Sword and Shield director explains why they made it so EXP share can’t be turned off

EloKa · Nov 9, 2019

Patch13 said:
I like the meme. But yes. The best software is the software that you don't write. That's a basic tenet of good programming. And it makes people really angry. It makes execs and salsefolk angry when they can't say that the software has xyz feature. It makes long time fans angry when a new game drops a feature of an old game.

The best software is actually modular and autarkic because it provides scalability, easy debugging and it can be included / excluded if needed.
But I guess the idea of having a modular XP system that is adjustable to your needs doesn't fit your idea of "providing less options makes you a smart dev".

mugwhump · Nov 9, 2019

Dogui said:
With everyone getting exp share, balancing would be a lot more tight and maybe even more challenging.

is there anyone who seriously believes it will even be possible to be challenged by SwSh without some kinda self-imposed nuzlocke stuff

HK-47 · Nov 9, 2019

mugwhump said:
is there anyone who seriously believes it will even be possible to be challenged by SwSh without some kinda self-imposed nuzlocke stuff

Doesn't this kill nuzlockes?

Aaronrules380 · Nov 9, 2019

mugwhump said:
is there anyone who seriously believes it will even be possible to be challenged by SwSh without some kinda self-imposed nuzlocke stuff

The same people who think this will be the case every gen even when in inevitably isn't

Patch13 · Nov 9, 2019

Mekanos said:
How condescending of a response is this? Jesus. Treat me like an idiot because I'm trying to have a discussion about this.

I'm sorry to have been condescending. That was not cool of me.

I guess I get a bit tetchy about stuff like this, having lost a lot of hours of my life, some of them very late night/early morning hours, to scrambling to implement something that an exec thought would be "just a simple checkbox."

Toxi said:
if XPall == True:
———>For X in Party:
——————>XPGain(X)
else:
———>XPGain(Party[0])

Obviously Gamefreak aren't coding in python, but I somehow doubt implementing a Boolean variable was a significant part of their workload.

Just a note: while "if XPall == True" is valid Python, you can leave out the == True part. Just "if xp_all: ..." But I kind of want to give you a big hug, because I wrote code that looked exactly like that in my first proper programming job, and got the most bemused expression from my mentor. I hope that you go far, and write much code.

As far as writing code goes, the important thing about that code isn't that it's just a few lines of code. It's that it is another code path in the routine in question, meaning that every function that calls that routine now has its potential code paths doubled, and each of those additional code paths is an additional case to test, and another opportunity for a bug.

Not that this is the Mount Everest of code. A doubling of the complexity of code is fairly minor, all things considered. But it's something to take into account. And I think that I would have made the same call as the Pokemon devs, were I arguing about how to fit tasks on a schedule. Every feature and piece of complexity you can drop means more time dedicated to writing and polishing the features that matter.

Serif said:
l implementation of it is trivial, they are suggesting the solution is trivial. As in - the answer to the question "What if players don't want the experience to be distributed" is trivial - "let them turn it off". The individual steps to implement that solution (whether it be a global flag or something more complicated) are different.

Meanwhile - the solution to maintaining a large number of Pokemon is more difficult and is worth explaining to people why it may not be feasible for these games given the time period. It's not easy to declare "just polish the textures on the 3DS models and add in the stats from the previous games" because that requires exponentially more work and collaboration across multiple departments.

I don't agree that this same degree of explanation is needed for a toggle like this since

Fair point. I am picking nits and subtle stuff. My life would just be much better if more people understood how a "simple checkbox" is never a simple checkbox :-)

Aaronrules380 · Nov 9, 2019

HK-47 said:
Doesn't this kill nuzlockes?

Not really. Exp share isn't really involved in any core nuzlocke rule. The thing that hurts nuzlockes more is on field encounters being all over the place since random encounters were a core part of nuzlockes

Yoshimitsu126 · Nov 9, 2019

If its easy to switch like Let's Go then cool.

Lol reasoning though.

Wamb0wneD · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
And? Pokemon is being designed the way the developers want it to be, just like Souls is designed the way they want it to be. I will paraphrase a saying I see riddled in Souls threads ", games don't need to be for everyone."

Again, Souls didn't have an easymode that then got scrapped from the game for no reason.

Stop making these dumb comparisons.

boontobias · Nov 9, 2019

That legitimately sounds like a troll post I would write in a thread complaining about it

"Just put all your other pokmon in the pc box"

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Wamb0wneD said:
Again, Souls didn't have an easymode that then got scrapped from the game for no reason.

Stop making these dumb comparisons.

Its not for "no reason." Developers can add and remove features bc that is what they want to do. That is not "no reason." I will bring the comparison up as I please, but thanks anyway.

HK-47 · Nov 9, 2019

Wamb0wneD said:
Again, Souls didn't have an easymode that then got scrapped from the game for no reason.

Stop making these dumb comparisons.

Actually, Souls has an easy mode. Two, in fact. It has summoning for help and it has playing in offline mode.

Patch13 · Nov 9, 2019

Karonoth said:
No? Exp gain would be exactly the same with the toggle off, it just wouldn't give exp to the rest of your team.

I'm a programmer too and doing this would be extremely simple, so I don't buy this excuse.

Besides, if that's your way of thinking (less options = good, because less programming), why the hell is the switch a hybrid? Just force everyone to use it as a handheld, that's easier to code!

Right. But then you have to test it and verify that it works. And any time you add a special case that does something funky with xp, you need to make sure that it does the right thing both with shared xp on and shared xp off. And then your human testers have to play the entire game with both shared xp on and the shared xp off to catch that weird edge case that you weren't thinking about when you said that it would be simple. Or they don't test, and then there's a save eating bug with shared xp on, and your core fans are swarming the forums demanding blood because their Switch just ate all their Pokemon. Why didn't you test this!?!, they rail.

Of course, all that effort is worth it if your feature is also worth it. The Switch's portability adds a lot of complexity (and has hindered adoption by the likes of EA), but it gives you this amazing console that you can curl up on the couch with one moment, and then cast to your big living room TV the next. The Switch is worthwhile. Shared XP ... isn't. To most people. Though not to the people in the thread, which is why I'm getting so many replies to my (probably slightly trolly) comment. Ah the little dopamine hits. They feed me!

EloKa said:
The best software is actually modular and autarkic because it provides scalability, easy debugging and it can be included / excluded if needed.
But I guess the idea of having a modular XP system that is adjustable to your needs doesn't fit your idea of "providing less options makes you a smart dev".

Yes! Modular code is wonderful! Yay modular code. That still doesn't prevent you from having to test the software holistically before shipping it. Modules interact, after all, and while we may wish that we could live in the pure platonic heights of correct code and perfect modularity, the real world is messier. And it's usually better not to write the code if you can get away with it, especially when it's a feature most people don't use.

matrix-cat · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
And? Pokemon is being designed the way the developers want it to be, just like Souls is designed the way they want it to be. I will paraphrase a saying I see riddled in Souls threads ", games don't need to be for everyone."

The issue here is that Game Freak is making changes to a long-running series that people are already fans of, removing a pre-existing option to mitigate that change. It's not so much "games don't need to be for everyone" as it is "this game used to be for you, but we're changing it so it isn't any more and offering no compelling reason why".

I mean, of course they have the right to do it. And people have the right to discuss how they don't like the change on the internet, and maybe even not buy the game. Being free to do something doesn't mean you're free from criticism when you do it.

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

matrix-cat said:
The issue here is that Game Freak is making changes to a long-running series that people are already fans of, removing a pre-existing option to mitigate that change. It's not so much "games don't need to be for everyone" as it is "this game used to be for you, but we're changing it so it isn't any more".

I mean, of course they have the right to do it. And people have the right to discuss how they don't like the change on the internet, and maybe even not buy the game. Being free to do something doesn't mean you're free from criticism when you do it.

I'm ok with criticism. I'm offering a counter to the wave of criticism I see leveled against this game on a regular basis. I tire of the echo is all.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
I'm ok with criticism. I'm offering a counter to the wave of criticism I see leveled against this game on a regular basis. I tire of the echo is all.

There's a reason it's an echo. Maybe the perceived few people that turn it off aren't actually just a few and are actually genuinely bothered by it and would like to voice their criticism. Just because the developers made a game a certain way doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized, or that more than one person saying it is too much of an "echo."

Deleted member 49535 · Nov 9, 2019

Patch13 said:
Right. But then you have to test it and verify that it works. And any time you add a special case that does something funky with xp, you need to make sure that it does the right thing both with shared xp on and shared xp off. And then your human testers have to play the entire game with both shared xp on and the shared xp off to catch that weird edge case that you weren't thinking about when you said that it would be simple. Or they don't test, and then there's a save eating bug with shared xp on, and your core fans are swarming the forums demanding blood because their Switch just ate all their Pokemon. Why didn't you test this!?!, they rail.

Of course, all that effort is worth it if your feature is also worth it. The Switch's portability adds a lot of complexity (and has hindered adoption by the likes of EA), but it gives you this amazing console that you can curl up on the couch with one moment, and then cast to your big living room TV the next. The Switch is worthwhile. Shared XP ... isn't. To most people. Though not to the people in the thread, which is why I'm getting so many replies to my (probably slightly trolly) comment. Ah the little dopamine hits. They feed me!

Yes! Modular code is wonderful! Yay modular code. That still doesn't prevent you from having to test the software holistically before shipping it. Modules interact, after all, and while we may wish that we could live in the pure platonic heights of correct code and perfect modularity, the real world is messier. And it's usually better not to write the code if you can get away with it, especially when it's a feature most people don't use.

I simply do not agree. Like a user told you, it's essentially a for loop calling a method vs calling it just once. You test what the method does, if it works in the most complex case (which is with exp share on), allowing an option with it off is trivial. If code simplicity was what they were looking for they should have removed exp share entirely.

Wamb0wneD · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
Its not for "no reason." Developers can add and remove features bc that is what they want to do. That is not "no reason." I will bring the comparison up as I please, but thanks anyway.

There is no reason whatsoever to not just leave the toggle in. Their reasoning in the OP for why it's not a big deal is nonsense because just pressing "turn off" once is way more convenient than having to constantly mess with your bank and team, and leveling during battles the way you want is impossible if you only have one Pokemon in your team.

Pokemon had a feature removed that was in before, Souls never had the feature to begin with. You can bring the comparison up as many times you like, it doesn't make more sense the more often you do it.

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
There's a reason it's an echo. Maybe the perceived few people that turn it off aren't actually just a few and are actually genuinely bothered by it and would like to voice their criticism. Just because the developers made a game a certain way doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized, or that more than one person saying it is too much of an "echo."

I wouldn't judge the responses on a forum to this is more than a "few". And I'm allowed to think there is a serious negative echo around this game, just as much as people are allowed to criticize said game.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
I wouldn't judge the responses on a forum to this is more than a "few". And I'm allowed to think there is a serious negative echo around this game, just as much as people are allowed to criticize said game.

I didn't say you aren't allowed to think there is an echo, I don't know where you're getting this weird stance that I'm attacking you for your opinion or whatever, I just don't get the point in defending the removal of a feature which has been standard for 7 generations of Pokemon now for no reason at all. That's just me though.

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Wamb0wneD said:
There is no reason whatsoever to not just leave the toggle in. Their reasoning in the OP for why it's not a big deal is nonsense because just pressing "turn off" once is way more convenient than having to constantly mess with your bank and team, and leveling during battles the way you want is impossible if you only have one Pokemon in your team.

Pokemon had a feature removed that was in before, Souls never had the feature to begin with. You can bring the comparison up as many times you like, it doesn't make more sense the more often you do it.

More development, more scope, more maintenance etc. all come to mind immediately. You can CBA any scope and decide whether its worth the cost to maintain. Again that is not "no reason." What they gave was the workaround on what you can do if you don't like it.

Also you're greatly simplifying my comparison that focused a lot around respecting developer's decisions, but you do you.

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
I didn't say you aren't allowed to think there is an echo, I don't know where you're getting this weird stance that I'm attacking you for your opinion or whatever, I just don't get the point in defending the removal of a feature which has been standard for 7 generations of Pokemon now for no reason at all. That's just me though.

Because games change? New people come and go that have different visions/opinions? New scope added sometimes means old features don't fit as well? I'm defending it because software changes and that's ok to some of us, like me.

Patch13 · Nov 9, 2019

matrix-cat said:
The issue here is that Game Freak is making changes to a long-running series that people are already fans of, removing a pre-existing option to mitigate that change. It's not so much "games don't need to be for everyone" as it is "this game used to be for you, but we're changing it so it isn't any more and offering no compelling reason why".

I wish I could find an essay I read in university (decades ago now), about the life cycle of a game franchise. It went something like this:

A successful franchise starts with a compelling premise, and a relatively simple feature set. A lot of people jump on board and have fun playing.

The next game in the franchise has to excite people by adding features. It's more complicated, less accessible, but still a lot of new people jump in and the franchise grows.

If the franchise runs long enough, the complexity grows and a kind of priesthood develops. It comprises a core base of players who know all the arcane knowledge, who get excited about very subtle mechanical changes that make this or that better or worse. But outside of the priesthood, the game is just dense and difficult to get into.

So at some point, if the franchise is to live, there's a reboot. A bunch of features get dropped. Core tenets get rethought. This kind of burns the priesthood. They do not like their beautiful arcane playground going away. But it's vital to the future of the franchise, because the priesthoods shrink over time, and you need to attract new players, or to get lapsed players to come back.

In this context, I'm not a member of the priesthood. Pokemon originally came out while I was a teen, and I kind of turned my nose up at it as a thing for little kids. I'm getting into it now because its seeing a cultural resurgence, and it is a pretty dang cool franchise, now that I've got the smarmy teenager goggles off. From my perspective, it looks like Game Freak is making all the right moves to meet the players coming in from Pokemon Go, and make the game relevant for the next generation. This sucks for the hardcore fans, because stuff they really liked is going to get dropped, from big, like huge swaths of Pokemon, to small, like XP Sharing. But it's probably good for the long term health of the game.

Starlightmuse · Nov 9, 2019

What? What kind of justification is this ffs?

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
Because games change? New people come and go that have different visions/opinions? New scope added sometimes means old features don't fit as well? I'm defending it because software changes and that's ok to some of us, like me.

There's absolutely zero harm in keeping this option in, and it doesn't change the scope of the game in the slightest, only leaves an option in for players who would like some semblance of difficulty. There is no reason the option would not fit as well.

Deleted member 49535 · Nov 9, 2019

Patch13 said:
I wish I could find an essay I read in university (decades ago now), about the life cycle of a game franchise. It went something like this:

A successful franchise starts with a compelling premise, and a relatively simple feature set. A lot of people jump on board and have fun playing.

The next game in the franchise has to excite people by adding features. It's more complicated, less accessible, but still a lot of new people jump in and the franchise grows.

If the franchise runs long enough, the complexity grows and a kind of priesthood develops. It comprises a core base of players who know all the arcane knowledge, who get excited about very subtle mechanical changes that make this or that better or worse. But outside of the priesthood, the game is just dense and difficult to get into.

So at some point, if the franchise is to live, there's a reboot. A bunch of features get dropped. Core tenets get rethought. This kind of burns the priesthood. They do not like their beautiful arcane playground going away. But it's vital to the future of the franchise, because the priesthoods shrink over time, and you need to attract new players, or to get lapsed players to come back.

In this context, I'm not a member of the priesthood. Pokemon originally came out while I was a teen, and I kind of turned my nose up at it as a thing for little kids. I'm getting into it now because its seeing a cultural resurgence, and it is a pretty dang cool franchise, now that I've got the smarmy teenager goggles off. From my perspective, it looks like Game Freak is making all the right moves to meet the players coming in from Pokemon Go, and make the game relevant for the next generation. This sucks for the hardcore fans, because stuff they really liked is going to get dropped, from big, like huge swaths of Pokemon, to small, like XP Sharing. But it's probably good for the long term health of the game.

Exp share was on by default. Leaving the option to turn it off does not make the game more complex for new players, they wouldn't even know it's there.

I do agree with you on cutting Pokemon from the game though, I think it could help new players.

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
There's absolutely zero harm in keeping this option in, and it doesn't change the scope of the game in the slightest, only leaves an option in for players who would like some semblance of difficulty. There is no reason the option would not fit as well.

How can you say any feature in a game doesn't impact the scope of the game? Do you work on the game?

Corrie1960 · Nov 9, 2019

Ugh! Game freak I swear to god my relationship with you since gen 6 has been rocky your annoying me so much

1000% H · Nov 9, 2019

Patch13 said:
Anyway, I'm picking nits about the technicalities of software project management in a thread where people are just wanting to get their rage on about a quote in an interview, and that's probably not wise of me. Rage on, cats! They took your toggle away, and you should be mad and don't let anybody tell you anything different!

What happened to you?

jerk · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
There's absolutely zero harm in keeping this option in, and it doesn't change the scope of the game in the slightest, only leaves an option in for players who would like some semblance of difficulty. There is no reason the option would not fit as well.

they have to fit this on a super Nintendo cart apparently so they can't have the level of complex code like that.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
How can you say any feature in a game doesn't impact the scope of the game? Do you work on the game?

No, but I've played Pokemon since Red and Blue and can tell you right now that the "scope" of the game does not change regardless of if you have the Exp. Share on or off, whatever that means. The game would be the same exact experience, only more tailored toward one person's playstyle by their own accord. I'm not asking them to remove the Exp. Share. I'm asking to still have the option to play without it, much like I enjoy to play Mario Kart without motion controls or auto steering, or Smash without tap jump on. Those things make the game more accessible, but it does not harm the game to have them turned off, and it has never harmed a Pokemon game to be able to turn off the Exp. Share.

4 Get! · Nov 9, 2019

Give it a few more pokemon generations, and Gamefreak will be looked at like how people looked at post-PS2 era Yukes.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

1000% H said:
What happened to you?

Anyone complaining is wrong and I'm right!!

Col.Asher · Nov 9, 2019

Toxi said:
It's a feature I've wanted too, especially after Black 2 had a harder difficulty option.

We can only dream it seems

Cokomon · Nov 9, 2019

Dogui said:
It's harder to balance a combat when one part of the playerbase uses exp share and the another doesn't. They would probably put the games on the easier side as prevention.

With everyone getting exp share, balancing would be a lot more tight and maybe even more challenging.

Choices aren't necessarily always good in game design.

This is my hope. X & Y, ORAS and Sun & Moon didn't seem to take the Exp Share into account for game balance, although I've heard USUM was a bit more challenging. Hopefully it's the same for SwSh.

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
No, but I've played Pokemon since Red and Blue and can tell you right now that the "scope" of the game does not change regardless of if you have the Exp. Share on or off, whatever that means. The game would be the same exact experience, only more tailored toward one person's playstyle by their own accord. I'm not asking them to remove the Exp. Share. I'm asking to still have the option to play without it, much like I enjoy to play Mario Kart without motion controls or auto steering, or Smash without tap jump on. Those things make the game more accessible, but it does not harm the game to have them turned off, and it has never harmed a Pokemon game to be able to turn off the Exp. Share.

I've also played since Red/Blue (since we're mentioning history with the series now for some reason). I'm talking about the scope of work that the devs have to do related to this feature, not your simplistic bool perspective of the feature.

Mashy · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
There's absolutely zero harm in keeping this option in, and it doesn't change the scope of the game in the slightest, only leaves an option in for players who would like some semblance of difficulty. There is no reason the option would not fit as well.

Yea, I'm just shocked people will defend this decision too. There is literally zero harm to keeping this feature in as it gives the player more choice on how they wish to play the game.

Some people here are ridiculous and are defending the decision for the sake of defending it. They are defending a shitty decision that limits how a person can play the game that has always been there.

GF are arguably getting heat for a lot of the decisions and this decision does them no favours.

RadiantDan · Nov 9, 2019

I've been on the fence about buying Sword/Shield and you're really not helping your case, GameFreak.

Anyone saying the games will be balanced around mandatory Exp Share is way too optimistic. This is GF and we know what they think about kids today.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

RPGam3r said:
I've also played since Red/Blue (since we're mentioning history with the series now for some reason). I'm talking about the scope of work that the devs have to do related to this feature, not your simplistic bool perspective of the feature.

Alright, lol. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say about this. We have the option to switch between set and shift battle styles, which doesn't harm the scope somehow, but the Exp. Share would. Alright.

Patch13 · Nov 9, 2019

Karonoth said:
Exp share was on by default. Leaving the option to turn it off does not make the game more complex for new players, they wouldn't even know it's there.

I do agree with you on cutting Pokemon from the game though, I think it could help new players.

That's the thing about arcane features. Each one individually isn't much of a big deal. Most new players don't even know they're there! But they can bog a came down, as a whole, making the game harder to learn, and making it more difficult to feel like you're playing it to its full potential.

It's like the removal of interrupts in Magic the Gathering (oh the outcry that caused, way back when). Or whatever small feature Elder Scrolls V is going to drop (I hope you can still lug around brooms for no reason ...) It really smarts to get them taken away. And it can seem like it'd be a small thing to leave them in. But dropping features usually is a good idea, if they're only used by those "in the know", and are not making the game better or more interesting for most players.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

Patch13 said:
But dropping features usually is a good idea, if they're only used by those "in the know", and are not making the game better or more interesting for most players.

Cool. Can't wait for them to remove natures, IVs, and EVs because those are definitely legitimately way more complicated and hard for people not "in the know" to get their head around and understand than an Exp. Share on/off Switch.
Spoilers: They won't, and have not, removed those even in Let's Go, the most simplified Pokemon game.

Psittacus · Nov 9, 2019

Honestly it would be fine if they balanced around it, but they never do

RPGam3r · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
Alright, lol. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say about this. We have the option to switch between set and shift battle styles, which doesn't harm the scope somehow, but the Exp. Share would. Alright.

I don't really expect you to say anything. I just expect developers to have reason (not that I expect them to share said reason) for removing features that are more traditional. I can think of a couple reasons to reduce feature sets (especially if data shows limited use).

Patch13 · Nov 9, 2019

Kanmurukillua said:
Cool. Can't wait for them to remove natures, IVs, and EVs because those are definitely legitimately way more complicated and hard for people not "in the know" to get their head around and understand than an Exp. Share on/off Switch.
Spoilers: They won't remove those.

Well yeah. Those are features that compel people to keep collecting (and spending coins and doing raids in Pokemon Go!) They're part of what allows the game to get its hooks into you if you want to play it seriously.

I'm not saying that all features are bad, or all complexity is bad. If every game was checkers rather than chess, it'd be a sad, sad world. It's just that this particular feature seemed like a sensible one to cut, from the view outside the priesthood. Ymmv!

Corrie1960 · Nov 9, 2019

Game freak in 2019 options are bad
Game freak wants us to play the game they want not the way we want

JohnCarvalho94 · Nov 9, 2019

Excuses zzzzzzzzzzzz

Deleted member 2793 · Nov 9, 2019

how it makes sense to cut an option even though the exp share is ON BY DEFAULT, you need to go and turn it off yourself

Casual players would never get bothered by it. This isn't a selling point to anyone, this doesn't bother no one. It makes 0 sense to defend it. This thread is blowing my mind.

Lark · Nov 9, 2019

Patch13 said:
I wish I could find an essay I read in university (decades ago now), about the life cycle of a game franchise. It went something like this:
[ . . . ]
But it's probably good for the long term health of the game.

I'd generally agree with you that Pokemon's internal systems are massively overcomplicated. Between IVs, EVs, natures, abilities, egg moves, move tutors, hidden powers, hidden abilities, and the like, as well as all the myriad ways to influence those systems, there's too much going on for it to remain accessible to the casual fanbase. These systems are arcane and grind-intensive, and some, like IVs, are frankly not fun to engage with. And I've voiced my support for trimming them in the past, for the sake of the franchise's future.

But those systems aren't the ones being trimmed, and they're not being fixed either. Gamefreak has offered some QoL adjustments for them over the years, like the ability to maximize IVs, but the fact remains that the player either has to labor through those systems (by breeding and hatching dozens of eggs) or grind to circumvent them (Bottle Caps require a level 100 Pokemon, and a fair amount of BP). Taking the suboptimal IVs you're given and engaging with the system as it's presented puts the player at a disadvantage. The biggest barriers to Pokemon's accessibility are still here in Sword and Shield, and they're likely to stay for many generations to come.

Exp. Share, in comparison, is not a massively overcomplicated internal system. It's a choice of play style, and one that by virtue of being on by default does absolutely nothing to shut out new or inexperienced players. No one has to engage with it if they don't want to, and not doing so doesn't put you at any disadvantage.

You've stated that Gamefreak has found a way to implement the same mechanic without needing the toggle, but that's only accurate if you're following Ohmori's incomplete reasoning for why Exp. Share Off was used in the first place. In previous games, turning it off was used to give you access to a full party while reducing your exp. intake, resulting in lower levels and a more challenging game. Using one Pokemon at a time doesn't replicate this at all, and the PC workaround would be immensely tedious even if it weren't fundamentally flawed.

In what way does cutting Exp. Share Off promote "the long term health of the game"?

Mendrox · Nov 9, 2019

Morons. Give me a god damn toogle.

Horohorohoro · Nov 9, 2019

Oh well. These past few days have really made me realize how annoying it is to talk to Pokemon fans, both criticizers and defenders of the decisions they're making. The truth of the matter is that the changes the developers are making are actually making me feel like my enjoyment is less important than trying to somehow reach a greater audience by removing features. I guess I'm valid in thinking that way, lol, considering the excuses I'm hearing here. I wanna enjoy Pokemon, it isn't like I'm criticizing it out of spite. I love the series, but it's moving in the opposite direction of where I would enjoy for it to go, for what seems like no reason, or at least not a reason that the developers actually want to say.

KillstealWolf · Nov 9, 2019

Zarckoh said:
Oh yeah here it is the new exp distribution.

This wasn't in XY or SM as far as I remember every pokemon would get the same exp which is why it was flawed to begin with and why it was required to turn off to prevent overleveled pokemon.

To give some information on this, I actually mathed out what the experience would be for this encounter (Which for reference is a level 7 metapod) using the Sun and Moon EXP Formula. If you like math, look at this here:

KillstealWolf said:
Thanks for the numbers, so for comparison here's the Gen 7 scaled formula equation from Bulbapedia: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Experience

That looks scary, but let's break down each part and calculate what it would be in Gen 7.

a is equal to...

Prior to Generation VII:

1 if the fainted Pokémon is wild

1.5 if the fainted Pokémon is owned by a Trainer

In Generation VII: 1

(AKA: A = 1)

b is the base experience yield of the fainted Pokémon's species; values for the current Generation are listed here

(Metapod had a base experience of 72, so: B = 72)

e is equal to...

1.5 if the winning Pokémon is holding a Lucky Egg

1 otherwise

(I assume we aren't using Lucky Eggs here, so: E = 1)

f is equal to...

1.2 if the Pokémon has an Affection of two hearts or more

1 otherwise

(Similarly assume we aren't using any affection here, so: F = 1)

L is the level of the fainted/caughtGen VI+ Pokémon

(Metapod is Level 7, so L = 7)

Lp is the level of the victorious Pokémon

(We'll run through all of these.)

pis equal to...

1 if no Exp. Point Power (Pass PowerGen V, O-PowerGen VI, Roto PowerUSUM) is active

If Exp. Point Power [x] is active...

0.5 for ↓↓↓, 0.66 for ↓↓, 0.8 for ↓, 1.2 for ↑, 1.5 for ↑↑, or 2 for ↑↑↑, S, or MAX

1.5 for Roto Exp. Points

(Assume no EXP Powers are being used, so P equals 1)

s is equal to...

In Generation VI and later...

1 when calculating the experience of a Pokémon that participated in battle

2 when calculating the experience of a Pokémon that did not participate in battle and if Exp. Share is turned on

(This'll be 1 for Scorbunny, 2 for everyone else)

t is equal to...

1 if the winning Pokémon's current owner is its Original Trainer

1.5 if the Pokémon was gained in a domestic trade

Generation IV+ only: 1.7 if the Pokémon was gained in an international trade

(Assume that t = 1 here)

v is equal to...

Generation VI+ only: 1.2 if the winning Pokémon is at or past the level where it would be able to evolve, but it has not

1 otherwise

(This may actually affect Wooloo or Corviknight, but I will just have this as 1 for the calculation)

So with all that maths done, we have.

( ( (1*72*7) / (5s) ) * ( (14 +10)^2.5 ) / (7 + Lp + 10) ^2.5) + 1 ) * 1 * 1 * 1

( (504 / (5s) ) * ( (24)^2.5 ) / (17+Lp) ^2.5) ) + 1 Multiply by 1 3 times changes nothing so that got cut.

Scorbunny (12, battled) = ( (504 / 5) * ( 24^2.5 / 29^2.5 ) ) + 1 = 63.80... round up to 64.
Sobble (12) = ( (504 / 10) * ( 24^2.5 / 29^2.5 ) ) + 1 = 32.40... round up to 33
Grookey (12) = ( (504 / 10) * ( 24^2.5 / 29^2.5 ) ) + 1 = 32.40... round up to 33
Wooloo (15) = ( (504 / 10) * ( 24^2.5 / 32^2.5 ) ) + 1 = 25.55... round up to 25.
Pikachu (18) = ( (504 / 10) * ( 24^2.5 / 35^2.5 ) ) + 1 = 20.62... round up to 21.
Corviknight (45) = ( (504 / 10) * ( 24^2.5 / 62^2.5 ) ) + 1 = 5.69... round up to 6.

...Hmm, Gen 7 numbers are actually lower than the EXP you get in Gen 8, that's odd.

I want to say one of those multipliers like Lucky Egg, Trade Bonus or Rotto Exp Boost was being used for the demo to speed things up due to the limited time you had to play it. If you times those EXP by 1.5, they roughly they line up with the previous generations experience formula. Maybe it's something new like a new pokemon catch bonus multiplier. I know the Let's Go games had that (Along with a bunch of other absurd wild catch multipliers that made it really easy to over-level in that game if you do any amount of Pokemon Catching for a decent time in it.)

That's my take on it anyway. If someone else also wants to plug in the numbers and see if they get the same results. They may feel free to do so. I think I did all the maths right, but it would be good if someone else can also confirm.

But in TL:DR form, the experience break down matches up almost perfectly to a 1.5x exp multiplier of the Sun and Moon experience formula. Which my assumption at the time was that it's the same experience formula as Sun and Moon, with a 1.5x modifier turned on for preview purposes so press could play through more of the demonstration in the 90 minutes they had.

We'll probably get more accurate math break downs when the game officially comes out or Datamining gets involved.

I still think this answer is a false one, because if they had feedback on this that most people kept it ON which is why they removed the off options. Surely by this logic they would have also removed the SET battle option in the options screen as well. Because seriously, how many people actually looked at the options and know what SHIFT battle and SET Battle actually does, more likely, they just left that as is and kept it to default (For the record, SHIFT let's you switch pokemon after you KO an opponent, SET has them send out the next pokemon, like a battle with a Human Trainer would, ironically when I was younger and playing the game, I didn't know what the option was and turned it to Set and I thought the option of not switching out pokemon was just the game getting naturally harder as you progressed, haha.)

Sword and Shield director explains why they made it so EXP share can’t be turned off

GSP

▲ Legend ▲

User requested account closure

Saw the truth behind the copied door

User requested account closure

Alt Account

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer