Natures are awful

>>32972548
lol pokemon clover

>>32972548
'synchronize and everstone'
Anybody who isn't just too lazy to play the game shouldn't have any problem with natures.

>>32972548
But if they got rid of natures, that would be one less thing for you to whine about, and whining about Pokémon is /vp/'s favorite metagame.

>>32972548
it's too late to change really
not because of any mechanical issue, but because RNG sells. All the mobile games where you have spend gems or jewels or stones on random units in gachas, all the games where you have to grind for a .004% drop, all the dungeons with randomly spawning loot, all of them are ways to get people playing longer. natures in comparison are a godsend

you aren't fighting a losing battle, you're fighting a lost one

>>32972582
RNG elements in freemium games are for selling microtransactions tho. Nintendo does not profit at all from people buying third-party hardware or grinding ingame. If anything, creating such a massive incentive to gen is COSTING nintendo sales because you are better off buying a cheating device than buying another version of the game.

>>32972548
>29/30 of your pokemon will be born to suck
Yeah, and? There are always sub-optimal trap choices in every game. Video games, tabletop rpgs, card games, whatever. Part of your role as a player is to weed through those options and find the optimal ones. And that takes time, effort, and dedication.

> potential side-benefit of removing natures as we know them would be to improve diversity in the metagame
No, it would just create new optimal choices. Removing one, tiny level of complexity doesn't completely overhaul anything. Shitmons are still shit, good Mons are still good.

>>32972548
This is bait yes?

I like Natures. Natures allow you to slightly customize your Pokémon to suit your own preference. You might opt for an Adamant Attack boost, while another with the same Pokémon might prefer a Jolly Nature for it.

I think what ticks people off about natures is that they're a tradeoff. IVs are a lot more random, with 31^6 possibilities, but there's exactly one optimal choice to make. With natures, except for physical/special sweepers, you have to sacrifice one stat to boost another. Same goes for EVs, where you have to choose some stats to not be boosted.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing! Just the opposite: it avoids Gen 2's metagame of perfect-IV full-stat-exp bulky mons that stall each other out all the time. Just trying to identify what really makes natures controversial, because "boo hoo my Timid Snorlax sucks" is BS.

Natures should have replaced IV's when they were introduced, but for some retarded reason they decided to keep both.

File: cat furniture.jpg (84KB, 593x862px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 593x862px

>>32972552
Tentaquil is way older than pokemon clover.

Also, completely unrelated but what the hell is "cat furniture"?

>>32973371
Lol, with 99 % of Pokemon you'll have two useful natures to choose from and that other 1% can be attributed to gimmick sets.

Like you said, jolly or adamant on a physical attacker. Wow that sure is some great customization anon. Not to mention that half the natures are never EVER used like the neutral natures and gentle/lax.

Customization is one of the most fun aspects of any RPG but natures miss the mark: would you like option 1/2 or 2/2? How anyone could argue that the current system couldn't at least be revised/updated blows my mind, but these are probably the same people who in gen 3 would have opposed any of the breeding mechanics we have now because they like to "earn" optimal Pokemon

>>32975342
I'd like to see an actual suggestion for how the system could improve, not just griping about "they changed it now it sucks."

There are three options: you don't get any choices so every Pokémon is optimal (base stats); most choices are suboptimal and you have to work to get the best ones (IVs, some natures); or there are multiple viable choices (some natures, movesets).

If you remove natures entirely, it's the equivalent of just making all Pokémon have neutral natures, which you were just complaining about. If natures could boost all stats, they'd be redundant given that IVs exist. So how would you improve natures?

File: cat shelf.jpg (30KB, 280x186px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 280x186px

>>32975234
Cat furniture is basically furniture designed for cats- things like cat trees and cat shelves.

>>32975389
The neutral nature's only suck because of the better options, and the better options are limited and redundant as every physical attacker is going to prefer the same 2 nature's every time. So yes, nothing of value is lost if we just trash em

>>32972548
>sex impacting competitive viability
wew lad

>>32972548
i hate evs because your in-game team's doomed to have shitty ones

natures are fine

>>32975389
I think a simple solution would allow for players to change a pokemons nature effectively similar to the name rater. This allows you to experiment with different sets rather easily on one Pokemon, and if you find a shiny or catch a legendary one-off without a synchronizer, you can be assured that you can still make them useable. Breeding is still useful for IVs and egg moves here.

The more complicated option would be to revamp the system entirely so that natures allow for more useful customization. I.e. , it's not a choice between just two useful options. This sounds more fun to me but it's not something I can lay out off the top of my head.

I don't like Natures because I would like to have more varied natures for flavor reasons instead of literally every Pokemon of certain roles having a certain disposition, it'd be nice if you could change the stats that get boosted/lowered while keeping the actual Nature for flavor. In gameplay function though, they're perfectly fine.

>>32975502
>can always reset and retrain EV's
>Hyper Train for IVs

Natures are the ones with the least wiggle room, actually.

>>32972548
all it would take to fix natures would be a mechanism by which the nature of a pokemon could be changed. even if it's difficult, it would be good provided it can be done an unlimited number of times per cartridge.

>>32975660
Here is another idea. make natures the "personality" stat for stuff like what color bubblegum they like the chew.

Then let you "focus train" a pokemon in a stat for a % increase.

Changing a pokemon's nature just sounds wrong, but making battles depend on personality is equally dumb because it just means that every single trainer's salamence is going to be jolly or adamant. It sounds like a fucked up eugenics program. I know you ca't think too hard about pokemon, but making nature a battle stat and not a vanity stat was a mistake.

the real issue here is that a lucario that likes to thrash about will always be better than one proud of its power

>>32975926
Pokemon breeding is already a fucked up eugenics program. Forcing Ditto to fuck its own great-grandchildren, then abandoning most of them.

>>32975926
I'd personally get a kick out of the nature changing mechanism being a brainwashing machine that the game shames you for using, but it's allowed. And breeding/resetting for natures is still in the game as an alternative for the nerds out there.

More to the point though, I think the interesting thing about natures is that they boost one stat *at the cost of another.* Focus training sounds like it would lose that aspect, which would be a shame. Although I wouldn't mind ditching adamant, modest, timid, and jolly since they kind of defeat the spirit of sacrificing one stat in favor of another

>>32976083
>More to the point though, I think the interesting thing about natures is that they boost one stat *at the cost of another.* Focus training sounds like it would lose that aspect, which would be a shame.

There is usually is no real sacrifice because -stat natures just mean you only use one attack stat. Stat decreases only homogenize pokemon movesets.

File: consider this.png (483KB, 1132x748px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1132x748px

>>32972548
> Keep Nature and egg move mechanics as-is
>Merge IVs and EVs (meaning can be bred for them but still manually altered with vitamins, berries, etc)

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

>>32975234
Just
>>32976267

>>32976083
I could see the changing of natures being done by a psychiatrist NPC.
Still a bit weird, but not as fucked up as a brainwashing machine.

>>32972552
Tentaquil is older than clover you newfag

>>32976579
>Numbered as #386
>calling newfag
then fuck off.

>>32972548
minmax would be still a thing OP fag

>>32972548
>it means 29/30 of your pokemon will be born to suck
>I don't know another set that smogon/verlis said for the same pokemon
even that fuckers suguest 2-5 diferents usables natures

>>32976051
this desu

>>32976469
this isn't bad imo

>>32975389
How about a DQIII style semi-expensive/rare but accessible method for changing a pokemon's nature? In DQIII the character reads a particular kind of book (that you find as somewhat rare items scattered throughout the game) that correspondingly changes their personality when used on a character (personality literally functions like natures in that game).

Maybe not books of course but they could expand amie/refresh to include toys that you can pick up in the game and each one corresponds to a nature. If you use the toy with them enough their nature will change. I could think of like a back-scratcher type thing for relaxed, a yoyo for jolly or something, maybe a jack-in-the-box for brave. fidget spinner for lonely Simple shit you use in refresh (or whatever they'll change its name to) to entertain or play with your mons using the stylus.

>>32976590
tentaquil is as old as /vp/ you literal newnigger fuck boy summerfag

>>32978117
is now a clovermon #386 since november 2014 ,you fedora wearing normie.

>>32975485
Enjoy sweeping with your male salandit and combee, retard.

>>32972548
Gen 3 ruined the game.

Remove natures
Remove EV spreads
Remove abilities

Make Pokemon fun again.