Frostbite in Rejuvenation? Y/N?

I vote No. Because Freeze is far more dangerous than Frostbite.

This is a tough decision. Frostbite seems like it would be much harder to apply than burn because of all the abilities and moves that can burn easily. And freeze, although it’s absolutely bonkers, is kind of balanced in the sense that you have no way to guarantee you are going to freeze your opponents and it’s more luck based, and the fact that very few moves can actually freeze.
 

If Frostbite is going to completely replace Freeze with no changes to anything else than I would probably say no, but if it does end up being added, I would add stuff like a Frostbite Will o Wisp or a Frostbite Flame body cause it’s more balanced that Freeze and is balanced enough to warrant it having easier ways to get it.

If nothing about anything else on what can apply Frostbite is being changed than no, but if there is going to be stuff like Frostbite Will’o Wisp and Frostbite Flame body than probably yes. 
 

Edit: also, would this be coming in 13.5, or would it be coming whenever legends arceus stuff gets added?

I lean towards yes. Freeze is basically a game ender if either side gets it, since it pretty much stops the frozen pokemon from having a turn for who knows how long, whereas frostbite is essentially burn, but it cuts special attack instead of physical, which is still big, but not a game ender. Plus from a balance perspective, frostbite also acts as a way to counter special attackers, which is huge since there's not very many ways to do that otherwise, especially compared to physical attackers which are countered easily and consistently by things like burn or intimidate.

Honestly I'd like to see frostbite replace freeze in the main series as well, plus maybe a will-o-wisp type move, but with frostbite instead of burn.

Why not have both in the game, then have an NPC you could talk to to alternate between them?

I voted yes because freeze is very good, but also extremely inconsistent. A special attack variation of burn is a better design for something that is only a small chance on moves like ice beam or blizzard IMO. Also, either officially or in just rejuvenation, it opens up the possibility of a will-o-wisp variant of frostbite.

Pros of voting frostbite:

- It's a less frustrating status to deal with, and also allows representation of a feature from a newer game.

Problems with voting frostbite:

- Balance wise, Frostbite as a status will be severely hampered by the pre-existing balance around freeze. For example, there is no scald or will-o-wisp equivalent for it. This leaves little room for its consistency or utility.

- We don't know the full extent of what'll happen when taking the national dex into account with this change- especially since PLA is a Pokemon sidegame with limited trainer encounters, overhauled battle mechanics, and a lack of PvP. This mechanic also has little exposure, which may confuse newer players.

- Will set a precedent of not adding, but replacing old mechanics with sidegame features against cartridge outline. May become problematic later on.

- Now, this one I don't have solid evidence for (as I haven't committed to a full playthrough of Arceus yet), but I'd assume Freeze and Sleep were removed from PLA for the sake of sparing up time. Both of those require custom model/animation changes which isn't an issue in a RSE styled fangame. While I agree that Freeze is a highly annoying status ailment which throws its effect under loops and hoops of RNG, Frostbite in any case doesn't appear to do much better in the favor of balance. Special burn is not something that takes a lot of time to think of- it is also not what ice types need, and even if it was, chances are it'll instead shift usage to a random water type that gets access to a reliable way to inflict it. 

From what we know of so far, I would instead wait until Gen 9 to reconsider this topic.

I vote no, because I don't like change.

I looked up the effect of frostbite, and am neutral towards it. But I think it's an unnecessary change, so my vote remains.

You can do what you want but if you feel like the game is better if you didn't listen to the poll don't program it or wait until you're done with the game to consider it. People are stupid, you're smarter than them. You know what's best, they don't.

I imagine it would seem annoying to commit to it to have it not work out and make the game an overall worse experience. In my opinion it doesn't make sense to add features if they don't end up making the experience better. I get the idea of wanting to add new features but I feel like this goes without saying. One could feel like they made a mistake adding the feature and it might be a lot of work to restore the changes. Also it's less work for the developers no? Seems like you guys have a lot on your hands and I imagine figuring out what you can do with this status and how it can be used in the game could be spent towards the game itself. I feel like any mechanical changes can come later tbh. Even like generations of pokemon and/or mechanic changes. I imagine those could always be a handful to work on and it could be spent towards working on the game itself. I don't know anything though, I'm an idiot and I certainly don't know anything about game design. Maybe it is better to update to the next generation from version to version, maybe it is better to implement frostbite now instead of later. I don't know.

If you really aren't sure what to do, you can shelve it for later.

When it comes to the status, really it depends how it's used in the game. Freeze isn't really a status as a developer you can play around with because quite frankly it's broken as shit and would not make a good gameplay experience if it was more reliable. I imagine depending on how Frostbite is used, it could end up being more annoying than Freeze depending on the context because it's another element that was thrown in there that normally wouldn't be in there if Arceus never made the status condition. Unless you were planning to rework the status condition but that doesn't seem likely to me.

EDIT: Why would we be adding the feature in the game to the first place? Is this a question we have asked ourselves? If not its definitely worth asking. If we're just adding it because we wanna be updated on as many mechanics as possible I would say that seems forced and not rooted in making the best product we could possibly make. If you are encouraging developing the feature, I would encourage thinking about how the feature may make the game a more enjoyable experience.

41 minutes ago, Alisae said:

You can do what you want but if you feel like the game is better if you didn't listen to the poll don't program it or wait until you're done with the game to consider it. People are stupid, you're smarter than them. You know what's best, they don't.

 

I imagine it would seem annoying to commit to it to have it not work out and make the game an overall worse experience. In my opinion it doesn't make sense to add features if they don't end up making the experience better. I get the idea of wanting to add new features but I feel like this goes without saying. One could feel like they made a mistake adding the feature and it might be a lot of work to restore the changes. Also it's less work for the developers no? Seems like you guys have a lot on your hands and I imagine figuring out what you can do with this status and how it can be used in the game could be spent towards the game itself. I feel like any mechanical changes can come later tbh. Even like generations of pokemon and/or mechanic changes. I imagine those could always be a handful to work on and it could be spent towards working on the game itself. I don't know anything though, I'm an idiot and I certainly don't know anything about game design. Maybe it is better to update to the next generation from version to version, maybe it is better to implement frostbite now instead of later. I don't know.

If you really aren't sure what to do, you can shelve it for later.

 

When it comes to the status, really it depends how it's used in the game. Freeze isn't really a status as a developer you can play around with because quite frankly it's broken as shit and would not make a good gameplay experience if it was more reliable. I imagine depending on how Frostbite is used, it could end up being more annoying than Freeze depending on the context because it's another element that was thrown in there that normally wouldn't be in there if Arceus never made the status condition. Unless you were planning to rework the status condition but that doesn't seem likely to me.

 

EDIT: Why would we be adding the feature in the game to the first place? Is this a question we have asked ourselves? If not its definitely worth asking. If we're just adding it because we wanna be updated on as many mechanics as possible I would say that seems forced and not rooted in making the best product we could possibly make. If you are encouraging developing the feature, I would encourage thinking about how the feature may make the game a more enjoyable experience.

Mhm, these are certainly valid points drawn across the board.

I think adding Frostbite would be a good change to add to the game. However freeze should just stay in the game really no need to get rid of it since Frostbite and Freeze are two different statuses that too different things.

I voted no because frostbite seems to just be Burn but Ice type, where as Freeze is it's own thing. Plus I don't remember getting frozen by anything beyond Angie once in the 20-ish attempts it took me to defeat her so imo it doesn't feel important enough to warrant change.

I am also for no but as a few said if  you really want it, it is your choice. I am not a really fan of the status and prefer freeze. I get angry of course if it happens to me of course but I prefer not beeing able to move than be on a timer. Same if my opponent have it. For me are Burn & Poison enough as DoT status and I am glad we got freeze & sleep as "Stunned" ones. Paralyze is a diffrent category as well.

Some novelty changes or mechanisms, are outright "nerf", compared against older gameplay. I'd like to say NO! Besides, if you don't plan to add the rest mechanism novelties in the game, it's better to keep the old but gold ones in effect, as is.

I don't know about this one.

If you would add only frostbite and no drowsy wouldn't it be weird to implement one status condition from legends arceus and don't touch the other one. What will be gained from the addition of frostbite. It is like freeze a secundary effect, so you can't really make a strategy. No one uses flamethrower for the 10 % chance of burn but for the damage. If it happends it is a nice bonus. With the way on how the moves are i really don't see the point to add it, since it is essentially an nerf to a side-effect. I also don't think this game needs it in it's current state. Angie is hard because of her high damage moves and not because the 10 percent change of freezing your mons.

Mayby if you really want strategies around frostbite, then you can make a counterpart to will o whisp, otherwhise the addition won't really add much to the game.

Mayby I am wrong and the new mechanic is way better than freeze, and it will be a huge change to the battle mechanics

I voted yes because the freeze is rarely ever coming to play. frost bite seems to be more appealing hinderance than freeze if there is move like will o wisps to guarentee frost bite it would be a great way

My main concern with adding anything from PLA is that GF might add a spin on them in Scarlet/Violet and people will want you to add said spin, thus making you do double the work. Probably best to see how GF balances this new mechanic (by adding the equivalents of will o wisp / flame body and whatnot), then going from there..

I voted Yes, I think that in a game like Rejuv where battles are harder than normal, the fact that you can be freeze for 5 turns, when facing a though opponent, is really game changer (or also if you freeze the opponent the game is far easier). 
For example, when I was facing Mewtwo in Reborn with my Fighting Monotype team (what a horrible matchup), it Freeze my last Pokemon with Ice Beam after I took One Hour to finally have the best opportunity to win. 
So yeah : Ratio Freeze.

I'd like it simply because I like the balance they finally decided to add to the games in terms of status debuffs

18 hours ago, Autumn Zephyr said:

I voted 'Yes', because potentially getting locked out of playing the game for a potentially absurd amount of time with no counterplay other than knowing one of a specific handful of Fire Moves- many of whom aren't even that viable in most other situations- is not engaging gameplay, it's getting completely dicked over by RNG. Frostbite at least allows you to keep going, albeit with potentially reduced firepower and a timer on your head- any damage dealt is a lot better than 0, after all.

I'm with you there. Plus, it finally gives us a decent way to punish special attackers, which should really balance things out imo. Not completely, mind you, but it's a step in the right direction.

While I did vote "No" towards adding frostbite. It does give me the question would Rejuvenation have frostbite status moves like willowisp(Burn), thunderwave(Paralysis), or hypnosis(sleep)? And if so, would frostbite do something like how burn halves physicals attacks? If it would have an attack stat I would think it would be a good instance to halve special attack stat. It would be a nice refresher and game-changer for stratedgy.

2 hours ago, Jojowa1203 said:

While I did vote "No" towards adding frostbite. It does give me the question would Rejuvenation have frostbite status moves like willowisp(Burn), thunderwave(Paralysis), or hypnosis(sleep)? And if so, would frostbite do something like how burn halves physicals attacks? If it would have an attack stat I would think it would be a good instance to halve special attack stat. It would be a nice refresher and game-changer for stratedgy.

Frostbite actuallly already halves special attack, so assuming we get a will-o-wisp type move for it, it's essentially an ice type burn that cripples special attackers instead of physical. This is actually huge too given that there's very few ways to actually cripple special attackers specifically, compared to physical which is countered by burn, intimidate, etc.

Voted no because I want to be able to get a lucky freeze to beat difficult battles, but why can't we have both? Have an easier, guaranteed frostbite move similar to Will-O-Wisp but keep the freeze chance on Ice moves like Blizzard.

47 minutes ago, Shadow Angel said:

Voted no because I want to be able to get a lucky freeze to beat difficult battles, but why can't we have both? Have an easier, guaranteed frostbite move similar to Will-O-Wisp but keep the freeze chance on Ice moves like Blizzard.

Greatest idea around. Why choose? When we could have both... Freeze isn't so overpowered anymore, anyway, since you can immediately thaw out without spending a single turn, inactive. It was stronger in early generations, somehow.

To the devs: Please consider more of adding and less of replacing, if it is new things you want to try!

I vote yes because there's hardly any way to lower Sp. Atk without having specific pokemon or specific situations to do so. I agree with the other suggestions on what can be done to incorporate Frostbite more into the game such as having a Frostbite version of Will-o-Wisp and maybe replacing Freeze. But if it's difficult to implement Frostbite and changes that can accommodate it more, then I understand if you guys end up leaving it out.

I'd go with no for now. Freeze is a pretty rare status anyway with there being no moves to set it, unlike burn, which frostbite seems to be a special variant of. Also with Frostbite being introduced in a sidegame we don't know how it'll affect the Main Pokemon metagame, if it even shows up in gen 9. I'd say wait for gen 9, then revisit this question.

4 hours ago, Pikatube said:

Frostbite actuallly already halves special attack, so assuming we get a will-o-wisp type move for it, it's essentially an ice type burn that cripples special attackers instead of physical. This is actually huge too given that there's very few ways to actually cripple special attackers specifically, compared to physical which is countered by burn, intimidate, etc.

Thank you Pikatube for pointing out something I didn't notice in Legends Arceus. I could have gone my whole life not knowing that Frostbite halves special attack like I didn't know that burns halve physical attack for probably about 7 years>

Frostbite is the better status but I don't know if it can't translate well into the existing movepool

Dumb but still :add both some  moves like ice beam , avalanche cause freeze while others like bitter malice , icy wind cause frostbite

An absolute YES, as Freeze has always been a strategic killjoy due to it being OP and completely dependent of RNG. Remains the question of how to integrate moves that will inflict Frosbite efficiently. If I was asked whether to remove Freeze without adding anything, I'd still be in the Yes side, because, again, Freeze is the worst mechanic of RPG ailment ever created...

I like some of the people here say to wait until the next game. Frostbite is balanced around the fact that Legends is basically a single player game as well as the agile/strong system. Imagine having freeze with that system instead of frostbite. And there's also the fact that frostbite (I think, haven't gotten to the snow area yet) can't be on ice types, so gotta program all that in as well.

And another thing is the items. While the burn orb isn't in the game itself yet, we would eventually get something similar, assuming that frostbite stays for the next game. Freeze is an annoyance yes, but how often are you packing ice type moves? Sleep is more of a team killer then frostbite is. And there's another point as well, even if it is minor: Abilities. How would those mix with this new status, and which one would get you more power from it (like if a pokemon that normally isn't ice type gets ice body be immune to the status? Or could it be clever and add in an ability that heals from it instead?).

Moves everyone has said already so the point still stands on that. But another point is how it would interact with fields. Would ice fields be able to have a chance to inflict frostbite or something similar if the damage route is taken (I think the volcano fields can inflict burn but it's been awhile so I am very likely to be wrong).

TLDR, wait until the next game rolls around, then go on from there.

I say no. Something just feels off to me with adding frostbite over Frozen here. It does not fit the style. Besides, with both Poison and Burn already being a thing, I feel it is unnecessary given the style of these games compared to PLA. Granted, yes, frostbite does act like Burn in halving sp attack (over Burn's attack halving), but I feel like it is not truly needed. Freeze is still the rarest status effect to both give/get, and it is MEANT to be devastating. Having another bloody gradual chipper in a game like Rejuv would just be too much. If it was an addition, not a replace, there would be some use. But if it's REPLACING the rare freeze, why bother? Unless you jack up the rates for the effect to occur, but that feels too cheap, and why add difficulty like that.

There's a point it changes from fun challenging, to annoying challenging, and adding frostbite OVER freeze might just swing things that way for me.

I clicked yes for Frostibite, not only to replace Freeze which is bonkers, but because I also like it.

I won't say much, I'm not a fan of rng but some rng is acceptable.

Comparing Flamethrower/Thunderbolt/Ice Beam, which all have the 10%, all suck but the Freeze sucks like Caprice.

The game hasn't Frozen me once, that's super cool, but could Frostbite me in the future and that's ok.
If Drowsy was included in the poll I would click no but that's irrelevant now.
Also thanks for asking our opinions and making a poll <3

I am utterly indifferent. Just do what you want with the bloomin' thing.

Maybe? Until the future gens shows that Frostbite is here to stay alongside Freeze.

Will this make Angie harder or easier. Because it took me 3 weeks to beat her as she is now on insane difficulty.  And I know insane mode is leaving soon but I  Caught almost every mon to that point trying combos out. So the ice gym doesn't need anymore buff. I do like frostbite tho but almost never want to face Angie again.

I voted "Yes" for these reasons:
- Freeze was very random, either locking your Pokemon until it faints or disappear right away, RNG ain't fun, yo!
- It had no practical usability, most moves that give Freeze only has a 10% anyway so capitalizing on it was near impossible, a status like Paralysis is good for faster pokemon, Burn for strong physical attackers, Toxic for bulky stallers but Freeze had no usability at all and no one EVER relied on it.
- It counter balances Burn pretty well, while one lowers Attack the other goes for S.Atk, it was always easy to just burn a strong physical attacker and rend it useless but the same was not true for special attackers.
- It just makes sense.. Ice burns.. 

However there still one major issue and it's the fact that there's no move that has more than a 10% chance of applying Freeze/Frostbite, if we want to cripple a physical attacker a simple Will-o-Wisp will do but there's no move for Freeze/Frostbite so I feel like if you gonna go for the replacement you should also create a move similar to Will-o-Wisp but for Freeze/Frostbite.

I vote yes for the frostbite, though by reading all the comments i got a possibly stupid idea. Why not mix freeze and frostbite? First action you try to take after getting it will act as frozen while anything after acts as frostbite. Though i dont know if that is even possible.

Also i dont know if this is the case (just ignore this if it isnt.), but if status conditions are stored in their own files couldnt you make two versions of that file so people that want one or the other could just choose?

I think this is a good idea IF it's easy to implement for you. If not, then you shouldn't give yourself more work to do (you already did so much with this game and continue to do so).

A few thoughts. One being that I encourage using the poll to inform a design descision rather than make a design decsision.
Another practical consideration is if this is easy to do, if not I'd say don't worry about it, perhaps until the game is otherwise done/if
I think my only reservation about the mechanic is that I enjoy having special attacks and physical attacks feel different thematically and that they have different ways of being interacted with. For instance I'd be sort of bummed if a game had a physical version of assulat vest and a special version of rocky helmet, and a frostbite version of will o wisp because it takes away from the idea that pysical and special attacks are different, rather than just being reskins of each other. However, frostbite is probably a good mechanic, and replacing freeze with it is definitley a valid design choice. 

I would personally say hard no, or at least hard no until the next gen comes out.  Pokemon has been around for many years now and each new gen brings another layer of complexity to the game that the main games do a horrible job of capturing.  It is one of the reasons why I personally love reborn and rejuvenation so much.  However, this can be a double edged sword.  Pokemon's complexity was slowly introduced through each gen, however, that complexity can be daunting to those just picking up the games now (if they are playing more competitively, of course).  However, changing the rules to the game (whether that be adding or removing features) can seriously annoy long time players. 

Pokemon is actually the very reason why I am so hesitant to try any other 'pokemon-esque' games or heavily edited pokemon fangames.  The very idea of having to re-learn all the mechanics, names, types, stats, moves, abilities, items, etc; is a bit daunting.  Lots of time is invested into learning these mechanics and the idea of going to a 'pokemon-esque' game / pokemon fangame with their own brand new mechanics that need to be relearned from the ground up is a bit of a turn off for me personally. 

Personally, I will admit that pokemon fangames with non-cannon pokemon, abilities, items, and moves to be rather aggravating.  As it is a pokemon fangame, the idea is that the player will in fact be playing pokemon.  I enjoy being able to explore the game and use the mechanics GF has introduced.  Especially because the games they make often never give you a reason to use them.  But the addition of non-cannon mechanics means that non-cannon strategies will be used.  This often makes me feel like I am learning a useless skill.  Non-cannon mechanics also mean the official sites are now void and fangames often do not have websites or properly updated forums going into detail to discuss the changes.  Rejuvenation already requires that I have multiple guides / mechanic pages open at all times: Natures, Pokemon Moves, IV/EV focus, current Pokemon Location Guide, current Item Location Guide, (occasionally) current Walkthrough, and the Field Effects Guide.  My computer is chuggin already, opening up more guides for new fakemon (which are currently in the game) and updated movepools, mechanics, and abilities; will kill it for sure. 

Jokes aside, I do not view all new changes as negative.  While I am not a big fan of fakemon, I absolutely LOVE the field effects system in both reborn and rejuvenation.  The field effects can be confusing and absolutely maddening in some areas, but I simply love their addition. 

So with all that being said, I will mostly agree with what everyone else is saying.  Arceus is a spin off.  Balance wise, I do not think it is a bad idea, but we do not know what changes will be made in the new gen coming out this fall.  If it is not added in the newest gen, any mechanic changes made now could conflict with the changes GF introduces.  If frostbite is not introduced in the newest gen, I cannot see frostbite being properly implemented without new moves/abilities being created, entire movepools/abilities being restructured, and all current battles/team comps being redesigned with this new status affect in mind.   All these changes will be added on top of the (possible) mechanic changes GF introduces in this next gen. 

That is my 2 cents on the matter.

I think maybe having frostbite lead to freeze could work possibly????
Like ice beam could inflict frostbite, then have a chance to flat out freeze.

Or after thawing out, being inflicted with frostbite might be more akin to real life.

maybe moves can only freeze in hail or certain terrain/weather and inflict frostbite otherwise.

some moves could only inflict frostbite while others freeze (maybe only low powers moves inflict fb)

idk I really like frostbite but it seem weird to just get rid of freeze all together.

Yes, obviously.

I think the inclusion of it would be best but it is a fairly split poll tbh

Maybe make it so both are present?
With frostbite having a higher chance of freeze
E.g Ice beam is 10% freeze chance normally

So make it 7.5% frostbite and 2.5% freeze maybe?
That or just make it different with moves
So moves like powder snow, ice beam, frost breath etc inflict Frostbite
While moves like Blizzard, Freeze Dry, Freezing Glare etc inflict freeze

Idk
I just hope if frostbite is added you don't add it to Cold Truth

We don't need that
please
I beg

On 3/5/2022 at 4:54 PM, Mister_ecks said:

Pros of voting frostbite:

 

- It's a less frustrating status to deal with, and also allows representation of a feature from a newer game.

 

Problems with voting frostbite:

 

- Balance wise, Frostbite as a status will be severely hampered by the pre-existing balance around freeze. For example, there is no scald or will-o-wisp equivalent for it. This leaves little room for its consistency or utility.

 

- We don't know the full extent of what'll happen when taking the national dex into account with this change- especially since PLA is a Pokemon sidegame with limited trainer encounters, overhauled battle mechanics, and a lack of PvP. This mechanic also has little exposure, which may confuse newer players.

 

- Will set a precedent of not adding, but replacing old mechanics with sidegame features against cartridge outline. May become problematic later on.

 

- Now, this one I don't have solid evidence for (as I haven't committed to a full playthrough of Arceus yet), but I'd assume Freeze and Sleep were removed from PLA for the sake of sparing up time. Both of those require custom model/animation changes which isn't an issue in a RSE styled fangame. While I agree that Freeze is a highly annoying status ailment which throws its effect under loops and hoops of RNG, Frostbite in any case doesn't appear to do much better in the favor of balance. Special burn is not something that takes a lot of time to think of- it is also not what ice types need, and even if it was, chances are it'll instead shift usage to a random water type that gets access to a reliable way to inflict it. 

 

From what we know of so far, I would instead wait until Gen 9 to reconsider this topic.

-For your first point against it... I don't see how this is made out to be an issue when they have introduced quite a few brand new moves such as Slash and Burn and Magma Drift. Creating a Will-o-wisp clone for Frostbite wouldn't really be an issue.

-Again, National dex shouldn't really be a concern. Moves that can freeze get turned into Frostbite. I haven't had the chance to play PLA yet, but if there are any new moves that inflict Frostbite, I don't think picking which mons do and don't get access to this move is TOO time consuming.

-While yes, by definition this does create a 'precedent.' It's not like this is going to become a common occurrence. There aren't really many features to replace to begin with. If anything, Rejuvenation has already done the OPPOSITE of this by not adding Dynamax. Meanwhile, turning any G-Max forms into new megas with potentially new abilities and stat spreads.

-Animations? What animations? Freeze "anim" is them not moving while a block of ice appears over them for a second. Sleep "anim" is them closing their eyes. Which, considering the fact that pokemon can blink, this means no new "animations" or textures need to be made for sleep animations.

Bringing Frostbite into the mix would not only be a breath of fresh air, but it's a more interesting and experience-enhancing concept than not being able to do anything for an indeterminate amount of turns. It's not fun losing to RNG. Frostbite, while is obviously still inflicted with RNG elements, isn't as dependent on it as Freeze is. Frostbite can introduce new Pokemon as being viable in the game that otherwise wouldn't have been without access to it. New strategies to be made. Sure, conceptually it's nothing groundbreaking, but neither was freeze to begin with. I imagine toying around with Frostbite would be a lot more fun than occasionally getting that one Freeze off every now and then.

Risk taking can be an important component while game developing. When it comes to Freeze vs Frostbite, I think it's a pretty safe feature to take a gamble on.

On 3/5/2022 at 6:54 PM, Mister_ecks said:

- Now, this one I don't have solid evidence for (as I haven't committed to a full playthrough of Arceus yet), but I'd assume Freeze and Sleep were removed from PLA for the sake of sparing up time. Both of those require custom model/animation changes which isn't an issue in a RSE styled fangame.

Somebody else already addressed everything else in your post, but you couldn't be more off the mark here. Sleep and Freeze were removed because guaranteed missed-turn moves are absolutely broken in PLA's ATB-like format (not to mention they were already pretty disliked/abused in VGC to begin with). If you miss one turn, that's your opponent getting up to two free shots on you depending on their speed and move styles, instead of just the one as per usual in 1-to-1 turn based like traditional pokemon. Sleep is less insidious because it would have a 3-turn (6-move) max, but Freeze doesn't have a guaranteed thaw turn, and on top of that its thaw rate is even lower than Sleep's wake rate (20% for Freeze and 33% for Sleep IIRC).

And now my own opinion on the matter: while I agree that this still isn't an issue in a traditional pokemon fangame, I still think that Frostbite should replace Freeze, because that's a shift in usage from "sleep but less reliable and more obtusely broken when it hits" to "burn but it cripples special types", which is a whole niche that hasn't existed yet that, frankly, really should.

On 3/13/2022 at 12:32 AM, NuzzlX said:

-For your first point against it... I don't see how this is made out to be an issue when they have introduced quite a few brand new moves such as Slash and Burn and Magma Drift. Creating a Will-o-wisp clone for Frostbite wouldn't really be an issue.

 

-Again, National dex shouldn't really be a concern. Moves that can freeze get turned into Frostbite. I haven't had the chance to play PLA yet, but if there are any new moves that inflict Frostbite, I don't think picking which mons do and don't get access to this move is TOO time consuming.

 

-While yes, by definition this does create a 'precedent.' It's not like this is going to become a common occurrence. There aren't really many features to replace to begin with. If anything, Rejuvenation has already done the OPPOSITE of this by not adding Dynamax. Meanwhile, turning any G-Max forms into new megas with potentially new abilities and stat spreads.

 

-Animations? What animations? Freeze "anim" is them not moving while a block of ice appears over them for a second. Sleep "anim" is them closing their eyes. Which, considering the fact that pokemon can blink, this means no new "animations" or textures need to be made for sleep animations.

 

Bringing Frostbite into the mix would not only be a breath of fresh air, but it's a more interesting and experience-enhancing concept than not being able to do anything for an indeterminate amount of turns. It's not fun losing to RNG. Frostbite, while is obviously still inflicted with RNG elements, isn't as dependent on it as Freeze is. Frostbite can introduce new Pokemon as being viable in the game that otherwise wouldn't have been without access to it. New strategies to be made. Sure, conceptually it's nothing groundbreaking, but neither was freeze to begin with. I imagine toying around with Frostbite would be a lot more fun than occasionally getting that one Freeze off every now and then.

 

Risk taking can be an important component while game developing. When it comes to Freeze vs Frostbite, I think it's a pretty safe feature to take a gamble on.

Re: Make a new willo TM for frostbite.

There are plenty issues with the creation of a willo-clone tm for frostbite. For one, it would essentially make the 10% freeze proc pointless, almost like fishing for a burn on a flamethrower. As noted, this dramatic inconsistency means it's impossible to build around or prepare for. Leaving it alone like this would be equal to removing the freeze status entirely. Secondly (and in regards to creating a new TM for this status), you'll have to look for a place where you can give the TM to players. Too early and it's on every single pokemon, too late and it's useless. Finally, it would act as a balancing pressure, for the devs will have to look at pokemon distributions- all 898 of them. I'll go ahead and say that a special burn is already disadvantaged due to the fact that the majority of attackers are physical (the majority of special attackers also being frail), with a reliance on ice types adding on a compounding weakness. Dealing with these balancing issues will surely be a challenge.

Re: Natdex isn't a problem because you can turn freezing moves into frostbite.

On the topic of freeze -> frostbite, we've already mentioned how it would basically make the 10/20% freeze chance moot. Frostbite is not something you can fish for like a scald burn, it's a mechanic balanced around being a second-wind. 

But as plenty of others have pointed out, the main issue of Legends' transition into natdex is that it holds a completely different battling system from cartridge formula. Indeed, from what we can speculate, the transition will be a rough one that is both unrewarding and time consuming. It would also as mentioned throw off newer players as a mechanic which comes out of nowhere (and may not even follow main game traditions, looking at gen9.)

Re: It's not like this will be a common occurrence, plus Dynamax forms were changed into megas for rejuv.

We don't know if this will or will not become a common occurrence. Honestly, who thought that this topic would have even come into contention? Did anyone know that the developers were looking to add a status effect from a sidegame? The problem with this precedent is that sidegame mechanics do not smoothly transition into the maingame. Megas on the other hand are a feature introduced by two games, and tested in countless other fangames we've all known and played. Of course, the reason for dynamax's removal is that it was tested and found to be unhealthy, so it was replaced. The reasons for adding frostbite are that freeze is annoying and it will be a refresher to see a new mechanic. While I understand that freeze can be annoying, it is not enough to warrant its removal from the game in a fashion like maxing when there isn't a good alternative. Frostbite not being a good alternative for all the reasons listed above and below.

Re: Freeze/Sleep would not have been hard to implement into legends, pokemon can already blink.

I initially believed that freeze completely stopping an animation and sleep's eye-shutting effects may have been too timely to implement properly, but I see now that this point was off the mark. There was no usable Legends footage at the time to confirm or deny those assumptions, and it is great that there are players willing to contribute their own insights. 

Re: Frostbite would bring viability to certain pokemon

However, I fail to see how Frostbite would make an impact outside of removing freeze. It is not a status effect that solves any of ice's problems. Note that their big issues are their slowness, unable to get the move off before the enemy attacks, with a typing that grants them only a resistance to themselves. What pokemon would be "introduced as viable" because of this change? It may even have the opposite effect, as ice types which could previously gain a second wind through freeze are now left with a little flick of special burn. We don't have to speculate on how much of a hit that would be in a battle.

Re: Risks are good in game development

But again, the reason I made the post in the first place was to demonstrate the reasons there were to not add this mechanic in comparison to the reasons for adding it. I'd like readers to be able to make their own judgements off of what has been put on the table.

In regards to risk-taking, there is something I'm not understanding. How could the dev team have the time to gamble on new features if they're already removing long-time features like Intense Mode for being difficult to deal with? Is it really a good idea to add in a mechanic with the benefits of "breathing fresh air into the 10% freeze status" when you have to add so many failsafes just to make it somewhat functional?

On 3/13/2022 at 12:51 PM, Eloquent Liar said:

 

Somebody else already addressed everything else in your post, but you couldn't be more off the mark here. Sleep and Freeze were removed because guaranteed missed-turn moves are absolutely broken in PLA's ATB-like format (not to mention they were already pretty disliked/abused in VGC to begin with). If you miss one turn, that's your opponent getting up to two free shots on you depending on their speed and move styles, instead of just the one as per usual in 1-to-1 turn based like traditional pokemon. Sleep is less insidious because it would have a 3-turn (6-move) max, but Freeze doesn't have a guaranteed thaw turn, and on top of that its thaw rate is even lower than Sleep's wake rate (20% for Freeze and 33% for Sleep IIRC).

 

And now my own opinion on the matter: while I agree that this still isn't an issue in a traditional pokemon fangame, I still think that Frostbite should replace Freeze, because that's a shift in usage from "sleep but less reliable and more obtusely broken when it hits" to "burn but it cripples special types", which is a whole niche that hasn't existed yet that, frankly, really should.

I can definitely see how the battle system of legends would conflict with the aforementioned statuses, and you are right in the fact that I was off the mark in regards to battle animations being the reason for their removal.

Though again, that's even more of a statement to just how much the playstyle in legends differs from cartridge. VGC is a very volatile metagame which leans towards preparation and matchups, there is quite a bit that's disliked in that format. In smogon regulated formats, sleep is far less overwhelming due to a clause which limits the amount of pokemon that may be put to sleep. In this fangame, sleep is far less overwhelming due to the amount of options available. 

But think about what actually happens when you land the freeze/frostbite. Does it really carve out a niche? Freeze is a second-wind mechanic offered to turn the tides in a player's favor, this often rewards the use of an underpowered typing in ice (Since rejuv locks the ice beam tm). You can be at death's door when an alolan ninetale's blizzard freezes the enemy and allows you reprieve, but replace the same situation with frostbite, you have a 10% chance of landing a special burn. The majority of attackers are physical already, so the off chance that frostbite actually comes in handy is incredibly small. Even if frostbite is inflicted onto, say, an alakazam, all it has to do is just attack one more time onto your already crippled pokemon ( as ice types are generally slow, necessitating them to take a hit before even getting the chance to apply the status.) In the end, I can't see "boosting the viability of ice types" as a valid argument for frostbite's replacement of freeze. Freeze is broken by design as to allow these slow, fragile pokemon a second chance at surviving, but frostbite doesn't do any of that.

Freeze is a trash status effect and always has been. Good riddance to it, I say.

I've been following the poll results, up until today the results were ~59% yes and ~41% no. Just checked tonight and it seems someone got a bot to spam the results since there is a very clear majority for yes now. Just in case Jan/Zumi/Others were wondering what the results were before they got messed with.

3 hours ago, Lavamites said:

I've been following the poll results, up until today the results were ~59% yes and ~41% no. Just checked tonight and it seems someone got a bot to spam the results since there is a very clear majority for yes now. Just in case Jan/Zumi/Others were wondering what the results were before they got messed with.

Results are screwed for sure, votes went up pretty slow and now suddenly went up with about 2000, might be good to stop the poll and take the result above and the comments to make your decision on the matter.

I voted no because it's a sidegame gimmick that affects battles in a game where battles are different.

The mechanic I'd vote for to take from PLA would be the way learned moves are saved for each mon, it's pretty cool.

19 hours ago, Memedealer said:

I voted no because it's a sidegame gimmick that affects battles in a game where battles are different.

The mechanic I'd vote for to take from PLA would be the way learned moves are saved for each mon, it's pretty cool.

I think we should see if it actually ends up being a sidegame gimmick or not. If gen 9 actually has frostbite, then 100% it should be in the game. And if not, I think it would be interesting (although maybe unnecessary) to have both freeze and frostbite, and have certain moves apply 1 or the other. For example, ice beam and blizzard provide freeze, while a new move that is a variation of will o wisp and freeze dry provide frostbite. Just as examples. I also agree that the new way the implemented the "move reminder" should be put in the game.

2 hours ago, Lavamites said:

I think we should see if it actually ends up being a sidegame gimmick or not. If gen 9 actually has frostbite, then 100% it should be in the game. And if not, I think it would be interesting (although maybe unnecessary) to have both freeze and frostbite, and have certain moves apply 1 or the other. For example, ice beam and blizzard provide freeze, while a new move that is a variation of will o wisp and freeze dry provide frostbite. Just as examples. I also agree that the new way the implemented the "move reminder" should be put in the game.

Yeah, fair enough. Gen 9 will most likely come out before the update, so we can see. I don't agree with having both freeze types, tho.

I chose yes because I think it could help make better strategies for gyms but I am now realizing that Angie will be Even for of a demon for beginners

I voted yes purely for the Sp.Atk drop tbh

I've been wanting a SpA based burn for ages so I voted yes.

Other than just me wanting it, freeze is an annoying purely luck based mechanic that can make or break a battle, if you are relying on freeze to get your win then you dont actually have a good strategy for that fight, and conversely if you are winning a fight and have a good strat and you get frozen then you loose purely on luck. Either way freeze is bad.

That said, simply changing freeze to frostbite isn't enough, I would like to see some custom moves added as equivalents of things like will'o'wisp, scald, and the like for frostbite to be used by and against players in order to have a consistent way of utilizing that status, otherwise there isnt any point. 

If all the moves that do freeze are just converted to frostbite and not edited in any way then its really no different than relying on the luck of the freeze.

In the end, no matter how you put it, classic freeze does basically the exact same as sleep. It makes the afflicted Pokémon unable to act until the effect wears off or is cured. Do we need two status conditions that do exactly the same?

Frostbite on the other hand, while it basically does exactly the same as burn, it lowers special attack instead of physical attack. That would be a nice gain and i'm rather surprised something like that wasn't created much earlier in the series as a counterpart to burn.

Why not both? Things that would more reasonably give frostbite (like ice fang or blizzard) give frostbite, but things that would freeze give frozen status (like ice beam)