[Discussion] Fixing the problems in pokemon battle system

[silver-wind]

I've been working on my game's battle system rules,
I would love any ideas/ suggestions.
basically, I'm trying to prevent problems in the current pokemon battle system:

1. Sweeping
the fact that you can boost up 6 times, and sweep the foe's entire team.
I remember beating Gardenia's Roselia with a Budew using Absorb (!), by simply boosting up first.
> I can limit stat modifiers to x3 (it's normally x4 when you have +6)
> I can force a switch if you faint 3 foes in a raw
> I can make both sides attack at once (but then Speed is meaningless)

2. Non- Offensive moves
they're not as good as offensive ones.
players just delete them/ ignore them. most of them are too situational / only useful in longer battles.
trainers use them randomly- with no logic, which gives the player easy wins, and makes all trainers in the game look incompetent.
> I can play with the damage formula, to make battles longer (with visible pokemon like Let's Go, so there are less wild battles)
> I can make them inflict damage / heal HP, on top of their effect. so you can kill a weak wild pokemon with Growl, etc.
> I can lower the PP of strong moves, so people would use Leer to save PP, or Growl to waste the foe's PP. (that sounds annoying though)
> I can add 1 extra move slot, which can only have non-offensive moves.

3. Switching
It's kinda broken. it's half the strategy in any competitive battle.
trainers don't switch / rarely do, which puts them at a huge disadvantage. no AI can do this well anyway.
> I can give more EXP when the foe has a type advantage/ when you don't use a super effective move to win
- to make players play more dangerously / swap out less.
> I can give some trainers 2 pokemon which cover each other's weaknesses. they can randomly swap between them.
> I can lock a pokemon for 5 turns after it swaps out. so you can't always use the pokemon super-effective on the foe.

 

[StCooler]

Hiya,

I've been working on my game's battle system rules,
I would love any ideas/ suggestions.
basically, I'm trying to prevent problems in the current pokemon battle system:

That's optimistic XD

From what you are saying, I feel like you are trying to make the battles a bit harder for the player, but most of what you plan to change does not address (in my opinion) the actual problem with current Pokémon battles: the AI is stupid and passive. However you have good ideas ^^

In detail:

Spoiler:

the fact that you can boost up 6 times, and sweep the foe's entire team.
I remember beating Gardenia's Roselia with a Budew using Absorb (!), by simply boosting up first.

In competitive battles, you don't get to boost to +6 very often, because the other player will not let you do that ^^" So here, it's mainly an AI problem.

> I can limit stat modifiers to x3 (it's normally x4 when you have +6)

I agree with you on the fact that x4 is very high. x3 seems more balanced to me, maybe x2 would be enough (you can already sweep a team with a +4 bonus).

> I can force a switch if you faint 3 foes in a raw

This is a good idea! Like maybe your Pokémon feels tired after a few kills. Either it gets progressively tired, leading to stat decreases, or after 3 kills it gets a very big debuff (like Archeops's Defeatist).

> I can make both sides attack at once (but then Speed is meaningless)

I don't have an opinion on this ^^" I'd be curious to see how you handle battles without ordering.

2. Non- Offensive moves
they're not as good as offensive ones.
players just delete them/ ignore them. most of them are too situational / only useful in longer battles.
trainers use them randomly- with no logic, which gives the player easy wins, and makes all trainers in the game look incompetent.

Again, in competitive battle, I would say that, depending on your type of teams (balanced, bulky-offense, stall, hyper-offense...), you would probably have around 20% of non-offensive moves (stat boosts, status move (Toxic/Will O Wisp), healing...).
But I agree, in game, most non-damaging moves are useless, or just (weaker) copies of other moves.

trainers use them randomly- with no logic, which gives the player easy wins, and makes all trainers in the game look incompetent.

AI problem ^^

> I can play with the damage formula, to make battles longer (with visible pokemon like Let's Go, so there are less wild battles)
> I can make them inflict damage / heal HP, on top of their effect. so you can kill a weak wild pokemon with Growl, etc.
> I can lower the PP of strong moves, so people would use Leer to save PP, or Growl to waste the foe's PP. (that sounds annoying though)

This is the only point I would disagree. I don't feel like longer battles would be more enjoyable; in my opinion, they'd feel more tedious than actually interesting. I mean, currently, NPCs are roughly just packed XP for you to get. Most of the fights are not interesting, so I am sure that making these longer would not benefit the player.

> I can add 1 extra move slot, which can only have non-offensive moves.

This sounds nice, as it makes non-offensive moves special. But you'll need to filter out the useless non-offensive moves.
+ I realise that maybe the special non-offensive move will be kind of equivalent to the ability of the Pokémon in a sense...

3. Switching
It's kinda broken. it's half the strategy in any competitive battle.
trainers don't switch / rarely do, which puts them at a huge disadvantage. no AI can do this well anyway.

AI problem :(

> I can give more EXP when the foe has a type advantage/ when you don't use a super effective move to win
- to make players play more dangerously / swap out less.

I really like this idea.

> I can give some trainers 2 pokemon which cover each other's weaknesses. they can randomly swap between them.
> I can lock a pokemon for 5 turns after it swaps out. so you can't always use the pokemon super-effective on the foe.

I don't have an opinion on this ^^"

I'd like to mention a fourth problem that I see.

4. Items
The player generally uses too many items per battle, while the NPCs almost never do (except Gym Leaders and such). Maybe give a limit to the number of items the player can use in battle? No item against the random NPC, and maybe three items against a Gym Leader ?

 

[silver-wind]

I like your idea. limiting items can help with difficulty.

I agree trainer AI is the main problem.
the thing is, randomness just works better, as it's unpredictable.
think about switching for example: the enemy has a Fire type, and the player has a Grass type.
> a simple AI would use a Fire move if it has one. worst case it'll hit the pokemon you switch in, and do chip damage.
> meanwhile a "smart" AI would predict a switch, and use a Grass move to counter in-coming Water/Rock types. but that's predictable, and players would just stay in with their grass type and use the free turn for a Sleep powder, etc. if the AI keeps using Grass moves, not able to be predict WHEN the player will switch out, suddenly Grass doesn't have to fear Fire types anymore. if there's any random factor, players wouldn't be able to stay in.
> meanwhile #2, an absolute random AI may not even use a Fire move. but the threat is still there, so players would swap out. but they cannot predict what move is coming, and switch to the best option. you can barely call it an AI, but it gets the job done.
When I implement an AI, it'll be to help this randomness a little: adding the option to randomly heal/ swap out + rules like: never use Normal move on a Ghost, etc.
anyway, situational moves don't go well with randomness. that's why I suggested making non-damaging moves also heal HP, so they're not a wasted turn.

and, about longer battles.. idk. I'll have to get more opinions.
people don't mind competitive battle being an hour long, for example.
but I can see how it may get tedious for wild battles. in general, I dislike 1-turn wild battles, where you enter the grass, there's an epic battle music, you send out your pokemon, the foe animates/roars, and then you use one move & it's over. it breaks immersion, as you keep bouncing between the map and the battle screen, and feels more tedious than trainers battles, which are longer. but that may be a personal thing.

 

[mgriffin]

I agree with both of you! I made this post a few years back about RNG and other problems I have with the battle system. Quoted here:

Spoiler:

Mark Rosewater, who heads up design of Magic: the Gathering has talked about randomness' role in a an article and a podcast (summarized on Reddit).

Not all of his points really apply to in-game Pokémon, e.g. it doesn't necessarily matter if the player feels they have a chance to win because they can always soft-reset (or ideally be able to forfeit if the writing is truly on the wall). And while I don't hate RNG in principle, I do think it's poorly executed in Pokémon because very often a single 20% or 30% chance can completely ruin a battle—even if you played well for the previous twenty turns—and that's not even remotely fun!

I have a theory that because Pokémon is double-blind (i.e. you pick your move without knowing what the foe picked) that predicting your opponent could potentially provide a nice source of "randomness".

In Rock-Paper-Scissors the correct strategy is to pick perfectly randomly. But what if you got two points if you win with the last move that you won with? Well now it's less clear what you should do. Obviously you can't always pick the same move in a row because then your opponent just counters you each turn, but you probably want to pick the two-point move more than 33% of the time because it's twice as good as any other option if your opponent picks randomly. Except that your opponent knows that you should prefer that move, and also your opponent has their own two-point move, and you know what it is. So lots of mind-games to complicate things.

I think Pokémon is conceptually very close to that RPS variant. On any given turn there's maybe 1–3 valid attacks or switches, and which one you pick depends on all sorts of factors. But unlike in the RPS there are turns where it's pretty obvious what you should do, and I think those turns are pretty important because they provide a nice lull for the player to feel good (or bad) about how things have gone since their last prediction. Unfortunately power creep is ruining this mechanic! IMO it's important that your decisions aren't just coin-flips and that you have a chance to recover from a misprediction, but when attacks are OHKOing and there are lots of mechanics that can snowball (looking at you Soul Heart/Beast Boost) then one slip-up can be just as costly as an ill-timed "fully paralyzed" and it's almost as un-fun.

I don't have a solution fully thought out, but I think I'd approach "fixing" the situation like this:

• Remove some of the more powerful effects. This probably means mega evolution and Z moves need reworking.
• Replace random secondary effects with another mechanic. Probably I'd make Thunderbolt unable to paralyze, and have Discharge paralyze 100% of the time but only on the second consecutive hit.
• Replace accuracy with other mechanics. For things like with at least 80% accuracy I'd probably make them 100% and maybe add an appropriate drawback (e.g. stat drops), and for the others maybe Focus Punch and Sucker Punch can inspire novel solutions to "sometimes this move doesn't work".
• Make each move and ability only able to apply its stat change once (per being switched-in), e.g. the second Swords Dance does nothing,. This should make it less punishing to stay in on a Pokémon that can set up on you.

Of course none of this matters unless the AI is able to make sensible decisions, but that's a topic for another time... :)

---

Sorry for the rambling, but writing this stuff down brought all sorts of ideas that I'd never thought of before and I figured I should get them down.
BTW If anyone has similar feelings about randomness and/or predictions I'd love for you to send me a PM and we can see if there's something we could brainstorm together or collaborate on.

I very much agree with StCooler that better AI is a solution to a lot of Pokémon's battle problems, and I agree with silver-wind that the best AI would involve some amount of randomness (basically, for example, if Thunderbolt is likely to be better 2 times out of 3, then we should use it 66% of the time).

Cutting item usage down a lot is another step that I'd fully agree with. At the end of the day, nothing is challenging if you can PP stall with Revives, Hyper Potions and Full Restores; and I think it's good to remove the option to save players from themselves.

 

[silver-wind]

good points.
I feel like "nukes" like z-moves, mega evolution and gigantamax should be limited. maybe only usable in rival battles & evil team boss fights, or maybe they'll require charging, so they can be used once every 10 fights or so. I'd keep them, as they break the monotony of battles- assuming the battles are challenging enough to require the nukes.
and accuracy is a topic on its own. I'm not sure 100% hit chance is the way to go.
I wouldn't miss Sand attack / Fog/ keen eye/etc. but there's usually a trade-off: high power or high accuracy. with no accuracy, moves like Bliizard/Thunder become the ultimate best move. since only some pokemon learn these moves, players would gravitate to a specific Fire type, Electric type, etc, instead of using their favorites. making these moves work like Draco Meteor/ Close Combat isn't really a trade-off. they're both considered good moves despite the stat lowering, as they'll OHKO or 2HKO, and then you switch out.
I don't have an idea for this, except maybe adding a way to ensure the next attack hits, to prevent player frustration. it can be a new battle item that works like Lock-On, ensuring your moves hit for 5 turns/ until you switch out. for battles where you really need to hit that Thunder, or when the other trainer spams Double Team.

 

[mgriffin]

good points.
there's usually a trade-off: high power or high accuracy. with no accuracy, moves like Bliizard/Thunder become the ultimate best move. since only some pokemon learn these moves, players would gravitate to a specific Fire type, Electric type, etc, instead of using their favorites. making these moves work like Draco Meteor/ Close Combat isn't really a trade-off. they're both considered good moves despite the stat lowering, as they'll OHKO or 2HKO, and then you switch out.

Agreed :) But there are moves like Venoshock, Hex, Focus Punch, Sucker Punch, Facade, Solar Beam, Dream Eater, etc etc that suggest other ways to make powerful moves—make them conditional on some other thing. So you could consider making all powerful moves require combos or predictions like those ones do.

 

[Dooz]

The setup limit is a good idea.

Everything else would NOT work- at all.

And yeah- ban all item usage in battle, even for trainers too. Force the player onto set. And code good AI that switches.

3x instead of 6x is genuinely pretty cool, that's the only core mechanic change I would implement.

As for the 5 moveslots, but only 4 of them at most can be offensive- I think that's a DECENT idea- cool- but might be flawed. That one would take some field testing, though.

 

[silverlime]

Here's what I did in my game to balance out Evasion a bit. Maybe you'll find it useful:
- Moves that are multi-target ignore increases to the target's Evasion stat
- Moves that never miss always Crit against targets that have an increased Evasion stat

 

[Lucidious89]

Items arent a problem imo. Items SHOULD be your get out of jail (relatively) free card. Theyre supposed to be kinda busted.

The problem is that theyre far too plentiful and easy to obtain. If marts had a limited stock and could sell out of items (and replenish every day or two), and all of the items were really expensive (or you just earn far less cash from battles), items would be much more balanced. Every time you click Bag in battle and hover over an item, you should be thinking "do I reaaaallly need to waste this right now?"

You should always have that moment of second guessing yourself when you reach for a Full Restore or something, because you know how costly and difficult to obtain they are.

This would have the added bonus of making weaker and overlooked items suddenly much more valuable. Nobody thinks twice about Oran Berries after like the first gym, but if Potions are suddenly a rare commodity, a smart player will be hoarding a stockpile of free Oran Berries, Sitrus Berries, confusion berries, etc.

 

[silver-wind]

- Moves that never miss always Crit against targets that have an increased Evasion stat

oooh that's a good one

If marts had a limited stock and could sell out of items (and replenish every day or two)...

nice idea. it can work better in rural areas, or if your game takes place in older times.
that'll also cause self-healing moves to actually be worthwhile, as they're "free"

 

[silverlime]

Items arent a problem imo. Items SHOULD be your get out of jail (relatively) free card. Theyre supposed to be kinda busted.

The problem is that theyre far too plentiful and easy to obtain. If marts had a limited stock and could sell out of items (and replenish every day or two), and all of the items were really expensive (or you just earn far less cash from battles), items would be much more balanced. Every time you click Bag in battle and hover over an item, you should be thinking "do I reaaaallly need to waste this right now?"

You should always have that moment of second guessing yourself when you reach for a Full Restore or something, because you know how costly and difficult to obtain they are.

This would have the added bonus of making weaker and overlooked items suddenly much more valuable. Nobody thinks twice about Oran Berries after like the first gym, but if Potions are suddenly a rare commodity, a smart player will be hoarding a stockpile of free Oran Berries, Sitrus Berries, confusion berries, etc.

I had an idea that I implemented for my game to fix this. I'm making it so that purchased healing items cannot be used in battle, but ones found otherwise can be. This way it's not a pain to have to go back to a Pokemon Center every 5 minutes, but the battles still aren't cheeseable. I also made the non-battle usable items 1/10 the price of the other ones because they're no longer nearly as valuable, and then the other ones can still be sold for a decent price. It's a bit of a pain to implement, but I think it's well worth it.