Number of pokemon/moves

[matthewmayhem]

So I was thinking, would it be good if instead of 6 pokemon, you can carry 7 or 8? and I also thought, instead of having 4 moves at once, would it be better if a pokemon could have 5 or 6? I think yes for both of these ideas.

While I manage, I have wished that some of my pokemon had a certain move, but feel that they couldn't have it because the moves it already has are important for battle or can't be deleted.

I think 8 pokemon in my party would be good, with all the types, it would make it easier to have a team that can beat anyone, and also to have someone who knows all the hms.

I know some of you might think it's too much but I know it would be convenient and have advantages.

 

[Te-em]

Since the number of techniques learnt by a Pokemon is higher than it was before, it could possibly work with having 5 or 6 slots for techniques. I don't mind having but 6 Pokemon in the party if you exclude the HM slaves. Having more than that might make the game too easy.

Comparing Pokemon to Dragon Quest Monsters, in DQM you can learn three skill sets; that means a monster learns some number of skills x 3. If the skill sets each contain 10 skills (where some are just upgrades of others), then the monster can learn and remember 30 skills/techniqes. The number of skill sets that a monster can choose from is many, so similar monsters can have totally different skill sets.

The reason for having a few number of slots in Pocket Monsters, is to create variance in the game; that two similar Pokemon will still have different attacks in their slots. But if the number of techniques increases for each game, then the number of slots could increase too, in time. If a Pokemon learnt 10 techniques and had 4 slots, then if it learns 50 techniques in the future, it can have 5 or 6 slots. Perhaps the slots could be grouped into attack-techniques and assistance-techniques. In an RPG I designed myself, I made three slots for physical attacks and three slots for magic skills.

 

[bajuwa]

I don't think so.
It's all part of the challenge. If you were always just allowed to have more you wouldn't be forced to make those difficult decisions, and in the end will distinguish 'good' parties from 'bad'.
For number of moves: You're forced to pick a set of moves that will work well in as many situations as possible, but probably not fool proof. This allows for forced 'holes' in your offense/defense which will ensure that one pokemon won't be able to sweep through the entire game (though it can be done), and instead force your to rely on the rest of your party, which extends to your other point:
For number of pokemon: Same concept applies as you are forced to make decisions and may not always have every hole covered, which will make certain gym leaders/areas more challenging.

A game is not a game unless it challenges you in some way. If you always won, and if you always had every piece you wanted without having to sacrifice another, it would cease to be rewarding.

 

[Norzan]

Nope for either one. Six pokemon is just the perfect balance and having more than four moves would make pokemon like Metagross, Lucario or Gallade, who suffer from four moves slots syndrome, even more stronger.

 

[SwifTer]

6 pokemon is fine with me, I'd actually not really want too many in my party as the game could become really easy. Although it is annoying how a HM slave Pokemon takes up a slot in your party but oh well.

As for moves I like it at 4, maybe 5 max. It's nice because you have to choose your moves wisely.

 

[The Hoopster]

Maybe a new type of battle would use more then six, (maybe a horde battle?) But otherwise 6 is the magic number. 6 Gives you: ONE tank, ONE Buffer, ONE Debuffer, ONE Sponge, ONE moves specialist, and ONE Speedy pokemon.

 

[Te-em]

Maybe a new type of battle would use more then six, (maybe a horde battle?) But otherwise 6 is the magic number. 6 Gives you: ONE tank, ONE Buffer, ONE Debuffer, ONE Sponge, ONE moves specialist, and ONE Speedy pokemon.

You need a healer. Or do you count that as Buffer?

 

[ShadowDRGN]

I say add an extra "backup" slot or two so that you can switch out when you're on the overworld. Also, 5 or 6 moves slots would be nice so that you could have status moves on your Pokemon without taking up room for attacks.

 

[Swadloon]

What's the point in making the games even easier? Pokémon games are already easy.

Regarding to online battles, your pokémon can't learn all the moves, they can't be invincible against all the strategies, and that's the fun. You have to plan every strategy very well to try to cover as many situations as you can. That's the challenge. That's why a same pokémon is not always identic.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

Six Moves: Split into two excluyent categories.
You can have up to three directly damaging moves, and up to three status moves.
Alternatively, a number of move slots corresponding to move "tiers", similar to early Final Fantasy games.

Four Pokémon: Using a "lead, second, third, reserve" system.
On a singles trainer battle, you fight with the three first pokémon, with the obvious lead. If you lose, you do not get warped to the pokémon center, but rather continue with your reserve pokémon only standing. There'd be also exceptions to this.
On doubles, triples, rotation and wild battles force four pokémon.


I'm not saying this would be better or worse, but it seems like it'd be an interesting experiment to try on an existing game, provided there's a rebalancing to go along with it (as revives would be quite broken)

 

[Muur]

Extra move slots wouldn't hurt. More Pokemon would make levelling them all up the to the same level even more time consuming!