>>27179119But therin lies the problem. That was just an example, I agree with you that, with or without the exp share, you don't need to grind. But the issue is that trainer/gym leader teams are way, way too simple. gym leaders will have 2-3 Pokemon, all about the same level (if not less) than your ace. Leveling in almost every rpg is there for 2 major reasons.
1- adding a sense of progression
2- making it so that you can balance a game with a "curve"
The issue with this is that gamedevs feel that all they need to do to make a game difficult is to raise levels, therefore raising stats, but raising stats is an automatic process. The speed at which you do it doesn't make the game harder or easier. If my Pokemon is overleveled, that shouldn't matter. If a casual player goes into a gym fight with a higher level pokemon than the gym leader's, they feel a sense of honor. THEY were the ones that trained their Pokemon, and they're proud they did it. On face value, that's a good thing. Making the players feel good is all you have to do, right? Maybe for a casual player or a kid, fine. But if a veteran player goes to fight the same gym leader and win, they'll just roll their eyes because they know that with or without the exp share, stat distribution and (mostly) automated algorithms had the most to do with it. So it doesn't matter if I use the exp share or not. If I grinded my Pokemon to the point where they're a higher level than a gym leader without the exp share, guess what? I'm still not going to be satisfied, because I know I won because my Pokemon were just stronger. I don't want to win just because my Pokemon were stronger, I want to win because I fought through the AI's strategy in the heat of battle. I want to look back on a moment of a gym battle and think, "Boy if I hadn't have done THAT, I probably would've lost!" But instead I look back at a battle and think, "Ah jeez, even though I trained my Pokemon up, that battle was pretty boring."
