Hard Pokemon Game

>Forced level caps
If you haven't beaten Roxanne, your Pokemon do not reach level 16 until you have. Sure, this would level the playing field, but it defeats the purpose of leveling. When fighting Roxanne, if you skipped on water and grass types, you're looking for neutral damage. You might need a few extra levels to guarantee your win, so you'd almost have to have super effective type moves to win, and you're back to sweeping with one or two Pokemon.

>More intelligent AI
They know how to swap, better moves, and use more items. This is back to the first problem; does a longer battle mean a harder one? If you and the gym leader are just attacking 3 times and then healing, it's a battle of who gets a crit first. At some point you'd have to be making gym leaders that know how to set up traps, increase stats, and know when to swap and when to say. Even if the AI had perfect intelligence, we're back to just having to over level.

So, what solutions do you like the best, which do you see more downsides too, and which can you think of that I didn't mention?

>>32787681
>increase levels
no, make levels match your party. high levels can be grinded past, but if enemy levels raise with player levels, grinding won't be an option.

>denial of good pokemons
i don't think thats a good idea, pokemon is first and foremost a collection game. making pokemons like mewtwo disobediant is fine tough.

>mixed teams
i think just keep them the same and give counters. a fairy team for example, would carry mawile to counter poison types.

>forced level caps
well, thats also a way to look at it, but i prefer the dynamic approach i spoke of before, where enemy levels raise according to player's (even if that will be harder to make)

>inteligent AI
why not? instead of using the same team for all battles in the game, go back to your pc box and use type advantages. fight, find the enemy weak spots, employ tactics that are not only 'strike fast strike hard'. if you get to a situation of two tanks waiting to crit each other, switch. curse. poison. burn. build up. haze down. thats the whole def of 'difficulty'.

Challage mode would be awesome. Choosing difficulty for every Pokemon fan

Nice write up. Some real good ideas here

>>32787681
>increase levels
yes
>denial of good pokemon
Fangames have taught me this is frustrating, not fun
>mixed teams
I would have no problem with this
>>32787682
>forced level caps
again, fangames have taught me this is a horrible idea
>more Intelligent AI
Yes, please, this is by far the most important thing that needs to happen. Make the Ai smarter or dumber based on a difficulty setting as well.

Make it so if you die in the game you die in real life.

OP, here's the problem with just about all of this: The game has to be winnable by young kids, and therefore the strategy has to be understandable by kids. They can handle "this is a Fire gym, so I can win if I use Water," or "this trainer's Pokemon are Level 20, so I can win if mine are Level 25." It would be a terrible thing for the series if kids routinely picked up the game, got to a gym that they couldn't figure out because there wasn't a type theme and they couldn't grind to higher levels, and dropped the game halfway through.

That's why the games are structured as they are -- simple strategies during the main game, and more complex ones during the post-game. Places like battle facilities basically cover everything you're looking for -- level caps, intelligent AI, and no type theming. Anyone can beat the main game, and doing so opens up areas with exactly the sort of challenges that you're talking about. It's structured that way for a reason.

The only real alternative that I can see if a Challenge Mode, like in B/W2 (but hopefully with a less asinine way of unlocking it) that would maybe increase AI or impose level caps or something. But the key thing is that it has to be optional. You can't just throw your challenges at everyone and think that that's a good thing for the series.

>>32790121
We're not talking about for kids, we're talking about a game for /vp/. How would /vp/ like Firered or Emerald to be changed to become more difficult. FR took the grinding route, E took the intelligent AI route (Think of the last Maxie fight, or T&L). What would you do?

Without level caps there's no such thing as a hard pokemon game because even with things like increasing the AI, giving all normal trainers 4+ mons, gym leaders 5+ and the final rival battle/elite 4/champion a full team or ALL trainers having fully IV'd and EV'd teams people would just grind and bitch about the game being too easy because they're overleveled, as a lot of people already do

>>32787681
>You don't necessarily need a Fire type, but
No buts, stop with this "you need x type" autism. I haven't used a fire type in any single run.

File: 1494887470321.png (139KB, 431x431px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 431x431px

I think there've been good suggestions so far.

1
>Decrease the amount of overworld items
2
>Diversify PokeMarket inventory, make all items terribly more expensive
3
>Make every item in the game code legitimately obtainable. Ideas include aforementioned PokeMarkets, DPPt Underground, procedurally generated and never depleting ItemFinder hidden items, exchanges. Items like Elixirs become regularly obtainable but very troublesome to come by, and Full Restores cost an arm or a leg.
4
>Reduce Pokemon box space drastically.
5
>Increase the Encounter rate significantly. Combined with the highered prices of Repels, this serves to make overworld abilities like Stench far more meaningful, meaning strategy is rewarded better.

This is fun, so I'll go on.

File: 1494597121639.png (625KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1280x1280px

>>32791162
6
>Significantly lengthen the area of routes, such as in DPPt, like the length of the way to Snowpoint city, in order to remove the player from easy healspots
7
>Nosedive capture rates. Make Pokemon much much harder to capture.
8
>Make Friendship/Happiness a greater factor in Pokemon. Make F/H drop very much when a Pokemon faints or ingests unpleasant things, and negative F/H can induce disobedience in Pokemon such as in traded Pokemon when the trainer lacks the sufficient badges to gain its respect. Make building F/H progress more slowly. Soothe Bell and Luxury Ball becomes more useful as a result.
9
>Competitive sets on every single Pokemon on every single trainer's team.
10
>Gyms have more trainers and have to be beaten in one go, or else it resets upon the trainer's leaving.

File: snapshot666.jpg (86KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 854x480px

>>32791221
11
>Remove the "Shift" setting. Only "Set" is an option.
12
>Streamline NPC interactions by removing all useless NPC. Force player to interact with NPCs by guaranteeing valuable rewards. Make NPCs not hand over goods for free, without challenges passed.
13
>Implement timed events.
14
>Make catching them all a requirement for accessing the last part of the game before the whole thing can be beaten.
15
>Pokemon can die :^)))

>>32791284
Out of all of these only 10 and maybe 9 would actually make the games any harder. 13 and 14 are just stupid and 15 is just edgy shit.

File: 1471747896175.png (475KB, 893x732px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 893x732px

>>32791392
That's because 15 isn't a real suggestion dumb dumb.

You have a troubling lack of imagination. You should get that checked out.

>In gym battles, you can only use the same number of pokemon that the gym leader uses, or less.
>More trainers near the end of the game have full teams.
>Every E4 member has a full team.

Most of this comes from XY, where every gym leader only has three pokemon and the player gets a huge advantage. Making teams bigger or setting a limit may help to remove this advantage.

>>32791162
>>32791221
>>32791284
Smelly dumb sinnohfetus scum.

I'd like for either difficulty options or dynamic difficulty

If you choose hard, then the level of leaders and such shifts based on your highest level. Give legendaries boosts and such. Have odd strategies and puzzle battles

>>32791162
>1
Not a bad idea, but you would have to relocate them all into shops.
>2
Diversification sounds good, but increasing prices only makes the early game really hard. Come late game and money should no longer be an issue.
>3
Not sure what "legitimately obtainable" means, and how does this make the game harder when you can find stuff for free using the Itemfinder and Underground? Also "regularly obtainable but very troublesome to come by" doesn't make any sense.
>4
Contradicts 14, you would have to release Pokemon once you hit a limit.
>5
This doesn't make the game harder, it only makes it more annoying. Players will still run from wild Pokemon battles and some will still buy the Repels. Using Stench or a Cleanse Tag isn't strategy, it's just an inconvenience that doesn't challenge the player. And in some senses, this makes grinding and catching Pokemon even easier than ever.

>>32791474
This rule should apply to all trainers. You can only use as many Pokemon as they have.

>>32791221
>6
On it's own this isn't bad, but if you intend to jack up the encounter rare it becomes another annoyance. Remove items like you said in point 1 and you get a long, unrewarding road where the ambiance is ruined by constant encounters.
>7
Make only some Pokemon hard to capture. Catching every Pokemon is something a lot of people don't bother with anyways. Alco goes with point 14.
>8
This one I can agree with, sometimes you can get strong Pokemon way too early in the game.
>9
Making every single trainer in the game a toguh fight would certainly make it harder. This also changes gameplay a great deal, with players having to be aware of natures and evs and the like. While it could work, there is also the danger of players getting frustrated and resorting to stall tactics and double team to win, which makes the games far less satisfying to play. There is potential here, but it could go horribly wrong if implemented poorly.
>10
Agreed. Removing the ability to go in and out to heal would be a great way to raise the bar.

>>32791284
>11
This is also good and makes battle more realistic now that you can't read your opponent's mind.
>12
NPCs are a huge part of the RPG experience. If you want to remove NPCs, then have fun walking through empty towns, missing out on funny dialogue, and having a lesser experience as a whole. Forcing player interaction to get rewards is too close to hand-holding - if the players miss an item, then that's on them. Quests are a good idea, and should be easy to implement in the game.
>13
If you mean deadlines, then that would make the game harder.
>14
Combined with 4 and 7, this is just a pain. Imagine playing through the entire game only to reach the end and be told, "Nope, you have to fill the Pokedex first." This puts the adventure on hiatus, and can potentially create a huge gap in the story.
>15
10/10 suggestion :^)

Make gyms theme-based rather type-based
Can't use more pokémon than the opponent and you must choose which pokémon to use before the battle
If you lose and need to rebatttle a trainer he won't necessarily start the battle with the same mon if he has more than one
Better AI and teams, but not for everyone. For example youngsters still have untrained (or with evs all over the place in later segments) shitmons and play stupid and predictable, breeders could have properly raised teams with good ivs, evs and natures but still be lacking on the strategy side, ace trainers would of course have the best AI and good pokémon with good evs and held items, though they might not have the best ivs.
Then of course gym leaders, e4, evil team leader etc are given the best mons and best AI. Rival should have an evolving AI and his team should be progressively better, doing an ev respec at some point and giving his later additions to the team (and his starter) good ivs

>>32787681
Pokemon doesn't need to be harder. It's just fine. It's easy to create your own difficulty. Everything you mention except for better AI can be self implemented.

File: 5c3d31b1-8b5e-4eb0-b892-444716c26006..jpg (27KB, 154x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 154x250px

>>32790071
Kek, 90% of current players would be dead by now.

"Git Gud Faget"

>>32790071
>nothing changes

>major battles such as villain team admins/boss, gym leaders, elite 4, champion, rival, etc use actual strategy based on abilities and items with AI smart enough to switch mons, etc
>they also have access to hidden abilities, and have set EV distributions

how much does this affect the gameplay?

>>32791150
>being this autistic
I'm going to spell something out that was made very clear already.

Ice, steel, bug, and grass are all weak to fire. Not most of them, all of them. Why would I use four separate Pokemon to cover each type when one does the job.

File: xy scientist.png (37KB, 136x208px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 136x208px

Making trainer AI better would be the most important step, honestly. Let CPU trainers have better AI depending on how talented, smart, or both, the trainer character in question is. Switching out and boosting stats are such integral stats that it's kind of ridiculous how most, if not all of the """challenging""" trainer battles simply rely on smashing their heads into you until you fall down. It makes battles into nothing more than a number's game on who has the highest levels or stats in their team in a game which is already essentially a glorified rock paper scissors.

Allowing the CPU to use powerful stat boost sets and switch out depending on the player's input would teach players to play more intelligently in the Pokemon games, which is slowly becoming more and more online with random battles massively overtaking online trades in progress, so I don't see the issue in making the game harder, and making players better.

>bu-buht stat boosts make battles longer!!!!
Then teach players how helpful wallbreakers, phazers, forced switches and the like can be. It's not fucking hard to beat stat changes. There's even an ability which fucking ignores them.

>>32792011
>Let CPU trainers have better AI depending on how talented, smart, or both, the trainer character in question is
But that's exactly how it works? Ace Trainers use better strategies than, say, Youngsters.

>>32791964
Because you absolutely have a flying type anyway dipshit, so the last two are moot. Fighting covers the first two, as well as three others.

>>32792046
But they still play like fucking retards. They don't predict your moves and react accordingly, they don't try to play around your stats, they'll """occassionally""" switch, that being only if they cannot do anything else, and maybe use a fucking healing item every now and then. You can still beat them by bashing your head against theirs no matter what level you are compared to them if your stats are high enough.

>>32792011
Idea:

Have an aptitude test in the beginning of the game, and judge difficulty based on that. Could also play into a story as well, like, MC is in a school before getting thier pokedex and starter.

you can only use as many pokemon as the trainer you battle

>>32792074
I don't see what's so scary about teaching players to play better as the game progresses to the point where you have to have difficulty judged. Why does Pokemon get such a special treatment against challenging the player? Other RPGS get harder all the time, and it's not like children enjoy getting bored by stale mechanics that refuse to be utilised. Giving the option of difficulty makes difficulty redundant to begin with, so why even bother?

If there is a single option to make the game easier even hinted as the default option, you can bet your sweet ass people will flock to it and say it's the way the game was ""intended"" to be played, without giving the other option a single thought.

See: set; shift settings in battles.

>>32792074
basically dumbasses BTFO

>>32791162
>>32791221
>>32791284
most of these are retarded

>>32792091
Also, to be devilish, we could make it so that the dumber players are punished more severely. It'd essentially be a "trial by fire".

>>32787681
The hard part is going competitive and coming up with strategies, having all that work for one good competitive Pokemon specialized in something and part of a team.

>>32787681
>keep gen 5 exp scaling
>revert exp share to previous behavior
>make sure levels of trainers are at least within 3 levels of your pokemon so that massive overleveling doesn't occur
>increase level curve to reach at least level 90 by post-game or champion battle
>make routes longer and less linear
>give trainers coverage moves or coverage pokemon
>diversify trainer pokemon selection and moves
>give trainers more pokemon, every trainer should have at least 4 pokemon by 7th gym and every boss should have at least 5
>eliminate the switch option or make it so that it doesn't tell you what the next pokemon an opponent has
>if switch is enabled, give the ai the option of switching pokemon before you switch-in after a faint
>give specific trainer classes and boss fights competitive style teams with items with max ai level setting (i.e. ace trainers, veterans)
>make healspots less common, and stop giving away so many healing items for free (looking at you hau)
>increase pokemart prices just a little bit
>more puzzles and outside battle challenges
>rematches change up pokemon order and strategy for some trainers
did i do good

>>32787681
easy
>the level of the gyms has a correlation with your team mon's level
>they use the same number of mons as you
>the level of their team is the average of the user
>their ace is 1 level higher than your strongest mon
>their set changes every 10 levels, making them changing bite for crunch, tackle for body slam and so on
and finally, open world with 'human paths', for example, if you stay closer to thenormal route the mons you'd find are shit between 3-7 level, zero chance of getting a shiny or an evolved form, and say idk 'the pokemon closer to urban areas or paths are more friendly to humans, and so, they are used to be feeded by them and not used to battle', but if you go deeper to the mons areas the level increases, shinies are more common and find evolved forms; there you have it

>>32792251
Most of these are good but giving all trainers at least 4 mons is a bit too much. "Lesser" trainer classes like hikers or backpackers can stop have 2-3 I think.
And level 90 by endgame is ridiculously high. Champion battle is fine in mid 60s, which leaves higher levels for post game stuff like secret bosses and rematches.

All they have to do is make the AI more intelligent.

But they could also increase shop prices.

Or even reduce your party from 6 to 4 :)

Serious question: can the AI be made actually challenging without typical battle tower bs?

File: vp.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>32787681
ITT

>>32790903

It would be essentially Battle Tower: the Game. Either scaling or flat level 50 all type of scenario, but with a story or campaign of some kind. The starting trainers could still be easier, with not-fully-evolved mons and crappier sets/items/abilities. Then the later ones would have more dangerous sets. Perhaps earlier trainers might use Greninja, and their levels would still scale to yours, but only later ones use Protean Life Orb Greninja, for example.

What if there was a New Game Plus where levels were scaled?

>>32790967

As I keep saying, don't cap, scale. Capping feels counter to progression whereas scaling rewards continuing to progress to some extent. If your highest mon is at level 16 when fighting the first gym, the leader's ace is level 17. But you retain the freedom to level further if you want to pick up a certain move perhaps. If your highest mon has been grinded to 24 for some ridiculous reason, the leader's ace is 25.

Then when you reach the last boss, you could have say Level 55, while they have a team of 58-60ish. With the right typing and playing, you should be able to overcome that level discrepancy. I've beaten Gen III Elite Four & Champion with a team of Level 49s.

>>32793527
More trainers could pull one off strategies, like the GC games. In general, making every trainer fight Doubles would be more challenging, especially if they used strategies and didn't just throw themselves at you

Gyms have one or two Pokemon that switch depending on your starter Pokemon - similar to your rival choosing an opposing Pokemon.

You misunderstand. The game doesn't need to be difficult, per se. If I want to play a collectible monster game that is very hard during the main game, I'd play SMT games.

However, I also don't want the game to just sit there and take it while I roll over them. Don't introduce arbitrary forced difficulty. Just have better AI, let trainers have more pokemon (to the cap of 6), and build them better teams. The game still probably won't be hard, but main story would be more fun to play