Talk:Nature

Any chance someone could include the flavours of PokéBlocks that each nature favours? It's hell trying to figure that out... ~~Ketsuban

---

I just want to know how to make a graph so I can make a TM chart.LedianX 17:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generation IV Natures

I'm deleting the two natures "Friovolous" and "Meticulous"; there has been no word on these two new presumed natures since August 2006 at the latest, and all of the current major Pokémon sites have either not mentioned or denied these two natures' existence. - Ultraflame

---

I'll delete the generation column because it has no relevance, as no new natures were introduced. - Chosen

Colo/XD

Could someone add how Natures affect Purification?

Mostly rewording for clarity...

I reworded and expanded the pre-table description. There wasn't anything particularly horrible about what was there before, but it's more descriptive and more soundly worded now, imo.

Umlaut?

I want to learn why is it "naïve" and not "naive" in this article. --Johans 01:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Compatability?

Do natures affect the breeding compatability in the daycare? (ie how much they like each other) Sidnoea 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Egg groups, species and OT are the only things that affect breeding. Why? Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Personality

what about the other stat influencing thing? you know "Proud of its Power" "Likes to run" all that stuff we need that on here too Happizelpom 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's on a separate page...--^Psychic_Rider^☮ 20:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Nature and Characteristic

I have a Pokémon with a Rash Nature (+Sp Atk, -Sp Def) and "Somewhat Stubborn" Characteristic (+Sp Def). How will this affect the growth of its Sp. Def? --Arima 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The characteristic doesn't affect the stats like nature does, it just means that it's highest IV is in the Special Defense stat, and so it isn't really +Sp. Def. Werdnae (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo (I think)

is it just me or does it say dv instead of iv on the article look at this: Note that despite these relationships to a Pokémon's development, natures do not affect experience or DVs.) see what I mean? (The snargret guy 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

IVs can also be considered DVs for determinant values. but everyone calls them IVs so, i changed it to that. -- MAGNEDETH 18:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks (The snargret guy 23:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

In HG/SS/Pt

In HG/SS/Pt you can tell what effect the nature has on a Pokemon by looking at its stats. The increasing stat faintly glows red while the decreasing stat faintly glows blue. Can I add this to the article? ~♪ Zaveno _(Talk) ♫ 20:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From the second paragraph:

In HeartGold and SoulSilver the stats increased and decreased by a Pokémon's nature are outlined in red and blue respectively when viewing that Pokémon's Summary Screen.

It's already there. Werdnae (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pokéathlon

Shouldn't we add how Natures effect a Pokémon's Performance? I'll make the table if I have to.--Mr.lol 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do. —darklordtrom 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild Pokémon

Does the nature of a wild Pokémon effect how it will battle? Or are all moves chosen at random? For example, I battled two wild Torkoal in a row. One used Protect as much as possible while the other didn't use it at all. Could this be related to their nature? If this were true, would it be possible to predict how a Pokémon will battle in the Battle Palace by observing how it battles in the wild? FrozenStrategy 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Chance for a Specific Nature

Are there percentages on which nature is more likely to "spawn" or is it completely random with a 4% chance for every nature? Greetz -Cipher- 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the Personality value of each Pokémon, and so is a completely random 4% chance. Unless you have a Pokémon with Synchronize. Werdnae (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go really precise, you could say that the Gentle, Sassy, Careful, and Quirky natures are very slightly less likely to be encountered due to the personality value's upper bound. (There are 171,179,861 possible personality values for each of the four natures I mentioned, but 171,179,862 possible personality values for each of the other 21 natures.) Ultraflame 03:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel like spinda now ^^, the less precise answer was more then enough =P but thx to both of you and werdnae are you tracking me down? xD if so, there's a new question in the sudowoodo talk page xD Greetz -Cipher- 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not tracking you down, I just happen to see your edits in the RC, or they happen to be pages on my watchlist. And if I know the answer to a question, I'll answer it. Werdnae (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Berry preferences?

Hello, I'm new to actually editing these pages. Forgive me if this action is a bit noobish, but I don't quite know where else to ask.

I was wondering why the section detailing which berries and such are preferred by pokemon of specific natures was removed. I can't seem to find it anywhere else on this site, and it was wonderfully helpful to me. D:

Is there a reason, or could it be re-inserted? ^_^; - unsigned comment from Aecy (talk • contribs)

It is there, but you have to understand the graphics. By the way, you have to sign your name only after your comment, not where you signed. --Netto-kun ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OH! I see. It's far harder to extract the info I seek quickly, but I guess I can make use of it. Though perhaps it might be useful to put a quick reference chart for berry/nature preference on the berry page for the forgetful like myself... Because, come to think of it, it would be far more appropriate there. ~~Aecy

New Table is terrible

Ewwww... the new table added by AquaDragon looks awful, and in fact has less functionality than the previous version (can't sort the table!). I don't want to just revert it without a bit of consensus though, so: Vote that table be scrapped for old version. Anaphysik 19:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do tell me why the table is awful. I know that if you are accustomed to the sortable list and you see a table, you would most probably reject the table. However during the change, I sought to make the list look more presentable and clearer, while preserving all the information on it (i.e. to say, the list and table are equivalent in content, only differing in presentation).

First of all, the list is already somewhat repetitive; the colors already repeat themselves, (increases stat to favorite flavor, decreased stat to disliked flavor) and I do not think the colors make searching any easier (unless the colors are memorized and the searcher knows what each color represent). Secondly, I guarantee that searching through a table is faster: the whole table is within the searcher's field of vision, meaning to say the person searching can look at the whole table at one glance instead of up and down for the list. The sorting functionalities on the list only eases the search (rearranging alphabetically, I still have to search downwards for natures that appear in the center like Jolly, then look up and down [if i didn't remember] what each column represents. The need for sorting also proves that the list is quite messy to begin with).

Lastly, the table takes up less space: visually its more squat and compact, and digitally, taking 4.3kb less space than the list means it loads faster (older browsers may not support sorting as well).

OK, I'm not saying the table is the best solution to present the natures and all the data shown. Ultimately clarity and ease of understanding prevails, and if you do find a better solution (I think you will go with the list), then by all means go ahead and change it. Only time will tell :) ---> AquaDragon 02:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember the Code of Conduct and don't just attack users like that, Anaphysik. Now, I know that the table currently does not look it's best right now but that's not how you should refer to users. It can be fixed. —♥ Jello^talk 02:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread or something; I never attacked AquaDragon, and was talking entirely about the edit that he/she made (as can be seen in the page's history, it was made in one edit by, as I mentioned to be precise, AquaDragon). This is entirely about the edit, and not the author, so please do not have such a seemingly aggressive attitude (it almost sounds like you're trying to demonize me; that's not nice). Anaphysik 20:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)