Just turn it off is a viable sollution, but the design implications behind the new EXP share is what's problematic, considering the context of game to player interaction. This is the first time i've visited /vp/ in months and there's always a thread up when i pop in arguing about it. If its know as a problem, odds are there's a problem with it.
>>34890481But I liked the EXP all and the old exp share hold item. The new EXP share trivializes the entire game by defaulting it to a 'very easy' mode, in addition to removing good alternatives that allowed you to level underdeveloped pokemon without overpowering your team.
The average player will go through the game with 6 pokemon with it on. Its problematic if any player wants to push themself to minmax even slightly. You either gimp yourself or you're brokenly overpowered. The potential player power level is so far beyond the appropriate level for any given encounter that it seems very problematic. g3, 4, and 5 handle EXP and pokemon development far better. Kids were beating games like Platinum on release, they can handle at least a little challenge.
It'd be one thing if the level curve was broadened to a full 1-100, but it wasn't.
>>34890602Your average player plays with their thumb up their ass following the path of least resistance. If a pokemon isn't leveled, its not going to be used until endgame where the player can explore other mechanics.
There's a firm reason most players start by overleveling one pokemon, path of least resistance. The EXP share was made to counter that mentality, but it outright broke the game's balance for every other type of player.
Rotating in and out pokemon is neither practical or reasonable. During your playthrough, you will run into overpreformers and favorites. That's natural. Forcing you out of your favorite team else you overlevel the game feels like absolute garbage.
