Creatures Reveals TCG's New Focus on Five Weaknesses, Dragon Likely Removed

[Skeleton Liar]

My only concern is whether or not the game is going to become a huge rock-paper-scissors fest. Now, I'm no expert on the TCG, don't get me wrong, but at least from what I can assume, if you rely TOO much on weakness, that's what the game could end up becoming. I would hope to sort of balance this out in a way we can have a diverse meta with decks that can do well regardless-weakness being just a bonus of sorts even if it's a little bit more condensed to just the small amount of them-and not an autoloss situation.

It's definitely amusing that Dragon and Fairy have kinda just become irrelevant now despite them being major new things to the game that they advertised pretty heavily, mainly Dragons. (Hell, I started around XY base and fairies still feel new to me, lol).

It'll be interesting seeing a lot of those fairy types now as Psychics. Like, it's definitely going to be odd seeing a Psychic Clefairy or something like that. The thing that honestly bums me out the most about this is I really liked the colors they had for Dragon and Fairy cards, especially back in the EX days. Like the old Dragon M Ray or the M Charizard X always looked good with that body, and the shade of pink they used for fairies was a really nice one too. Gonna miss that.

Of course, that's all assuming Dragon IS gone. I'm still going to hold my breath since they never formally announced it's going away, but if it is, RIP Dragons, I loved you you wonderful mess of a type.

Yeah, I couldn't really make up my mind about whether this simplification could be good or bad. I'm seeing the comments for why it could be bad, and I was thinking the same thing about games just being decided by weakness. But at the same time, I couldn't quite see removing Fairy and potentially Dragon types and switching a few weaknesses as being that impactful to the game itself. There are still 8 weaknesses in the game. And if a deck is good enough, facing its weakness sometimes isn't a huge factor.

Man, I didn't even think about that with Clefairy, though. Or Snubbull--Snubbull is now Psychic. That's weird too... lol And yeah, although I don't particularly have strong feelings one way or another about Fairy and potentially Dragon types being removed, I will miss the variety of the color that they gave to those cards.

 

[Mimikeon]

And to that point, I'm saying there is a simple solution. As solution that takes time, sure, but a solution none-the-less. And I totally agree with wishing people would stop blaming the developers for the issues. It's just that "entitled" isn't the word. I think either "ignorant" or just flat out "stupid" is more apt, if anyone truly thinks that. (Like the people raging about Byleth being the latest DLC character in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. You're free to not like the choice, but to go so far as to say that Sakurai should be fired is stupidity to the highest degree. But not entitled.) Despite some short comings, oddities, and archaic choices with other aspects of the games, from what I've seen, Sword and Shield look and play* just fine! (*Granted, I haven't played either game. I'm just saying, I don't recall there being anything gamebreakingly bad--other than online stuff being wonky, which is an issue across the board for the Switch.) I can absolutely see the effort within the restraints put into the games by the development team. Unfortunately, it's overshadowed by the bad, and everything was put underneath a microscope once they said Pokemon were cut for better animations.

And yes, I think fans really would expect all of the Pokemon even if they made the best Pokemon game ever with amazing graphics, but still cut half the Pokemon. Because again, even though it takes time, adding the rest into the game later is totally viable. And expecting these Pokemon to be added--but not catchable--for free isn't unreasonable or entitled from fans either, since all Pokemon should be available anyway. For this hypothetical aspect, TPC would have made a ton of money just on these games alone (we know this because that actually happened, despite all the backlash). From those sales, they earned enough to allow more time for the developers to continue making the missing Pokemon models. Besides, that also helps future-proof the series (again).

I'm sorry if my comment about TPC reacting to the feedback by adding missing Pokemon seemed like a complaint. It wasn't meant to be. I just didn't explain that it seemed more ironic that they were so adamant about not adding Pokemon later, then when they announced that some would be back in the DLC, it seemed like, "Surprise! Just kidding!" Saying it was a knee-jerk reaction just further implied that the decision to exclude half the Pokemon was a mistake. That being said, I really am in favor of the passes! They changed my outlook of the games from a firm (though reluctant) "No, I am not buying either of these games" to a cautiously optimistic "I might buy one of these games."

You're right about starting sets focusing on the Regional Dex. But I think by mentioning "Dexit," it was just an easier way of saying, "Forget about sticking to the Regional Dex--just give us a sign! Any sign!" Personally, if Dragon type is completely removed, I think they'll just be reverted back to being Colorless again.

It's only simple if you ignore the fact that it might take away from whatever else they're doing and the fact that people will still complain about trees and not having Dragonbreath of the Wild (relevant pun intended). It doesn't matter though since they're only adding another 200+ and then probably moving on to the next game, so fans will remain fixated on the ~250 we don't get back.

I also don't get why you feel that "entitled" is the worse insult in the world, but okay. I just feel that it works when people expect a for-profit company to give up millions of dollars to please a vocal minority. I just wish those people would move on and just use TemTem and rom hacks for their fix since they're so repetitive at this point and don't want to listen to any sort of reasoning that doesn't 100% take their side.

As for what type Dragon will become if it really is gone... who knows? If they're removing it for the same reason as Fairy, it would be odd to make it Colorless with a Colorless weakness. I just hope that we get confirmation of what's happening soon so we don't have to get a paragraph about it in every article.

 

[Pine]

Very disappointed, TCG is already simplified compared to other card games, this will make some matches turn into rock-paper-scissors. They could develop this if they make more unique trainers that support the main types, but I highly doubt that.

 

[Otaku]

I'll try and resist my normal urge to go on at length and keep this concise.

x2 Weakness is a broken game mechanic in the TCG, and always has been. I'm not sure if it is all that great in the video games, but that's a topic for a different discussion. Sometimes the game can fake it being balanced, but it has to require a lot of luck or effort on the part of the game's designers to do it.

Streamlining the game is not bad. This possible (probable) change ain't doing that.

Here's how I'd like to see it handled... because saying so ends up explaining things more concisely than approaching it from the other direction.

1. If Weakness/Resistance have to stick around, Weakness should always be +20, while Resistance is -30. That isn't an accident; the TCG makes it much easier to exploit Weakness than Resistance, so unless we can practically reinvent the rest of the game, the numbers should reflect this difference.
2. Consolidating Pokémon Types is fine if Types if it improves TCG gameplay.
3. Increase the TCG Types so that every VG-Type has a 1:1 counterpart is fine if it improves gameplay.
4. Something in between is fine if it improves gameplay!

 

[The-Kaiser]

Oh well fun while it lasted but i guess to streamline the game and reduce on redundancies and bloat go back to the original Basic Energy Types. Makes me wonder if or when it goes all digital or when we get Augmented Reality Cards.

 

[Skeleton Liar]

It's only simple if you ignore the fact that it might take away from whatever else they're doing and the fact that people will still complain about trees and not having Dragonbreath of the Wild (relevant pun intended). It doesn't matter though since they're only adding another 200+ and then probably moving on to the next game, so fans will remain fixated on the ~250 we don't get back.

I also don't get why you feel that "entitled" is the worse insult in the world, but okay. I just feel that it works when people expect a for-profit company to give up millions of dollars to please a vocal minority. I just wish those people would move on and just use TemTem and rom hacks for their fix since they're so repetitive at this point and don't want to listen to any sort of reasoning that doesn't 100% take their side.

As for what type Dragon will become if it really is gone... who knows? If they're removing it for the same reason as Fairy, it would be odd to make it Colorless with a Colorless weakness. I just hope that we get confirmation of what's happening soon so we don't have to get a paragraph about it in every article.

I already explained how that doesn't take away from their development time for future games; if anything it benefits future games. And calling fans "entitled" is annoying because it's been the laziest excuse used to defend terrible decisions made in video games, when the fans have legitimate reason to voice displeasure. I've also explained this. But if we're just going to be dismissive, then I also don't get why you feel that "Dexit" is such a dumb word. Hum dee dee~

And really? You're going to complain about "entitlement" when you wish fans that have loved the franchise for up to 20 years (or more) and poured so much time and money into it would just go away? "Yeah, go play TemTem or pirate Pokemon games, because that's totally the solution. You're not important or wanted." Hmm... Doesn't seem like an entitled opinion at all. See, this is why an argument FOR the initial removal of the Pokemon has never been convincing. Ignore facts, ignore reason, and perform mental gymnastics simply because they "don't want to listen to any sort of reasoning that doesn't 100% take their side." You wrote that. And it's totally applicable to yourself.

I tried to bridge that gap between where we stand on the matter, and the things that I agree with you on, I mean it. I also made it a point to be polite, but firm, about my points, especially in my second reply, because insults don't lead anywhere. But that truly pissed me off. Good day.

--

And to give my final thought on the Dragon type speculation, to anyone who bothered to read through all this, if Dragon type is removed and becomes Colorless again, I'm guessing it will have Water weakness to cover Ice type. If Creatures wants to focus on Water being one of the five weaknesses, only Fire is weak to Water, which is less coverage than both Metal and Darkness. (Or they could just not have weaknesses again.)
Edit: I just realized that @Nyora made a similar guess earlier. I read all of the other replies; I'm not sure how I overlooked that...

 

[Scoop]

Yeah, I couldn't really make up my mind about whether this simplification could be good or bad. I'm seeing the comments for why it could be bad, and I was thinking the same thing about games just being decided by weakness. But at the same time, I couldn't quite see removing Fairy and potentially Dragon types and switching a few weaknesses as being that impactful to the game itself. There are still 8 weaknesses in the game. And if a deck is good enough, facing its weakness sometimes isn't a huge factor.

I'm hoping that's the case. I mean, look at the old Buzzwole-GX vs. Zoroark-GX thing. I played Buzz in Expanded for at least a year on PTCGO and despite Zoro being weak to fighting, that didn't just mean Buzzwole steamrolled the deck. It was a bonus but they still could win against eachother depending on how the cards were played. I really hope that's the case in streamlining these weaknesses.

However, an easy solution would just be to making weakness not 2x, and rather +20 like @Otaku said. You could go on for a long time about how well they work in the video games vs the TCG (I personally think they work in the video games for a plethora of reasons that I'm not going to go into since I'm too tired), but the main part is that weakness isn't the central part to whether you win or lose on that side of the series. Like I said, if they're streamlining it and attacks do immense amounts of damage, is it could just end games right there by being so reliant on rock-paper scissors that it could take away so much strategy of the game. It's like if each character in Smash only won against x amount of characters 100% of the time and lost 100% of the time. You can't be overly matchup-reliant and have a game with a level of strategy like that. That's of course, speaking in extremes, but nonetheless they have to make it so if they're keeping 2x weakness, it's balanced enough.

Man, I didn't even think about that with Clefairy, though. Or Snubbull--Snubbull is now Psychic. That's weird too... lol And yeah, although I don't particularly have strong feelings one way or another about Fairy and potentially Dragon types being removed, I will miss the variety of the color that they gave to those cards.

My view on it is that if they're continuing to make good collectibles then I'm fine with it, since I'm a collector first. Am I going to miss fairy and (potentially) Dragon as different colors and all that? Sure, but there's definitely other aspects of the Gen 8 TCG in terms of aesthetics that I like (especially the new Full Arts they're doing-I really think it's everything that worked about EXs AND GXs all in one, and I'm really digging it).

The thing is that most people want reparations at this point more than wanting "better." I'm just seeing people wanting free stuff to make up for what was done more than anything else, and expect a company to shift focus from making money to to making people happy just because "they have enough money already." I just don't like living in a fantasy world. And idk, if a product isn't doing what I want I just don't buy it. There are plenty of other video games and card games to play.

Sure, some people could be like that, but most of the people who are complaining do so because they want to enjoy another Pokemon game, and continue to bring their Pokemon from all those years past into the new generations. That's something people have, myself included, been doing for years now. People have every right to be unhappy, since they want the best for the franchises they love. Not denying that some people are a bit too toxic about it, but there are toxic people defending it too. It goes both ways.

A lot of people who criticize the things they love do it because they love the series. I adored Breath of the Wild, but I can count a lot of its flaws, and how I hope there's aspects of it the sequel fixes. Does that make me entitled? I'll admit there's a few good ideas about Sword and Shield, but it's also missing something completely integral to Pokemon itself, and that's Pokemon. Doesn't make me entitled to want better for a series I love. I'm not expecting "reparations", I'm hoping that they eventually fix the issues that turned me off from the game, and make me justify a purchase.

And you know why? Because I want to play a new Pokemon game. I want to use the new Pokemon. I want to bring my old ones to the newest games and continue expanding my living dex. I didn't buy the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not unhappy about a game I wanted to enjoy. I could have been enjoying my new Pokemon adventure, but here I am instead, because the game they produced isn't at all justifiable for me to purchase it. I'm hopeful that maybe they'll return the other 300 Pokemon and that the DLC will be an incredible Pokemon experience, and if they DO that, then I'm buying the game.

None of that makes me or other fans entitled if they want the best for a series they love.

 

[Otaku]

If Creatures wants to focus on Water being one of the five weaknesses, only Fire is weak to Water, which is less coverage than both Metal and Darkness. (Or they could just not have weaknesses again.)

They're not going to have any more [W] Weak Fighting Types? Really asking; this thread got long and confusing. @_@

I'm hoping that's the case. I mean, look at the old Buzzwole-GX vs. Zoroark-GX thing. I played Buzz in Expanded for at least a year on PTCGO and despite Zoro being weak to fighting, that didn't just mean Buzzwole steamrolled the deck. It was a bonus but they still could win against eachother depending on how the cards were played. I really hope that's the case in streamlining these weaknesses.

However, an easy solution would just be to making weakness not 2x, and rather +20 like @Otaku said. You could go on for a long time about how well they work in the video games vs the TCG (I personally think they work in the video games for a plethora of reasons that I'm not going to go into since I'm too tired), but the main part is that weakness isn't the central part to whether you win or lose on that side of the series. Like I said, if they're streamlining it and attacks do immense amounts of damage, is it could just end games right there by being so reliant on rock-paper scissors that it could take away so much strategy of the game. It's like if each character in Smash only won against x amount of characters 100% of the time and lost 100% of the time. You can't be overly matchup-reliant and have a game with a level of strategy like that. That's of course, speaking in extremes, but nonetheless they have to make it so if they're keeping 2x weakness, it's balanced enough.

AshCo, you reminded me of a few related points.

No, Weakness isn't always an autoloss. Is that because a deck has to not suffer that fate to be competitive, or because most decks don't suffer from it that badly and so the top decks reflect this? How much does individual skill or specific deck archetype affect this? Once again, I really am asking... though not necessarily for a concrete answer. Something for people to think about (and if the answer is really obvious, then my bad).

It does make me wonder if they should just simplify the game even more. Well, not really, but when certain aspects seem "out of whack", it makes me wonder for a split second if I'd prefer the honest, clearly luck-based play of a near literal Rock-Paper-Scissors style of play. Though, since we are dealing with cards, I guess "War" would be a better comparison.

 

[Mimikeon]

I already explained how that doesn't take away from their development time for future games; if anything it benefits future games. And calling fans "entitled" is annoying because it's been the laziest excuse used to defend terrible decisions made in video games, when the fans have legitimate reason to voice displeasure. I've also explained this. But if we're just going to be dismissive, then I also don't get why you feel that "Dexit" is such a dumb word. Hum dee dee~

And really? You're going to complain about "entitlement" when you wish fans that have loved the franchise for up to 20 years (or more) and poured so much time and money into it would just go away? "Yeah, go play TemTem or pirate Pokemon games, because that's totally the solution. You're not important or wanted." Hmm... Doesn't seem like an entitled opinion at all. See, this is why an argument FOR the initial removal of the Pokemon has never been convincing. Ignore facts, ignore reason, and perform mental gymnastics simply because they "don't want to listen to any sort of reasoning that doesn't 100% take their side." You wrote that. And it's totally applicable to yourself.

I tried to bridge that gap between where we stand on the matter, and the things that I agree with you on, I mean it. I also made it a point to be polite, but firm, about my points, especially in my second reply, because insults don't lead anywhere. But that truly pissed me off. Good day.

--

And to give my final thought on the Dragon type speculation, to anyone who bothered to read through all this, if Dragon type is removed and becomes Colorless again, I'm guessing it will have Water weakness to cover Ice type. If Creatures wants to focus on Water being one of the five weaknesses, only Fire is weak to Water, which is less coverage than both Metal and Darkness. (Or they could just not have weaknesses again.)

I don't think you're getting the point. First of all, it's impossible to develop something for free, so you can't explain how it wouldn't take away anything because if that were the case then we wouldn't be here in the first place. It could save time for a remake I guess, but that's about it. Next gen they have the same problem unless they choose to not change any movesets or mechanics, and of course next hardware gen we start all over.

The reason I offered that solution isn't to dismiss anything; it's because the IP is no longer able to please longtime fans without a major overhaul. The franchise needs to evolve for that, and that requires the games to not be limited by strict marketing schedules. The game can't become AAA under the current circumstances. It's never going to get to where it should be. It sucks, and I also wish it could be different, that's where we are. Also, I wasn't arguing for the removal; I was just explaining it. Also, am I the only one seeing the irony in you talking about how I shouldn't be bothered by the word "Dexit" when you're absolutely triggered by the word "entitled?" I'll admit that Ib didn't explain myself well enough initially though. I'm just of the opinion that it's a waste of time to constantly harp on the same point when you know you'll be ignored, and if they're going to ignore you, why shouldn't you ignore them? Though, I'll also admit that the whole Home thing has just gotten on my nerves with the stupid "it should be part of NSO" point coming up over and over again. (That one point is the one argument I outright dismiss, since why would TPC offer it free with a service they make no money from?) So maybe that's the real reason I've been throwing around that evil word lately.

Good point on Dragon.

Sure, some people could be like that, but most of the people who are complaining do so because they want to enjoy another Pokemon game, and continue to bring their Pokemon from all those years past into the new generations. That's something people have, myself included, been doing for years now. People have every right to be unhappy, since they want the best for the franchises they love. Not denying that some people are a bit too toxic about it, but there are toxic people defending it too. It goes both ways.
A lot of people who criticize the things they love do it because they love the series. I adored Breath of the Wild, but I can count a lot of its flaws, and how I hope there's aspects of it the sequel fixes. Does that make me entitled? I'll admit there's a few good ideas about Sword and Shield, but it's also missing something completely integral to Pokemon itself, and that's Pokemon. Doesn't make me entitled to want better for a series I love. I'm not expecting "reparations", I'm hoping that they eventually fix the issues that turned me off from the game, and make me justify a purchase.
And you know why? Because I want to play a new Pokemon game. I want to use the new Pokemon. I want to bring my old ones to the newest games and continue expanding my living dex. I didn't buy the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not unhappy about a game I wanted to enjoy. I could have been enjoying my new Pokemon adventure, but here I am instead, because the game they produced isn't at all justifiable for me to purchase it. I'm hopeful that maybe they'll return the other 300 Pokemon and that the DLC will be an incredible Pokemon experience, and if they DO that, then I'm buying the game.
None of that makes me or other fans entitled if they want the best for a series they love.

First of all, you're not falling into what I'm calling entitled because you chose not to buy it and you're not acting like they owe you that great game or free stuff to make up for what they did.
I get all of that, but the fact of the matter is that it's not going happen. No other IP has to deal with the horrible schedule that Pokemon does, but it's big enough that fans hope and expect it to match stuff like BotW and DQ12. That will never happen though because the game can't be delayed to have that kind of development time. DLC won't be enough to fix it either. Also, there are over 400 Pokemon still missing and they're only promising about half of that. You're not gonna be satisfied, and when that happens I don't want you to be angry. Hope for the best, but expect the worst and be prepared to put that time and money elsewhere, especially if you're not ready to compromise and you want both that mind-blowing best Pokemon game ever and every Pokemon. No point in making yourself miserable by falling into a cycle of disappointment. Trust me, I'm a Sonic fan. At some point you realize that you've gotta accept the series for what it is and that it's not gonna deliver for you anymore, and that's why stuff like Tem Tem exists.

 

[Skeleton Liar]

I'm hoping that's the case. I mean, look at the old Buzzwole-GX vs. Zoroark-GX thing. I played Buzz in Expanded for at least a year on PTCGO and despite Zoro being weak to fighting, that didn't just mean Buzzwole steamrolled the deck. It was a bonus but they still could win against eachother depending on how the cards were played. I really hope that's the case in streamlining these weaknesses.

However, an easy solution would just be to making weakness not 2x, and rather +20 like @Otaku said. You could go on for a long time about how well they work in the video games vs the TCG (I personally think they work in the video games for a plethora of reasons that I'm not going to go into since I'm too tired), but the main part is that weakness isn't the central part to whether you win or lose on that side of the series. Like I said, if they're streamlining it and attacks do immense amounts of damage, is it could just end games right there by being so reliant on rock-paper scissors that it could take away so much strategy of the game. It's like if each character in Smash only won against x amount of characters 100% of the time and lost 100% of the time. You can't be overly matchup-reliant and have a game with a level of strategy like that. That's of course, speaking in extremes, but nonetheless they have to make it so if they're keeping 2x weakness, it's balanced enough.


My view on it is that if they're continuing to make good collectibles then I'm fine with it, since I'm a collector first. Am I going to miss fairy and (potentially) Dragon as different colors and all that? Sure, but there's definitely other aspects of the Gen 8 TCG in terms of aesthetics that I like (especially the new Full Arts they're doing-I really think it's everything that worked about EXs AND GXs all in one, and I'm really digging it).

Yeah, it's definitely a possibility that this won't have a huge impact. Maybe. We'll see. Ha ha.

Honestly, I hadn't considered the +10, 20, or 30 weaknesses. I took a hiatus from collecting cards in the late EX era, then returned and started playing the TCG with DPPt Arceus. By then, HGSS came out, and it was x2 weaknesses again, and it became the norm for me. Though Lv.X's and SP cards did have x2 weakness... I wonder if giving regular Pokemon the +damage weakness and Pokemon V x2 weakness would both simplify and balance things out. Someone with a better knowledge of the DPPt era would probably have a better perspective on that...

It's good to hear you're liking the SwSh sets. Me, I'm going to be sitting it out with collecting new sets and just collect what I like the most in them. I think they've taken the sets in a better direction than SM, but at this point, I kind of just want to focus on completing past sets, if possible.

They're not going to have any more [W] Weak Fighting Types? Really asking; this thread got long and confusing. @_@

It seems so, oddly enough! I saw the list in this news article, and I looked at all of the Fighting type cards in the SwSh base set and VMax Rising. None of them are weak to Water. At this point in time, it might be hard to say if we've had enough 'Rock and Ground' Fighting types to completely rule it out, but at least for now, Water only hits Fire for weakness, it seems.

No, Weakness isn't always an autoloss. Is that because a deck has to not suffer that fate to be competitive, or because most decks don't suffer from it that badly and so the top decks reflect this? How much does individual skill or specific deck archetype affect this? Once again, I really am asking... though not necessarily for a concrete answer. Something for people to think about (and if the answer is really obvious, then my bad).

If I may just chime in a bit on this, I think there are just so many factors involved that the best competitive decks almost always have a fighting chance to not let weakness steamroll them. There's Abilities, Trainers, skill, and just flat out luck. If I recall correctly, I watched a Gardevoir GX vs Rayquaza GX match up at Worlds in 2018. Gardevoir probably should have won easily, but it lost. I think the Gardevoir player had terrible set ups while the Rayquaza player had more optimal set ups, and it just powered through it.

Not sure if that really answered anything for you. But things like that are why I'm on the fence about whether these changes greatly or barely impact the game.

 

[Scoop]

AshCo, you reminded me of a few related points.

No, Weakness isn't always an autoloss. Is that because a deck has to not suffer that fate to be competitive, or because most decks don't suffer from it that badly and so the top decks reflect this? How much does individual skill or specific deck archetype affect this? Once again, I really am asking... though not necessarily for a concrete answer. Something for people to think about (and if the answer is really obvious, then my bad).

It does make me wonder if they should just simplify the game even more. Well, not really, but when certain aspects seem "out of whack", it makes me wonder for a split second if I'd prefer the honest, clearly luck-based play of a near literal Rock-Paper-Scissors style of play. Though, since we are dealing with cards, I guess "War" would be a better comparison.

Of course weakness isn't always an autoloss. I think part what it could be is the inherently random nature of the TCG, in that you could have a deck with a full advantage over another and still brick and lose. Regarding your point on the top decks-When I think back to certain formats (Primal Clash on during late 2016 for instance) the top decks, although they had weaknesses and there were some measures to exploit said weaknesses, they never really suffered badly from it. MMY's attack wasn't affected by weakness, M-Ray didn't hit for it, Rainbow Road wasn't really hitting anything for weakness either. But some of them certainly did have counters for their weaknesses. I would consider this a case where the top decks reflect them not suffering badly from weakness. Of course, that's just a rando example and I'm no expert on the TCG-certainly not to the level a lot of people on this site have, lol, so please take any of the stuff I come up with with a grain of salt.

I don't know how I'd feel about an even more simplified, randomized version of the TCG, though. As random as it can be already, I feel like there's a certain level of strategy that DOES make the game as enjoyable as it can be, despite its flaws. This is again, coming from a casual player who's never played a physical match of the game and just enjoys playing decks I enjoy from time to time online until something or other kills their viability, lol. Perhaps attempting to solidify what we DO have already would be the goal here, but again, I'm not 100% on any of it.

It's good to hear you're liking the SwSh sets. Me, I'm going to be sitting it out with collecting new sets and just collect what I like the most in them. I think they've taken the sets in a better direction than SM, but at this point, I kind of just want to focus on completing past sets, if possible.

I haven't actually collected anything new since November, honestly. I got back into a few old hobbies (I spent a bit too much on some Lego Modulars and now I'm hooked again oops) and I've got a few plans on what I'm going to be buying/collecting over the next few months to where I've just put Pokemon on the backburner right now. Definitely not to say I don't enjoy Pokemon anymore, far from it, but I think after 5 years of collecting the TCG it's nice to go back to some older hobbies and finally get that bookshelf I've had my eye on. It's a bit of a breath of fresh air, and after SM kinda got exhausting I figured now would be a good time. I'm with you on completing past sets though, that's definitely going to be my focus for a while. I'm definitely enjoying this era a lot more than SM and it's been fun to go on TCGO and try to get some Zacians or something, though.

First of all, you're not falling into what I'm calling entitled because you chose not to buy it and you're not acting like they owe you that great game or free stuff to make up for what they did.
I get all of that, but the fact of the matter is that it's not going happen. No other IP has to deal with the horrible schedule that Pokemon does, but it's big enough that fans hope and expect it to match stuff like BotW and DQ12. That will never happen though because the game can't be delayed to have that kind of development time. DLC won't be enough to fix it either. Also, there are over 400 Pokemon still missing and they're only promising about half of that. You're not gonna be satisfied, and when that happens I don't want you to be angry. Hope for the best, but expect the worst and be prepared to put that time and money elsewhere, especially if you're not ready to compromise and you want both that mind-blowing best Pokemon game ever and every Pokemon. No point in making yourself miserable by falling into a cycle of disappointment. Trust me, I'm a Sonic fan. At some point you realize that you've gotta accept the series for what it is and that it's not gonna deliver for you anymore, and that's why stuff like Tem Tem exists.

The only thing I think they should do is bring back those Pokemon, simply because it's been the standard since Gen 4 to allow past generational transfer. (Gen 2 technically but 2/3 are incompatible)

I don't think they HAVE to give us a mind-blowing best Pokemon game every time. I'm not necessarily asking for some masterpiece, it's Pokemon. Even if the last few gens weren't perfect, I have a LOT of flaws with Gen 7, they still allowed for the same trading/battling/collecting experience that each game had no matter its quality. If we get an amazing top of the line game like Gen 5, or Platinum, that's even better! But nonetheless, if it has the basic idea of being able to have my Pokemon in a new gen, being able to trade and battle like I always have been able to, and being able to collect and complete the Pokedex, then it's perfectly fine in my book.

Sword and Shield didn't have to be a masterpiece, I wasn't expecting it to be. But I was at LEAST expecting the same things I've come to expect from this series since its roots, and that's where I think they've failed.

There's things I think they could do to make a better experience. They should at LEAST expand their staff, for the franchise we're dealing with here, it's astronomically small. They were already cut in half because they were working on both Town and SwSh at the same time, and because of the lack of manpower they couldn't come out with a product that meets even the baseline level of quality for the console it was on. It sure didn't feel like a $60 game. I don't feel like they "owe" us anything, per se, but I sure do hope that they at least make an effort to make something even better next time.

I'm not making myself sad or anything like that by saying this either-I still HAVE all my old Pokemon and my old games, I can enjoy the series in a million other ways (Go, for instance has been a big one for me), but I still feel like I can discuss my criticisms and hope that they make improvements in the future. If not, that's fine, but I still do think that criticism and discussion has its place.

Sorry if I'm not getting all my points across, I'm in kind of a hurry right now so excuse me if I missed something.

 

[Skeleton Liar]

I don't think you're getting the point. First of all, it's impossible to develop something for free, so you can't explain how it wouldn't take away anything because if that were the case then we wouldn't be here in the first place. It could save time for a remake I guess, but that's about it. Next gen they have the same problem unless they choose to not change any movesets or mechanics, and of course next hardware gen we start all over.

The reason I offered that solution isn't to dismiss anything; it's because the IP is no longer able to please longtime fans without a major overhaul. The franchise needs to evolve for that, and that requires the games to not be limited by strict marketing schedules. The game can't become AAA under the current circumstances. It's never going to get to where it should be. It sucks, and I also wish it could be different, that's where we are. Also, I wasn't arguing for the removal; I was just explaining it. Also, am I the only one seeing the irony in you talking about how I shouldn't be bothered by the word "Dexit" when you're absolutely triggered by the word "entitled?" I'll admit that Ib didn't explain myself well enough initially though. I'm just of the opinion that it's a waste of time to constantly harp on the same point when you know you'll be ignored, and if they're going to ignore you, why shouldn't you ignore them? Though, I'll also admit that the whole Home thing has just gotten on my nerves with the stupid "it should be part of NSO" point coming up over and over again. (That one point is the one argument I outright dismiss, since why would TPC offer it free with a service they make no money from?) So maybe that's the real reason I've been throwing around that evil word lately.

Good point on Dragon.

No, we're simply in disagreement on how we view these costs. I'm not going to claim I'm some expert on the industry, development and advertising costs, etc. But I'm willing to bet money that they earned MORE than enough money to cover paying for SwSh, additional development costs, and enough to start working on the next main series games, just from SwSh sales alone. I'm paraphrasing, but the Nintendo President of Japan said that he foresees a long life ahead for the Switch. So I'm also willing to bet money that the next main series Pokemon games will also be on the Switch. (At least Gen 9, possibly a remake too.) Spending time working on the remaining Pokemon benefits both future games and completing SwSh. That cost has already been earned.

Abandoning Pokemon isn't really a desirable option for most upset fans, though. Like @AshCo said, we want the games to be better. (Within reason. Because you're unfortunately right about Pokemon games never being able to reach their full potential now, with their strict schedule that they put themselves into.) It's similar to Star Wars for me right now. After seeing episode 8, I hate what the sequel trilogy has become; a wasted potential. But that doesn't mean I hate Star Wars, and I do wish the best for the franchise in the future. There's no reason to abandon all hope for the future.

Oh, come on. "Entitled" isn't some scary, triggering word. For the third time, it's lazy in the context of "Dexit" and how it's usually used in these situations. But you are saying that you didn't explain yourself well. That's totally fair, and that's why I said "ignorant" or flat out "stupid" were more apt for what you were describing. And it's also fair to say the obnoxious Home outrage is being lumped together. (Which is why there's been miscommunication in our replies?) Honestly, I've never heard of this argument that Home should be included with NSO. Again, I'd say that's ignorant and stupid, even arrogant. They're two completely different things. I get being upset at there being cost, but only to a certain degree. I think it's just been blown out of proportion. Personally, if I eventually do end up getting Shield, I'm only paying for a month of Home. A full month is plenty of time to transfer Pokemon from the 3DS. It's just $3; big deal. And nothing else in the premium plan seems necessary.

Sooo... What do you say? Can we agree to both agree and disagree, as a whole and just call it a day?

 

[Mimikeon]

The only thing I think they should do is bring back those Pokemon, simply because it's been the standard since Gen 4 to allow past generational transfer. (Gen 2 technically but 2/3 are incompatible)

I don't think they HAVE to give us a mind-blowing best Pokemon game every time. I'm not necessarily asking for some masterpiece, it's Pokemon. Even if the last few gens weren't perfect, I have a LOT of flaws with Gen 7, they still allowed for the same trading/battling/collecting experience that each game had no matter its quality. If we get an amazing top of the line game like Gen 5, or Platinum, that's even better! But nonetheless, if it has the basic idea of being able to have my Pokemon in a new gen, being able to trade and battle like I always have been able to, and being able to collect and complete the Pokedex, then it's perfectly fine in my book.

Sword and Shield didn't have to be a masterpiece, I wasn't expecting it to be. But I was at LEAST expecting the same things I've come to expect from this series since its roots, and that's where I think they've failed.

There's things I think they could do to make a better experience. They should at LEAST expand their staff, for the franchise we're dealing with here, it's astronomically small. They were already cut in half because they were working on both Town and SwSh at the same time, and because of the lack of manpower they couldn't come out with a product that meets even the baseline level of quality for the console it was on. It sure didn't feel like a $60 game. I don't feel like they "owe" us anything, per se, but I sure do hope that they at least make an effort to make something even better next time.

I'm not making myself sad or anything like that by saying this either-I still HAVE all my old Pokemon and my old games, I can enjoy the series in a million other ways (Go, for instance has been a big one for me), but I still feel like I can discuss my criticisms and hope that they make improvements in the future. If not, that's fine, but I still do think that criticism and discussion has its place.

Sorry if I'm not getting all my points across, I'm in kind of a hurry right now so excuse me if I missed something.

All fair. That said, a note on the staff thing: Town needed very little staff, so it didn't affect the situation in a big enough way that SwSh would have been significantly better or launched with all Pokemon compatible if it hadn't been made. GF also does a lot of outsourcing. In fact, the modeling and animation for their games are handled by Creatures. The schedule is the main problem. I know that people don't want that to be it because there's no simple solution in that case, but that's what it comes down to. They could have 100 in-house staff and outsource another thousand, but time constraints would still ruin them. It's impossible to be really ambitious under these constraints. You'll see what I mean, since GF actually has been steadily increasing their staff. I think it's more than double what it was before SM now.

As a disclaimer though: I don't hold a massive emotional attachment to my old Pokemon and almost never actually end up transferring them anyway lol

 

[Skeleton Liar]

I haven't actually collected anything new since November, honestly. I got back into a few old hobbies (I spent a bit too much on some Lego Modulars and now I'm hooked again oops) and I've got a few plans on what I'm going to be buying/collecting over the next few months to where I've just put Pokemon on the backburner right now. Definitely not to say I don't enjoy Pokemon anymore, far from it, but I think after 5 years of collecting the TCG it's nice to go back to some older hobbies and finally get that bookshelf I've had my eye on. It's a bit of a breath of fresh air, and after SM kinda got exhausting I figured now would be a good time. I'm with you on completing past sets though, that's definitely going to be my focus for a while. I'm definitely enjoying this era a lot more than SM and it's been fun to go on TCGO and try to get some Zacians or something, though.

Oh, dude. Don't even get me started on those modular buildings! We'll get even more off topic. lol But seriously, they're so good.
And totally agreed. Though not entirely by choice, I've put most of my hobbies to the back burner for now, and it's been (mostly) relaxing not worrying about financially keeping up with too many things.

 

[TokenDuelist]

I'll try and resist my normal urge to go on at length and keep this concise.

x2 Weakness is a broken game mechanic in the TCG, and always has been. I'm not sure if it is all that great in the video games, but that's a topic for a different discussion. Sometimes the game can fake it being balanced, but it has to require a lot of luck or effort on the part of the game's designers to do it.

Streamlining the game is not bad. This possible (probable) change ain't doing that.

Here's how I'd like to see it handled... because saying so ends up explaining things more concisely than approaching it from the other direction.

1. If Weakness/Resistance have to stick around, Weakness should always be +20, while Resistance is -30. That isn't an accident; the TCG makes it much easier to exploit Weakness than Resistance, so unless we can practically reinvent the rest of the game, the numbers should reflect this difference.
2. Consolidating Pokémon Types is fine if Types if it improves TCG gameplay.
3. Increase the TCG Types so that every VG-Type has a 1:1 counterpart is fine if it improves gameplay.
4. Something in between is fine if it improves gameplay!

Giving big basics a x2 Weakness would probably be a nice power balance too....

 

[Mimikeon]

No, we're simply in disagreement on how we view these costs. I'm not going to claim I'm some expert on the industry, development and advertising costs, etc. But I'm willing to bet money that they earned MORE than enough money to cover paying for SwSh, additional development costs, and enough to start working on the next main series games, just from SwSh sales alone. I'm paraphrasing, but the Nintendo President of Japan said that he foresees a long life ahead for the Switch. So I'm also willing to bet money that the next main series Pokemon games will also be on the Switch. (At least Gen 9, possibly a remake too.) Spending time working on the remaining Pokemon benefits both future games and completing SwSh. That cost has already been earned.

Abandoning Pokemon isn't really a desirable option for most upset fans, though. Like @AshCo said, we want the games to be better. (Within reason. Because you're unfortunately right about Pokemon games never being able to reach their full potential now, with their strict schedule that they put themselves into.) It's similar to Star Wars for me right now. After seeing episode 8, I hate what the sequel trilogy has become; a wasted potential. But that doesn't mean I hate Star Wars, and I do wish the best for the franchise in the future. There's no reason to abandon all hope for the future.

Oh, come on. "Entitled" isn't some scary, triggering word. For the third time, it's lazy in the context of "Dexit" and how it's usually used in these situations. But you are saying that you didn't explain yourself well. That's totally fair, and that's why I said "ignorant" or flat out "stupid" were more apt for what you were describing. And it's also fair to say the obnoxious Home outrage is being lumped together. (Which is why there's been miscommunication in our replies?) Honestly, I've never heard of this argument that Home should be included with NSO. Again, I'd say that's ignorant and stupid, even arrogant. They're two completely different things. I get being upset at there being cost, but only to a certain degree. I think it's just been blown out of proportion. Personally, if I eventually do end up getting Shield, I'm only paying for a month of Home. A full month is plenty of time to transfer Pokemon from the 3DS. It's just $3; big deal. And nothing else in the premium plan seems necessary.

Sooo... What do you say? Can we agree to both agree and disagree, as a whole and just call it a day?

Yeah, because I now realize that I'm not as emotionally invested as you guys lol. One thing to note about business though: No amount of money is "enough" to a for-profit company, and stopping at "enough" is how you make sure you'll never be very big. You're right that they covered the costs, but that doesn't mean that they can or should leave money on the table. Would be nice for us, but the world doesn't work that way and it's not something we should expect nor fault them for. That's the point I've been trying to get across: TPC is not your friend. They only want your money, and as much of it as they can get. That's also likely part of why these changes are happening with the TCG as well, since it reduces the number of templates they have to use, and why we're just getting power creep instead of trying to actually fix TCG problems. Or why the anime switched to that garbage art style.

 

[Otaku]

Big Basics don't need x2 Weakness to be balanced, though.

I mean, it is just my usual Theorymon, so take it with at least a grain of salt. In the abstract, the advantages of Basic Pokémon over the equivalent card as an Evolution are:

• Card Advantage
• Time Advantage
• Know their role

I think the answer to both these things is in how we approach Evolutions and I do not mean adding Evolution acceleration. Instead, the powers-that-be need to start designing evolving Basic and Stage 1 Pokémon useful enough to balance out the Card Advantage, and then stop designing stuff that can attack for KO's or other serious advantage before players have had a chance to evolve. That last one ties into both; a Stage 2 might be okay to be both a Bench-sitter and a main attacker, but not a Basic or even a Stage 1; their lower card counts multiple the advantage created.

 

[Clam]

Pokemon knows what they WANT to do they just dont know how they should do it

then again i dont know what they want to do...

 

[Kangaflora]

Regarding the new typing, do we actually know for a fact that Fairy-types will still have Darkness Resistance?

With the Dragon-type though, I can see them either being reverted back to the Colorless-type with no Weakness, or becoming the Fire type with either Water Weakness (referencing the fact that Ice-type attacks are super effective against Dragon-types) or Psychic Weakness (again, referencing the fact that Fairy-type moves are super effective against Dragon-types).

 

[signofzeta]

The one type where the Pokemon requires 2 or more energy types for attacks should never ever be removed, and that type that requires 2 or more energy types for attacks must only be weak against types that require 2 or more energy types for attacks, that is, only Dragon is weak against Dragon.

Getting rid of Dragon and getting rid of Fairy are different. Dragons uses 2 or more energy types for attacks while Fairy uses one energy type for attacks. I could argue getting rid of Fairy is exactly the same as getting rid of Fire, or Lightning, or Metal.

If Dragons stay with the multi energy type cost attacks, the weakness should only be Dragon, not Water, not Psychic. Just Dragon.

It's not to say that the game needs a Dragon type, that requires multiple energy types to power its attacks, more like the game needs a type that requires multiple energy types to power its attacks, which happens to be named Dragon.