals even triggers before Toxic Orb / Flame Orb, so it's not like it'd even significantly damage Guts / PH strategies (it'd enhance Guts even, since it's one turn without Poison / Burn damage), at most you get 1 turn without PH healing while you have a high chance of tanking OHKOs, and get basically a free Eva boost.

Until you make an argument that can sufficiently displace the obvious conclusion of "If I deal more damage, the game is easier, if I take less damage the game is easier, if I'm not hampered by a status condition, the game is easier" I'm not convinced.

I disagree. I don't think the game would be harder without them. Instead, the games simply becomes much more tedious without them. Leveling up to 100 takes much longer,

Most people don't level their Pokemon up to 100, that's mostly for online play. The type of people complaining are by large only concerned with the single player campaign which can be handled at very lower levels.

as well as getting your Pokémon's levels ready for the next gym or whatnot because you have to level each Pokémon individually. EV training becomes much more time consuming because you also have to train each of them individually.

Same thing applies to EV training. If you argument hinges on "reaching level 100" or "EV training" it is already fundamentally talking about a very different experience than the people complaining and one that wouldn't be affected at all if you could toggle Exp Share / Affection.

On the subject of getting ready to the next gym, that depends on a number of factors but yes, generally speaking, it would take more time. That isn't an argument about it not being harder, but it would take more time. Whether the people complaining would like to toggle the Exp Share when they feel they're sufficiently behind, or grind out of a sense of connection, or go Leroy Jenkins and blaze in underleveled is up to them, but the entire point is choice.

The people complaining aren't saying "Get rid of it" they're saying "I want to be able to opt-out".

When I said the Exp. Share makes the game easier, I meant it improves the quality of life when playing. As for the friendship/affection system, simply because a Pokémon has a higher chance of surviving an attack, landing a critical hit, and/or shaking off a status condition doesn't automatically make the game easier depending on how you play. The possibility always exists that you can do other things to make the game harder for yourself.

Yes, you could make the game harder for yourself. And being able to opt out of those mechanics would be a simple way both implementation wise and playthrough wise to make the game harder for those who so choose.

You're going to need a more complex argument than depending on how you play. If it were Gen I than sure, I could see, how say, higher crit chance could be not ideal, but I fail to see any kind of strategy that would not want to deal more damage, or not receive damage.

At the very least, not any one that has any kind of statistical significance. We can say "Forced Exp Share / Affection make the game easier on average" (as I should have said from the beginning, I'll admit) if you want to be pedantic.

Yet, you practically said something to a similar effect in your previous paragraph. You said, "The game without them might not be something you'd call hard." I agree. Pokémon is one of the easiest games that anybody can play, at least in terms of single-player. Yet, despite believing that, that doesn't mean that I'm not engaging with what others said. However, what people have said doesn't make much logical sense to me.

How does "I want to make the easy game harder" not make logical sense? That is, by itself, a complete answer and an instinct that's present in so many people that there are entire communities devoted to "making games harder".

In fact, we have two of them here in this very board. We have one that make things harder within the rules of the games, and other that jailbreak the games / make clones they can tweak the rules so it's harder.

For instance, regarding Exp. Share, the typical reasons are "you can't turn it off," which doesn't really explain why you'd want to turn it off in the first place, and "it causes overleveling," when in reality, overleveling is caused more by playstyle than by Exp. Share itself.

And people want to play the game with more choices on how to play the game. This is the entire crux of the argument, people are saying "I want more choice in how I can play the game."

They don't want to have to choose between "I need to change my playstyle" and "I want to make the game harder" they want both. This is achieved in most games by having a difficulty select. Pokemon doesn't have a difficulty select, but being able to toggle those systems would be a small step towards that.

Regarding the friendship/affection system, it's said that "it gives the player an unfair advantage," when, in reality, it doesn't give too much of an advantage other than a few added perks that don't make you invincible. With that being said, I am definitely engaging with what they're saying; it's just that what they're saying doesn't convince me of anything because it's illogical.

If your closing argument to "I want to make the game harder and having a choice in toggling this game mechanic as I was able to do in the past would help me doing that" is "They're illogical" you're most likely not engaging with what people are saying.

Every encounter we've had has shown me that you don't engage in any arguments in good faith and as such I'm done talking with you. I'll be watching this in case the discussion turns ugly but I will not be responding to you any further unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Soaring Sid]

Again, as I said to many people in this thread, I reiterate that the Exp. Share does not overlevel your team, but rather the way you play the game. While the players that complain about the Exp. Share might often be older, I played the older games as well. I can assure that the lack of the Exp. Share as it exists today does not make the games more challenging. Instead, it just makes the games more tedious and forces you to battle a ton of wild Pokémon with each Pokémon in your team individually just to catch up before moving on. If anything, that ruins the fun of the single-player campaign. You can enjoy the single-player aspects more, such as the story, when you're not required to go through a bunch of grinding just to catch up. I'm also not convinced that friendship/affection reduces the difficulty as well.

Hmm... interesting. Never saw it that way. It's a fair point. Come to think of it, the average player is indeed habituated to grinding which does inevitably lead to Exp accumulation.


The friendship mechanic on the other hand has a chance to prevent OHKOs and remove status conditions, so it does make it a little convenient.

Although to be honest, I think it's nostalgia and Pokémon bias here - if any other JRPG had this system of surviving hits or removing status conditions, it'd be considered a buff/bonus.

 

[Sweet Serenity]

And other people are, and that's why they don't like the system. And that's your philosophy that isn't shared by the people complaining. The fact that there is an entire forum in this very board devoted exclusively to "doing challenge runs of the game", there are similar forums / threads in other boards such as Serebii, there is an entire board dedicated to the Nuzlocke challenge, and there is an entire thriving Youtube / Twitch subcommunity dedicated to challenge runs, means that there is a sizable comunnity with a different philosophy.

I understand that such people share a different philosophy, which is why I started the thread. However, the point of contention is not about people having a different philosophy per se, but rather if the Exp. Share or friendship/affection system actually ruins their experience. I'm simply not convinced that it does, and that's what I wanted to talk about.

Cool, good for you. As I have said before, "toggling exp share / affection" is not the only way to make the game harder, nor is it necessarily the best. But it is one way that was the default standard for a long time. If you went against Ultra Necrozma and Steven Stone without affection / exp share the fight would have been harder unless you explicitly ground to catch up to where the Exp Share would have sent you. You would have been even more underleveled - or perhaps you would have fought more trainers and therefore engaging with more of the content of the game, who knows, but it is fundamentally giving more choice to the player about how to handle their playthrough.

The main point that I'm making is that the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system have little impact on the difficulty level of Pokémon in the first place. It is very possible to still make the game harder for yourself even with the existence of the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system, which do not make the games themselves drastically easier. As for the fight against Steven Stone and Ultra Necrozma, sure, the battles could have been a tiny bit harder without them, but my point is that the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system had nothing to do with the overall difficulty of the battle. Instead, the battle with Necrozma was difficult because I went into it not only a bit underleveled but also without looking up its typing or its stats. It was able to sweep most of my team very easily. As for Steven Stone, not only was I underleveled against him too, but a lot of his Pokémon had the Ability Sturdy and his Mega Metagross got a power boost with Meteor Mash. Mind you, I was underleveled *with* the Exp. Share enabled and the friendship/affection system made no difference in the battle whatsoever.

Affection means you deal more damage, avoid attacks that would otherwise not hit, tank hits you otherwise wouldn't (up to a 1 in 4 chance) and might be able to shrug off status conditions. The Exp Share / Exp Charm means you get stronger faster.

It fundamentally makes you stronger in every relevant part of battling. That is making the game easier than it otherwise would. You have yet to make any cohesive argument about how higher DPS, not being hit by attacks, preventing sure death and shrugging off status conditions can possibly not make the game easier. Affection status heals even triggers before Toxic Orb / Flame Orb, so it's not like it'd even significantly damage Guts / PH strategies (it'd enhance Guts even, since it's one turn without Poison / Burn damage), at most you get 1 turn without PH healing while you have a high chance of tanking OHKOs, and get basically a free Eva boost.

Until you make an argument that can sufficiently displace the obvious conclusion of "If I deal more damage, the game is easier, if I take less damage the game is easier, if I'm not hampered by a status condition, the game is easier" I'm not convinced.

Friendship/affection bonuses don't occur all the time. They're not always guaranteed to trigger during the most challenging aspects of the game. I did make this argument in post #7 when replying to Corveone. To make it even clearer, the friendship/affection system's bonuses only occur on occasion. Simply because a Pokémon can deal more damage, erase a status condition, and dodge an attack on occasion does not make the games drastically easier. The possibility exists that the player can still be challenged despite these bonuses, depending on how he or she plays the game. Not every situation involving the friendship/affection bonuses is going to save the player from losing, nor is a player guaranteed to lose the battle simply because one of his or her Pokémon might have been knocked out, afflicted with a status condition, hit by an attack, or because a critical hit didn't land. Thus, I am not convinced that the friendship/affection system has a major impact on Pokémon's difficulty level. If it does make the games easier, it is barely noticeable. Regardless, the player always has an advantage over most NPCs no matter what, in some form or fashion. Your Pokémon gains EVs for every battle you win. Most NPCs in the game don't have EVs or IVs. As a result, the player's Pokémon are always more powerful than NPCs. I feel that, when it comes to difficulty, that's where the true problem lies, not with the Exp. Share or the friendship/affection system, but rather with the NPCs lacking the stats, items, and strategies that can make them tougher. My point is that the friendship/affection system doesn't offer much change to this. Chances are great that if you were on the verge of losing the battle without friendship/affection bonuses, then the bonuses are not going to do much to help you next time either. Friendship/affection is not enough to protect you from the reason that you were struggling in the first place.

Most people don't level their Pokemon up to 100, that's mostly for online play. The type of people complaining are by large only concerned with the single player campaign which can be handled at very lower levels. Same thing applies to EV training. If you argument hinges on "reaching level 100" or "EV training" it is already fundamentally talking about a very different experience than the people complaining and one that wouldn't be affected at all if you could toggle Exp Share / Affection.

You don't seem to get the fact that even players who grind to level 100 and EV train their Pokémon also complain about the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system. Level 100 and EV training are not exclusive to online/competitive players. You have casual players who do it as well.

On the subject of getting ready to the next gym, that depends on a number of factors but yes, generally speaking, it would take more time. That isn't an argument about it not being harder, but it would take more time. Whether the people complaining would like to toggle the Exp Share when they feel they're sufficiently behind, or grind out of a sense of connection, or go Leroy Jenkins and blaze in underleveled is up to them, but the entire point is choice. The people complaining aren't saying "Get rid of it" they're saying "I want to be able to opt-out".

As for getting ready for the next challenge, the point is that I am not convinced that there is a good reason to toggle or "opt out" of the Exp. Share in the first place, as the Exp. Share itself does not result in overleveling. The only reason I can truly think of for opting out is if they actually want to make the game more tedious for themselves, but there are still ways you can do that even with it on.

Yes, you could make the game harder for yourself. And being able to opt out of those mechanics would be a simple way both implementation wise and playthrough wise to make the game harder for those who so choose. You're going to need a more complex argument than depending on how you play. If it were Gen I than sure, I could see, how say, higher crit chance could be not ideal, but I fail to see any kind of strategy that would not want to deal more damage, or not receive damage. At the very least, not any one that has any kind of statistical significance. We can say "Forced Exp Share / Affection make the game easier on average" (as I should have said from the beginning, I'll admit) if you want to be pedantic.

The point is, again, that I am not convinced that being able to opt out of those mechanics would make much of a difference in the first place. My argument about "depending on how you play" is perfectly valid. I'm not saying that the friendship/affection bonuses aren't ideal and don't help you in battle. I'm saying that they don't add much to the difficulty level. The reason that the games are difficult for you in the first place is because of how you play. If something in a Pokémon game is seriously challenging you, you have to ask yourself why this is the case. Perhaps you're not EV training your team properly, you have too many physical or special attackers on the same team, your Pokémon's stats are weak, you have Pokémon with high Special Attack using physical moves and vice versa, and the list goes on. The point is, if you're playing the game like this, it's not like the friendship/affection system is going to suddenly make the game super easy for you. Thus, I'm not convinced that the friendship/affection system has that much of an effect on making the game easier.

How does "I want to make the easy game harder" not make logical sense? That is, by itself, a complete answer and an instinct that's present in so many people that there are entire communities devoted to "making games harder". In fact, we have two of them here in this very board. We have one that make things harder within the rules of the games, and other that jailbreak the games / make clones they can tweak the rules so it's harder.

Because the purpose of making an argument is to be persuasive. For example, when a person claims that he or she wants to "make an easy game harder" without explaining how the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system makes the games easier, then it is impossible to persuade people with an opposing view. Thus, no logic exists in that argument that can change a person's view. In addition, there were attempts to explain how the Exp. Share and friendship/affection makes the game easier, the common arguments were the Exp. Share causes overleveling and that the friendship/affection system gives you an unfair advantage over the NPCs. Regarding the Exp. Share, such an argument is illogical simply because it isn't true. The Exp. Share does not overlevel your team. Your own actions are what causes your team to be overleveled. There are actions that players can take to prevent overleveling. If they're not taking those actions, then that's on them, not the Exp. Share system. Whenever you make an argument based upon a false premise, you're being illogical. Arguments must be valid, sound, and persuasive to be logical. Regarding the friendship/affection system, the unfair advantage argument isn't logical because the friendship/affection bonuses don't have a major impact on gameplay. If a Pokémon battle is challenging to you, the challenge is not likely to vanish suddenly simply because of a few friendship/affection bonuses. For instance, if Cynthia is really difficult to you for whatever reason, she is going to still be really difficult even if one of your Pokémon is able to tank a hit or land a critical hit.

And people want to play the game with more choices on how to play the game. This is the entire crux of the argument, people are saying "I want more choice in how I can play the game." They don't want to have to choose between "I need to change my playstyle" and "I want to make the game harder" they want both. This is achieved in most games by having a difficulty select. Pokemon doesn't have a difficulty select, but being able to toggle those systems would be a small step towards that.

Yet, that's not the entire crux of the argument. People wanting more choice in how they play the game is not the point of contention. The point is whether or not the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system truly ruins the experience of how they choose to play, something I have yet to be convinced of. I understand the argument that you're trying to make, but again, I'm not convinced that toggling the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system is going to make much of a difference. Pokémon needs to make a lot of gameplay improvements if they want to make the games harder. Otherwise, players are forced to do this themselves by changing their playstyle and undergoing various types of challenges. I'm just not convinced that turning off friendship/affection and Exp. Share is going to grant you this big in-game challenge. The game is still going to have a similar difficulty regardless.

If your closing argument to "I want to make the game harder and having a choice in toggling this game mechanic as I was able to do in the past would help me doing that" is "They're illogical" you're most likely not engaging with what people are saying.

My argument is that toggling the features off don't actually make the game harder. With that, I do think that believing it does make the game harder is illogical for the reasons given that I mentioned previously about making arguments based on false premises.

Every encounter we've had has shown me that you don't engage in any arguments in good faith and as such I'm done talking with you. I'll be watching this in case the discussion turns ugly but I will not be responding to you any further unless absolutely necessary.

So, you're going to attack me personally and then say you're done talking to me? Interesting. Why do you think my arguments "are never in good faith?" I don't attack anyone here when I have discussions, nor have I ever attacked you in any of our interactions. I am also not dishonest about anything in my discussions, nor do I disallow anybody from sharing their opinions. I simply don't agree with every argument that people make. Do you expect me to agree with everything you say? About 99% of our interactions are arguments, mainly because we only interact when you disagree with something I post. That's fine, as I don't mind if people disagree with my posts. Simply put, if anybody wants me to agree with them, then they have to give me an argument that makes sense. If they can't or don't want to do that, then they don't have to respond to me. It's that simple. What exactly do you expect me to do here? If people can handle the fact that not everybody is going to agree with their opinions, then it shouldn't get ugly. If it does, just note that I'm not the one who's making it ugly. I'm just simply trying to have an honest discussion about something I noticed within the Pokémon community that makes no sense to me. I've been trying to look for arguments that can help me make sense of it, but so far, nothing has convinced me. That's cool. It happens. If anything, it just strengthened my belief that players don't have a good reason to hate these features. Yet, nowhere did I ever say that I had a problem with people hating these features. I simply disagree with their reasoning. Do I have to agree with everybody to "argue in good faith?"

 

[Corveone]

However, the point of contention is not about people having a different philosophy per se, but rather if the Exp. Share or friendship/affection system actually ruins their experience. I'm simply not convinced that it does, and that's what I wanted to talk about.

Well, there's no need to convince anyone of anything. Whatever ruins the experience or ruins a game for some players won't necessarily ruin it for you, and vice versa. That's up to personal prefferences.

A game being too easy to the point it eventually becomes boring to play because you don't even need to think to win is one of the issues that can ruin the experience with a game for many players, it's a fact in the universe of video games and that's why difficulty settings are usually a thing.

If you actually want people to show you proof that affection bonusses make the games easier, here's an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amtS7mx8kSQ

Literally guy at 24:56 'I needed affection to win'

Nobody is saying that Affection and permanent Exp. Share are the sole responsible for the lack of difficulty or that the games would be super hard without that, just that they contribute towards making the situation worse than it already was, and 'the games would be still easy anyway' doesn't justify developers' fixation with actually trolling players who want to make things some more challenging.

As for getting ready for the next challenge, the point is that I am not convinced that there is a good reason to toggle or "opt out" of the Exp. Share in the first place, as the Exp. Share itself does not result in overleveling. The only reason I can truly think of for opting out is if they actually want to make the game more tedious for themselves, but there are still ways you can do that even with it on.

Weren't you one of the players who claimed using two or even three teams in your playthroughs? That explains how you don't get why people might want to be able to turn Exp. Share off at times.
You don't need to do anything extraordinary or have any particular playstyle to overlevel in the modern games, unless you consider picking six Pokémon and stick with them for the whole game is some special playstyle. It happens by just playing the games normally, unless you're purposely rushing, skipping battles or temporarily boxing Pokémon that reached or ar close to reaching the next level cap.
Level control is part of the difficulty management, being at level 30 or at level 35 won't necessarily decide if you win a battle or not, but it's one of many variables, and Permanent Exp. Share just makes things more annoying to control for no reason. The option to turn it off momentarily was available in Gen 6 and 7, all they needed to do was to not remove it, it's not something that required a titanic effort...

Because the purpose of making an argument is to be persuasive. For example, when a person claims that he or she wants to "make an easy game harder" without explaining how the Exp. Share and friendship/affection system makes the games easier, then it is impossible to persuade people with an opposing view. Thus, no logic exists in that argument that can change a person's view. In addition, there were attempts to explain how the Exp. Share and friendship/affection makes the game easier, the common arguments were the Exp. Share causes overleveling and that the friendship/affection system gives you an unfair advantage over the NPCs. Regarding the Exp. Share, such an argument is illogical simply because it isn't true.

It's something that has been explained countless times, but you keep saying that arguments are illogical and make no sense so not much else can be done about that. I believe the purpose of making an argument is to share and explain someone's point about a certain topic, not to try persuading everyone of thinking the same way, because that's not going to happen in pretty much any discussion, and debating with that mindset usually leads to unnecessary trouble.

The Exp. Share does not overlevel your team. Your own actions are what causes your team to be overleveled. There are actions that players can take to prevent overleveling. If they're not taking those actions, then that's on them, not the Exp. Share system. Whenever you make an argument based upon a false premise, you're being illogical. Arguments must be valid, sound, and persuasive to be logical.

With that mindset all claims that Pokémon games are easy are illogical, and it's actually our own actions what cause the games to be easy, because people play with evolved and strong Pokémon and build capable teams. Should we play with weak, unevolved Pokémon only, garbage movesets, and other restrictions, and the games would become super hard. We can take actions to avoid it, so it's not the game's fault...

 

[Devalue]

Most NPCs in the game don't have EVs or IVs.

Pops in here with some trainer data. Found text dumps. (Apologizes for picking this one little bit out of multiple, long posts. Finds it exhausting to reply to long discussions like this. Simply wanted to point out that the NPCs are not as weak as you think.)

Sun/Moon: Gave IVs to a good number of trainers. Tended to be 15 across the board. Reserved EVs for main characters (Hau, Guzma, Lusamine, Molayne, Kahunas...). Includes even the first Ilima battle, interestingly. The specifics: Hasty Smeargle with max Attack, Special Attack, and Speed IVs (15 for the rest) and max EVs in both defenses.

Sword/Shield: Yes to natures. No to EVs for almost everyone.
- 0 IVs for trainers on routes
- 5 IVs for gym trainers
- 15 IVs for gym leaders (20 for ace) and rivals
- 20 IVs for Leon (30 for Charizard)
- Varied for Hop. Depends on progress.

Found EVs for Piers's Obstagoon, the Eviolite trainer, and the Rotom trainer. Handed them out to the Zacian and Zamazenta static encounter and Eternatus battle too (supposedly), oddly.

Scarlet/Violet: Basically all Hardy natures. 252 Hitpoint EVs for the ace of notable trainers, but not Team Star bosses.
- 5 IVs (and 10 EVs) for most normal trainers
- 20 IVs for gym leaders (25 for ace), both for the initial fight and the rematch
- 20 IVs for Team Star bosses. (25 for some aces. Saw no information on the Starmobile.)
- 20 IVs for rivals (25 for ace)
- 25 IVs for final story boss (30 for ace)
- 25 and 31 IVs for the final "fight" (plus surprise 200 EVs in both offenses, as well as proper Adamant/Modest natures)

Nemona note: Gains the 252 Hitpoint EVs for the starter at the third gym (level 22).

Realizes your whole point of multiple advantages over NPCs, not just IVs and EVs. Restricts some of those advantages in challenges too. Believes Set Mode and item limits to be two common challenge rules, however, as well as level limits. Personally avoids the gimmick (Megas, Dynamax, Terastallizing) too, outside of special situations or severe other restrictions.
________________________

Enjoys numbers, right? Wanted to figure out how much a 3 level advantage was worth. Went to a damage calculator quick.

Picked a blank build Abomasnow (0 EVs, 31 IVs, neutral nature) and blank build Lickitung (same specs). Pitted a level 40 Abomasnow with Blizzard versus a level 40 Lickitung. Hits for 44.7 - 53.7%. Upped Abomasnow to level 43. Hits for 50 - 60.4% damage now. Amounts to roughly a 12% damage increase. Checked for damage reduction versus Body Slam too. Acted as a 13-15% damage reduction. How many times have you been short just a little damage on a knockout (or barely fainted)?

Alternative 1: Used the level 40 Abomasnow. Fiddled with EVs instead of level. Hit damage parity with the level 43 by adding 112-128 Special Attack EVs. Equals about 75 Hitpoint + 75 Defense EVs on the defense also.

Alternative 2: Same level 40 Abomasnow. Changed from Hardy nature to Modest. Came in at 50 - 58.9% for that. Made less of a difference than 3 levels. (Needs ~30 EVs for damage parity there.)

The point of this: Gains a pretty decent advantage from just 3 levels. Makes it harder to control this advantage without the toggle. Personally aims to fight all the trainers in the path without fighting any wild Pokemon. Cannot do that at times in Sword/Shield. Loses out on content. Likely grinds more from maintaining a second team (if it was even allowed and/or wanted).