GamePress

Possible minor changes for gyms

So kind of a 2 questions I guess, just looking for opinions, was just looking up an article about defensive synergies and Cloyster was mentioned, I'd forgotten which moves it could now get and such, so decided to browse its moves, as i was doing so it kind of hit me that it'd be difficult to get off the 1 bar moves because energy gain is highly based around health loss (for the defender) which gave me two thoughts.

Should the energy gain be calculated before the actual damage calculations, as far as I am aware, every 2 health = 1 energy, calculate the gain prior to the defence and attack being factored in, so high defence pokes would benefit greatly as the energy gain would be calculated prior to the actual damage which they would mitigate. Should the standard double health for gyms be changed to something more like 50 attack, 50 defence, 50 stamina (just using this as an example), I know the double health is there to compensate for the AI however it just massively benefits pokes with health (blissey, lax etc), flat amounts or multipliers for all stats seem far more balanced, even a flat health boost would make so many more pokes actually usable even if they were not top tier overall.

Thoughts?

Asked by TorqualxD7 years ago
Report

Answers

by razvan 7 years 1 month ago

I'm trying to make a parallel with a siege.
Under the siege:
1. the defender has that advantage of hiding behind the walls, so get hit in less vulnerable areas (shoulders, hands, etc) => double HP
2. No justification for doubling attack stats (you are in fact limited in moves behind a wall or in a defensive tower). This also can justify the lower speed of a defender...
3. No justification for double defence, you will not add multiple armours on you when you defend.

Based on the above analogy I like the current gym mechanics :).

Up
0
Down

I'm not at all suggesting the defenders don't get any benefits, with the AI the way it is they would have to, however, I just think 2 times health is just straight up limiting, also along those lines, the energy build up is far to directed at health and its loss (blissey and its constant DG's are an example), again, heavily benefiting those with health to lose, this wouldn't limit the current top tier as much as unlock some other potential defenders.

I'm not at all suggesting something that would rule any of the dominating defensive pokes out and I am quite aware that CP will continue to play a massive part in gyms overall unless it is changed in some way (I have no idea exactly what would be good or how it could be implemented).

I in no way suggested they should be doubled, doubling every stat is way too much, I was thinking a far smaller multiplier on all of the stats or a straight up 50 or 100 or something flat bonus on every stat for the defending pokes.

Up
0
Down

Than again, from a siege perspective, what will be the explanation for an increased attack or defence?
You are protected by walls so you get less wounded, hence double HP.
But once something hits you, is same in open filed or behind a wall - so same defence
And being behind a wall you have limited attacks I would say, overall, so no reason to boost the attack.

Just my view from a very limited antic/medieval battle knowledge :).

Up
0
Down

Ok, so Ill see if I can follow this up and justify it in your terms, assuming we are talking sieges, the idea of your walls, forts, castles etc would be to preserve and protect what is inside it however this was never limited, arguably these defensive structures also had the potential to provide clear offensive benefits with height and protection for things such as archers, traps to limit the enemies and heavy placements within the walls, you would also have a "home field" advantage by arguably knowing the area better than your opponent, so your surroundings were also likely to give you numerous advantages small advantages too. I feel I should say just like a siege the offensive side has much more choice in how to go about things, their advantages is their flexibility, which as you pointed about before could be argued the limited movement is a parallel, also the fact the attacker gets to choose what they attack with to give themselves their own advantages, but even with limited movement it should be argued the defenders would have numerous advantages in numerous areas with their biggest downfall being attrition (a continuous siege) which relates to prestige.

I think that would be an accurate representation however because a siege isn't so black and white a clear correlation cannot be made, there are far to many factors and this game isn't based around medieval sieges.

To sum it up, a wall or fort is set up with numerous straight up advantages for the defender, the attacker chooses how to get around or counter it.

Up
0
Down

What about doubling the highest stat? You could have the current health tanks remain relevant while making different kinds of defenders. Imagine a doubled attack stat defending Alakazam or Gengar, you would actually have to dodge instead of mindlessly mowing them down. Steelix would be as annoying to kill as lax or Blissey.

Up
0
Down

Yeah, like that's what I am looking at, in general, the ability to increase the potential pool, even if its like 3rd tier defenders (generally listed because of cp / base stats), the pool should still be a fair bit larger with alot more being relevant (even if not like completely optimal), I was not entirely sure how doubled attack/ defence would go in general, but i do know just doubling health limits alot of potentially potent defenders from being as relevant as they could be.

Up
0
Down