>>58190631I just can't figure out a way to justify them.
>1 as evolutionssome of them are based on 3rd stage mons so that's out
>2 as alternate evolutions for the prevothe mons they're based on have WAY worse stats so you'd be shooting yourself in the foot going for the original
>3 as alternate forms of the base monI mean maybe, but gamefreak would never retcon dex numbers, would they? They haven't touched nidoran after all.
>3 as "ecologically similar pokemon" (the new buzzword) with severely nerfed statsI mean maybe that would be fine, but some of them are still completely incoherent, like there being a dozen robots of which like 2 are Steel-type
>4 redesign them so they no longer resemble the original pokemon they're based onwould be extremely hard to justify because 1.) people would complain about the few solid designs like slither wing or walking wake and 2.) they'd have to also change koraidon and miraidon which completely defeats the purpose of having paradox mons as the base of a game, which I guess is a problem for some of these other points too
>5 keep them as-is but buff the original pokemon that they're based onmight work but if we go by bst some of the original mons would have ludicrous BST jumps, or otherwise wouldn't make sense to be buffed that much, like jigglypuff getting up to 570 bst??? delibird going from 330 to 570??? non-bst buffs would be really hard to do too, how could we possibly justify flutter mane vs misdreavus or something? I just don't get see it.
>reddit spaceI just cannot think of a cogent method of making them palatable. I guess if I had to pick one it would be some combination of 3 (weakening them while retaining their current independence from the originals, just putting them more at parity if too strong) and 4 (mostly in making the types more justified - make the robotic ones slightly more organic and obvious what type they are as an example. Just make them less "wtf"-inducing. AND GIVE THEM ACTUAL NAMES GODDAMNIT)
