>12.5% female what were they thinking?

>>30398003
>Two more female only evolutions in a relatively small group of new pokemon
>Additionally, one of them only evolves when it learns Stomp at a point where better moves are available
>There are no ingame hints regarding either
>For some odd reason, there needed to be two NPCs that offer a Steenee

What were they thinking?

>>30398193
Tsareena's whole line is female only you idiot.

>>30398003
>what were they thinking?
Of sex

File: IMG_7074.png (46KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 250x250px

>>30398003
>12.5% female

what were they thinking?

hourly reminder that 87.5% is a game mechanic to make certain pokemon more rare and harder to breed (and in salandit's case, harder to get one that can evolve)

It's almost lile they wanted you to work for it.

File: IMG_0774.png (492KB, 929x509px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 929x509px

>shiny Salazzle is the new shiny Vespiquen

>>30398003
>acquire cute charm mon
>use to lure out female Salandit

Horee Sheet use your brain.

Salazzle have harems of males so the females are rarer than the males.

Female combee are rarer for obvious reasons

>>30398889
except salazzle is actually usable and not utter garbage

Walking around shiny lizard appears it's a male.
Caught it anyways ;-;

>>30398003
It would be very hard to have a harem, if most were female. Or a bit odd even if it was 50/50

Genders were a mistake.

Now, I know that sounds stupid, but hear me out.

Back in the day Pokemon were Pocket MONSTERS, not animals. The only ones that were gendered were the Nidorans because they were very close to shrew-like animals. Their theme was sexual dimorphism. Now, not only does every other species have that, they're also all reduced to being mere animals.

Similarly, the presence of genders makes breeding a necessary mechanic to "explain" where Pokemon are born from. Breeding itself, whilst not a bad idea, makes Pokemon less special - back in the day, you used to be happy to find ANY rare Pokemon. Now, unless it has the right nature, the right ability, the right EVs or even in some cases the correct gender, it's literally unusable. It seems like a given thing that gender and breeding should be there simply because they've been a part of the franchise for so long, but...really? These two mechanics are causing some of the biggest problems right now. Don't get rid of breeding, but put a limit on how many per species that can be bred each day. Randomize IVs so that eugenics is unneeded. Drop genders for species that it's not relevant for. I mean really, does anyone care that female Pikachu have a heart shape on their tail? No. No one fucking cares, Gamefreak.

In fact, I challenge anyone to name even one gen 4-style sexual dimorphism in a species introduced after that generation - i.e. the male has slightly longer antennae; the female has an extra lump. No, they stopped doing that shit because it was so low-energy and boring.

>>30399507
I'm on board with the idea of removing genders while still allowing any two compatible pokemon to breed. But the rest of your ideas seem like big steps backwards. Natures and EVs allow you to customize your pokemon, which I think is fun in any RPG. IVs are arguable, although gens 6 and 7 have made huge strides to make them nothing to stress about if they aren't perfect.

>>30398003
Eevee

>>30398003
They were thinking that desperate beta loser neckbeard basementdewller virgins would do anything for sex lizard and they were right.

>>30399507
I really hope this is pasta and you aren't this autistic

File: 12011278_439544059566321_1837308794170011833_n.jpg (8KB, 282x282px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 282x282px

I LITCHERALLY found three females within the span of 5 minutes
stufful on the other hand...