HP Altering Natures?

[Joshawott]

Hey,
I was looking at the natures list today, and was wondering why non affect a Pokémon's HP stat although other things like Nature, IVs and EVs do? So I was thinking, in Generation V, what if they add 7 new natures? (They'll need a neutral stat that increases HP and decreases HP too).

 

[Falconwing]

That'd be another change to the battle experience meta-game wise.

...

Sure, I'll go for it. Let's screw with Smogon a bit more.

 

[KedaseDerragar]

Technically you'd need 11 more: five HP-raising ones, five HP-lowering ones, and one more neutral one (which occupies the HP-raising/HP-lowering slot on the grid), for a total of 36.

But it's a decent idea, even if it may not affect the metagame too much. (All I can imagine happening is some walls switching to HP-raising Natures rather than Def/SpDef-raising ones.)

 

[Rocky505]

I've actually wanted these since the start of gen 4.

 

[Ino-Chan]

It sounds pretty good, but that seems a bit too much for me. I personally like how HP isn't bothered by natures.

 

[Jeff]

36 natures = lots more eggs to get the right one.

An HP raising nature would effectively give a 10% boost to the resistance to both special and physical attacks, making defense and special defense boosting natures effectively useless, so I'm guessing that's why we never got them.

 

[IceBlue]

I think I'm the only person who doesn't give a muffin about natures and EVs and IVs and all that other stat related stuff.

 

[PlatinumDude]

That'd sound interesting, actually. But what'd happen if Gen V was compatible with Gen IV? Then what'd happen if a Pokemon with an HP-altering nature was traded over to Gen IV?

 

[Ayrrow]

I think I'm the only person who doesn't give a muffin about natures and EVs and IVs and all that other stat related stuff.

I Don't.... Unless I want a pokemon to be good in an area its not normally (i.e My skarmory having decent attack).

Or when I got my togepi, so I could have a togekiss with ridiculous special attack.

Back on topic:
HP natures would be good though, think of what would happen with a blissey :O

 

[Takoto]

I have always wondered why there isn't a HP-altering nature. I'm not sure if Game Freak actually would add more natures, however, I do like the suggestion of it. :3

I think I'm the only person who doesn't give a muffin about natures and EVs and IVs and all that other stat related stuff.

I didn't care until I realized if I was actually ever going to beat anyone online I would have to breed for IV's and EV-train.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

Although it would've been a nice addition when the nature systems were implemented in Gen III, at this point I'm not in favour of it. I'd greatly prefer these games to be compatible with trading back to Gen IV, and the addition of new natures wouldn't allow for that.

 

[Takoto]

Although it would've been a nice addition when the nature systems were implemented in Gen III, at this point I'm not in favour of it. I'd greatly prefer these games to be compatible with trading back to Gen IV, and the addition of new natures wouldn't allow for that.

It would allow for it if they had the system that they used when you traded between Gold/Silver/Crystal and Red/Blue/Yellow. You can't trade back Pokémon with new natures, or attacks, or whatever, but you can trade them back if all the moves and the nature/ability they had was present in the Generation IV games.

It would work, I think.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

It would allow for it if they had the system that they used when you traded between Gold/Silver/Crystal and Red/Blue/Yellow. You can't trade back Pokémon with new natures, or attacks, or whatever, but you can trade them back if all the moves and the nature/ability they had was present in the Generation IV games.

It would work, I think.

For GSC to RBY trading, the limitation was more manageable than what you're suggesting. Any Gen I Pokemon could be traded back to a Gen I game, and if it had an incompatible move you could just go to the move deleter and get rid of it.

If new natures were introduced, and those natures were added to the trading filter, you'd have a whole bunch of Gen I through IV Pokemon which wouldn't be able to be traded back, with no way to change it (natures can't be changed the way moves can). That wouldn't make sense... especially to the many players (mostly kids) who probably don't even care, or know anything about natures.

 

[Takoto]

For GSC to RBY trading, the limitation was more manageable than what you're suggesting. Any Gen I Pokemon could be traded back to a Gen I game, and if it had an incompatible move you could just go to the move deleter and get rid of it.

If new natures were introduced, and those natures were added to the trading filter, you'd have a whole bunch of Gen I through IV Pokemon which wouldn't be able to be traded back, with no way to change it (natures can't be changed the way moves can). That wouldn't make sense... especially to the many players (mostly kids) who probably don't even care, or know anything about natures.

I guess so, I just thought it would be a possibility.

 

[RudolphMilotic]

It would allow for it if they had the system that they used when you traded between Gold/Silver/Crystal and Red/Blue/Yellow. You can't trade back Pokémon with new natures, or attacks, or whatever, but you can trade them back if all the moves and the nature/ability they had was present in the Generation IV games.

It would work, I think.

It would not work because natures are based upon the Personality Value of a Pokémon, meaning that if at least ten new ones are introduced and the way to calculate which one of them a Pokémon receives is the same as RSEFRLGDPtHGSS, some species would change nature when the evolution is triggered in them, as currently happens when evolving a Pal Parked Generation III Pokémon in DPtHGSS with an ability value of 1, which only had a sole programmed ability back then and it changes to the "new" one upon evolution, thus some Pokémon transferred to Black & White would be rendered useless because of the change.

Furthermore, I don't see the need of adding HP-based natures, at least not for this generation.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

They would never be used. No Pokemon needs a HP + or HP - nature. Only Pokemon who could use it is probably Blissey and walls alike, but then they only leave their Defenses lower.

It wouldn't benefit Pokemon, but imo only hurt them in the long run.

 

[Keegman]

The first time I ever gave a crap about a pokemon's nature was when I was trying to evolve a Feebas for the first time and it turned out the only one I had hated beauty-raising pokeblocks.


And by the way, eventually they're going to revamp the data structures of the games again like in Gen III—probably not with these games, but eventually. There'd be no reason not to do it then, would there?

 

[Joshawott]

It would allow for it if they had the system that they used when you traded between Gold/Silver/Crystal and Red/Blue/Yellow. You can't trade back Pokémon with new natures, or attacks, or whatever, but you can trade them back if all the moves and the nature/ability they had was present in the Generation IV games.

It would work, I think.

There will have to be a trading method like that between Generation IV and V any way, so why not?

It would not work because natures are based upon the Personality Value of a Pokémon, meaning that if at least ten new ones are introduced and the way to calculate which one of them a Pokémon receives is the same as RSEFRLGDPtHGSS, some species would change nature when the evolution is triggered in them, as currently happens when evolving a Pal Parked Generation III Pokémon in DPtHGSS with an ability value of 0, which only had a sole programmed ability back then and it changes to the "new" one upon evolution, thus some Pokémon transferred to Black & White would be rendered useless because of the change.

Furthermore, I don't see the need of adding HP-based natures, at least not for this generation.

Hmm...that actually makes sense. Unless they change the way nature is calculated; but have code in that makes Gen III-IV Pokémon keep their original natures. After all, they had the Special > Sp.Atk/Defence split between Generation I and II.

 

[Hell Master]

Hm. Like the idea, but I don't think that would make much of an impact, because, as one of us already said, some walls might take the HP+ natures, thats all.

 

[Jeff]

The special split was only based on GSC's new base stat values for Sp Att. or Sp Def. depending on the species. The two stats still shared a single IV and a single stat exp value specifically for the purpose of backwards compatibility with Gen 1.

Also, like I stated earlier, the reason we never got HP raising natures is likely because they would make defense and sp def. raising natures useless. An HP raising nature would have the same effect as a nature that raises both defense and sp def.