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)
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)
- 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)
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. —♥ Jellotalk 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)
- Singling out a specific user in association with something you think looks awful is rather insulting when you are on the recieving end. It would be better to say "I don't like the look of the new table, can we improve it by . . . ?" There is no need to "be precise" by specifying a specific user or edit unless it has been modified several times very recently, as doing so is insulting to the user on the recieving end more often than not. Werdnae (talk) 02:50, 12 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)
- 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. —♥ Jellotalk 02:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to second the motion of replacing the table with the original. It was hard to tell which column represents what in the new one. Personally, I think it's better to just look up the nature to see what it increases/decreases, rather than seeing which stat is benefit/demerit by a certain nature. Example: In the old table, if I needed to see which stat increases Attack, I can just look at the multiple boxes labeled "Attack" and see the corresponding natures, followed by the stat demerits, as well as Poffin flavors, etc in the following boxes. I will say, for the record, that I can understand the new table now. Regardless, it was a change that seemed unnecessary and not as easy on the eyes. Knuclear200x 08:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I find the new table to be much more efficient for quickly and easily looking up which nature I want, which is not the case with the old list. Although, I must say that the left column definitely doesn't need to be that wide. --Flib 05:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
with regard to the nature table
(also in response to the above) OK, I've been thinking for a while, and I agree that the main problem of the table is understanding it more than searching for information. Therefore, for the time being, I've restored the original list, and put the table in expandable mode. Yes, I do know we do not usually put up repetitive information, but for the sake of discussion I shall reiterate my point on why I support the table.
- Firstly, the table cuts down on repetition. I'm also referring to the list's flavor column. Each stat is tagged to a flavor (attack-spicy), and if the nature boosts the stat, then the Pokémon will come to like the flavor (boost attack → likes spicy food), and will likewise dislike it for a hindered stat. I'm not sure why it seems important to have it beside and sortable with the nature; it sounds like the favorite flavor might depend on the nature.
- All right, so assume we get rid of the flavor column and then put up a separate explanation/table saying how each flavor is tagged to a stat and so on and so on, then we're practically left with a natures and the stats, which goes on to my second point, which is
- a table is much neater and organised. I know the list can do things like sort alphabetically, make it look nice and the table looks awkwardly messy because there doesn't seem to have any order (i don't think they will design the natures so that they look nice or ordered alphabetically in rows), but the table does present the same (or even more) information in a tidier fashion.
- OK, say you want to look up a nature, like Impish. So you look through the table, find it, then want to know what stats it boosts or hinders... so by looking at the column (decrease sp.atk) and the row (increase def), you know what it does, and additionally it tells you what flavors it likes/dislikes.
- Now for your example on searching for natures that increases Attack... won't it be more convenient to look up the row for attack instead of searching all the orange-colored boxes?
- Next is about space. OK it might not be a plus point, and I've mentioned it above, but I'd like to add that there are only 25 natures, so if a table can fit all that, then why not?
- Lastly, even if the list has to be there, the table would act as a compliment. Its like showing the two different solutions to a maths problem... after all, if anyone needed to copy down an offline version of the natures, i'm sure he/she will choose the table ;) ---> AquaDragon 14:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Everstone + breeding with male Pokémon
Currently, the article states, "From Emerald onwards, a Ditto or a female Pokémon (though increasing evidence points to BOTH genders) that holds an Everstone has a 50% chance of passing its nature to its offspring when at the Pokémon daycare[...]". (The emphasis is mine.) I understand that there's a lot of debate on the Internet whether a male Pokémon can pass down a nature with an Everstone, and I can say that's definitely true in Black/White. I bred a female Lax Gligar with a male Impish Gligar, with the male one holding an Everstone. I obtained approximately 15 eggs, and half of them were Impish. So, I think that we can conclude that this definitely works in B/W. (Also, as an aside, the female Gligar was Japanese, so the language restriction (which never made sense in the first place) was removed in B/W as well.) I haven't tried giving Everstones yet to male Pokémon in Gen IV games yet, but I will soon (or if someone else wants to try, be my guest.) --Blaziken257 01:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, as a follow up, I have decided to test all the Gen IV games I have: Diamond, Platinum, and HeartGold. Here are all the results:
- Diamond: Bred a male Adamant Aerodactyl (holding an Everstone) with a female Impish Aerodactyl. Both of them are English. 13 eggs were produced; none of them were Adamant.
- Platinum: Bred a male Quirky Slowpoke (holding an Everstone) with a female Lonely Slowpoke. Both of them are English. 15 eggs were produced; only one of them was Quirky, which probably was due to random chance as opposed to being influenced by the Everstone.
- HeartGold: Bred a male Adamant Mareep (holding an Everstone) with a female Docile Mareep. Both of them are English. 13 eggs were produced; eight of them were Adamant. So Everstone works on male Pokémon here.
- In conclusion: The first games where Everstone worked when given to male Pokémon were HeartGold and SoulSilver, and this was carried over to Black and White. In Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum, Everstone only has an effect when given to females and Dittos. --Blaziken257 04:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to add this to the article, but I want to ensure I have it correct. I have Black 2, and using an Everstone seems to have a 100% chance of passing nature, regardless of the gender. I've been breeding countless Eevee's in order to get a female with hidden power flying and a modest nature, and Everstone has transferred nature without fail.Aquaslash (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
that darn chart!
I thought someone restored the chart? Why can I still not organize it the way I would like to so that it is organized my increased stat? Please fix this somebody, I do not know how! Nokota 17:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Click the little icon next to "Increased stat" in the top table. That sorts them by increased stat. Alternatively, read across the rows of the second table. Werdnae (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Opposing Natures
This isn't very important, but has anyone else noticed that natures that have opposing effects are usually opposite adjectives? For example, Brave is +Attack/-Speed, while Timid is -Speed/+Attack; Rash is +Special Attack/-Special Defense, while Careful is +Special Defense/+Special Attack; and so on? Dimenticare (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that is a pretty sharp observation. I don't know where it would be included in the article though--maybe in a Trivia section. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who thinks this belongs in a Trivia section of this article. Superbreeder 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Japanese names in table and grid
Is there any particular reason the Japanese names appear on this page? There's already a separate page for translations linked at the bottom, and moreover it clutters up the grid making it harder to read at a glance. DuBistKomisch (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Trainer-card.
Would it be possible to gather some details about the nature-specific phrases? PLA (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In defense of the list and the table.
The list is easier to look at if you're wondering what a specific nature does, and I would wager the vast majority of visits to the page are "what was X, again?"
The table is easier to look at if you're hunting a particular nature, i.e. "I need attack up and SP.Atk down..."
Keeping both isn't a problem, but if you were going to use one- it is easier to use the list to look up a nature than it is to use the table to look up what a nature does, especially given the color-coded nature of the site.
My only gripe is that since the "neutral" natures are technically increases and decreases to the same stat, they should be arranged within the table as such. It's probably more misleading than the current format, but the blank spaces bug me. 2 Cents TheHateHat (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Having both is fine. Since the list is first, most will happen upon it before the table. Also, please sign your comments right after the last word, instead of on a new line. --Abcboy (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Rearranging the chart
Wouldn't it be better to arrange the first table like this? --Dada (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
| Nature | Japanese | Increased stat | Decreased stat | Favorite flavor | Disliked flavor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lonely | さみしがり | Attack | Defense | Spicy | Sour |
| Brave | ゆうかん | Attack | Speed | Spicy | Sweet |
| Adamant | いじっぱり | Attack | Sp. Attack | Spicy | Dry |
| Naughty | やんちゃ | Attack | Sp. Defense | Spicy | Bitter |
| Bold | ずぶとい | Defense | Attack | Sour | Spicy |
| Relaxed | のんき | Defense | Speed | Sour | Sweet |
| Impish | わんぱく | Defense | Sp. Attack | Sour | Dry |
| Lax | のうてんき | Defense | Sp. Defense | Sour | Bitter |
| Timid | おくびょう | Speed | Attack | Sweet | Spicy |
| Hasty | せっかち | Speed | Defense | Sweet | Sour |
| Jolly | ようき | Speed | Sp. Attack | Sweet | Dry |
| Naive | むじゃき | Speed | Sp. Defense | Sweet | Bitter |
| Modest | ひかえめ | Sp. Attack | Attack | Dry | Spicy |
| Mild | おっとり | Sp. Attack | Defense | Dry | Sour |
| Quiet | れいせい | Sp. Attack | Speed | Dry | Sweet |
| Rash | うっかりや | Sp. Attack | Sp. Defense | Dry | Bitter |
| Calm | おだやか | Sp. Defense | Attack | Bitter | Spicy |
| Gentle | おとなしい | Sp. Defense | Defense | Bitter | Sour |
| Sassy | なまいき | Sp. Defense | Speed | Bitter | Sweet |
| Careful | しんちょう | Sp. Defense | Sp. Attack | Bitter | Dry |
| Hardy | がんばりや | — | — | — | — |
| Docile | すなお | — | — | — | — |
| Serious | まじめ | — | — | — | — |
| Bashful | てれや | — | — | — | — |
| Quirky | きまぐれ | — | — | — | — |
- Alphabetical would be the best default, really, so people can actually find a given nature easily. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, I think filtering it by actual effect, as it is now, is probably the most tidy and effective. But I think it'd make sense to move all the neutral natures together. I'm not really sure if there's a reasoning behind spacing them out evenly like it is right now. Dada (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the current layout is based on internal ordering. I believe the neutral Natures actually increase and decrease the same stat, which is why they fit in the place they do. It has no real functional purpose, but I think the current order is the best. --SnorlaxMonster 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- The color coding gives people a solid visual cue to recognize which Natures boost a given stat or hinder a given stat, but there's absolutely no way to hint where a given Nature is in a non-alphabetized list. That's why the list should default to an alphabetized order. That way, people can use the colors for a quick glance, or sort the table if they really want. With the colors, sorting the stats should not be the first priority; making it easier for people to find a given Nature should be the priority. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why should internal ordering really be a priority? Plenty of things internally ordered way differently than how we make them appear here on the site. The real priority is presenting the order in a way that makes the information the most accessible. As an aside, I think the chief purpose of this table isn't so people can look up a specific nature, but so people can make a determination of which nature they want for their breeding project. In that case, the order I listed seems like the most efficient one. Dada (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- And you're completely glossing over one of my points: the color-coding gives people a fine way to identify which Natures do what for a given stat even when not ordered by stats. That makes organizing them (by default) by stat redundant, certainly when compared to the needs of people who may want to look up a given Nature instead.
- I mean, just look at your table above. You can't tell me it's not easy to identify which Natures hinder Defense. The color coding should be all that's necessary, and if someone really wants to, they can sort the table by stat themselves. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- It seems more useful as it is; the color-coding doesn't work for color-blind people and it may be a bit iffy even for those who aren't. And it can be sorted alphabetically if the user wishes, as well. --Wynd Fox 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alphabetical ordering is really only a good idea when there is no other way to order the list. Here, it is far more useful to have a list where you can look up which stat is boosted by which Nature than an alphabetical list. The current order is the order guidebooks use, and I believe it is also the internal order. If someone does wish to have an alphabetical list, the table is sortable (and it doesn't have all the complications of making a sortable table result in the current one). --SnorlaxMonster 15:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Alphabetical ordering is really only a good idea when there is no other way to order the list." I don't at all agree with that. And I'm a little mystified that no one else (willing to speak up) agrees with me. But since no one agrees with my point of view, I don't figure there's any way for me to convince anyone my way really is best.
- Also: It's actually very simple to make a table sort whichever way you want. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- The table on the article is sortable. It can be sorted into alphabetical order by clicking on the column header. The problem is that you cannot get the order on the article through sorting, while you can easily make the table sorted by alphabetical order. Changing it to your suggestion removes a possible viewpoint from the article, while your suggestion can already be accomplished on the current table. --Super goku (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- '*sigh* Either you weren't paying attention or you can't just take me at my word. Alright, challenge accepted. Sort this:
- The table on the article is sortable. It can be sorted into alphabetical order by clicking on the column header. The problem is that you cannot get the order on the article through sorting, while you can easily make the table sorted by alphabetical order. Changing it to your suggestion removes a possible viewpoint from the article, while your suggestion can already be accomplished on the current table. --Super goku (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alphabetical ordering is really only a good idea when there is no other way to order the list. Here, it is far more useful to have a list where you can look up which stat is boosted by which Nature than an alphabetical list. The current order is the order guidebooks use, and I believe it is also the internal order. If someone does wish to have an alphabetical list, the table is sortable (and it doesn't have all the complications of making a sortable table result in the current one). --SnorlaxMonster 15:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- It seems more useful as it is; the color-coding doesn't work for color-blind people and it may be a bit iffy even for those who aren't. And it can be sorted alphabetically if the user wishes, as well. --Wynd Fox 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the current layout is based on internal ordering. I believe the neutral Natures actually increase and decrease the same stat, which is why they fit in the place they do. It has no real functional purpose, but I think the current order is the best. --SnorlaxMonster 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, I think filtering it by actual effect, as it is now, is probably the most tidy and effective. But I think it'd make sense to move all the neutral natures together. I'm not really sure if there's a reasoning behind spacing them out evenly like it is right now. Dada (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
| Nature | Japanese | Increased stat | Decreased stat | Favorite flavor | Disliked flavor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adamant | いじっぱり | Attack | Sp. Attack | Spicy | Dry |
| Bashful | てれや | — | — | — | — |
| Bold | ずぶとい | Defense | Attack | Sour | Spicy |
| Brave | ゆうかん | Attack | Speed | Spicy | Sweet |
| Calm | おだやか | Sp. Defense | Attack | Bitter | Spicy |
| Careful | しんちょう | Sp. Defense | Sp. Attack | Bitter | Dry |
| Docile | すなお | — | — | — | — |
| Gentle | おとなしい | Sp. Defense | Defense | Bitter | Sour |
| Hardy | がんばりや | — | — | — | — |
| Hasty | せっかち | Speed | Defense | Sweet | Sour |
| Impish | わんぱく | Defense | Sp. Attack | Sour | Dry |
| Jolly | ようき | Speed | Sp. Attack | Sweet | Dry |
| Lax | のうてんき | Defense | Sp. Defense | Sour | Bitter |
| Lonely | さみしがり | Attack | Defense | Spicy | Sour |
| Mild | おっとり | Sp. Attack | Defense | Dry | Sour |
| Modest | ひかえめ | Sp. Attack | Attack | Dry | Spicy |
| Naive | むじゃき | Speed | Sp. Defense | Sweet | Bitter |
| Naughty | やんちゃ | Attack | Sp. Defense | Spicy | Bitter |
| Quiet | れいせい | Sp. Attack | Speed | Dry | Sweet |
| Quirky | きまぐれ | — | — | — | — |
| Rash | うっかりや | Sp. Attack | Sp. Defense | Dry | Bitter |
| Relaxed | のんき | Defense | Speed | Sour | Sweet |
| Sassy | なまいき | Sp. Defense | Speed | Bitter | Sweet |
| Serious | まじめ | — | — | — | — |
| Timid | おくびょう | Speed | Attack | Sweet | Spicy |
- Fun fact: the current table won't even sort to this order (I don't mean the default alphabetized order above). It only looks like it does initially, and never after. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Before I continue, I would like to note that this is a debate about a table. Just saying.
- I have clicked on the words at the top of each columns in your table. They can be sorted into twelve layouts, one of them being the default layout. Looking at the table on the article, it can be sorted into twelve layouts plus an initial layout that must be refreshed to appear again. Both tables use almost the exact coding. The only difference that I can see is the lines called "data-sort-value=", which sorts your table into the table on the article, which I can admit would be a possible advantage. Am I correct to believe that sums everything up? --Super goku (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that the Abilities have a natural order (the current one used), and that is also the most useful order (perhaps excluding the neutral Abilities that are inserted between the other Abilities). I see no reason why it should be changed to alphabetical order, particularly when you can easily sort to that (while you cannot really expect the table to sort to the current order by selecting a specific column). --SnorlaxMonster 06:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Super goku: I made that table in response to your comment "you cannot get the order on the article through sorting", to prove that statement false, and for no other reason. That table sorts to "the order on the article"; your statement was wrong. (I did go a bit above and beyond, but that was just my perfectionism.)
- @SnorlaxMonster: You yourself admitted above that that very "natural" order "has no real functional purpose"... (I agree with this.) So, "The point is that the Abilities have a natural order", which "has no real functional purpose"...yet it's still valuable? Only superficially, I think (by "virtue" of it being "natural"). Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that the Abilities have a natural order (the current one used), and that is also the most useful order (perhaps excluding the neutral Abilities that are inserted between the other Abilities). I see no reason why it should be changed to alphabetical order, particularly when you can easily sort to that (while you cannot really expect the table to sort to the current order by selecting a specific column). --SnorlaxMonster 06:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fun fact: the current table won't even sort to this order (I don't mean the default alphabetized order above). It only looks like it does initially, and never after. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Including the neutral Natures intermittently has no real function purpose. Listing them by stats by default has a huge functional purpose (far more than alphabetical). --SnorlaxMonster 13:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Addding, the current internal-order used on the article's table does show what no other sorted table can: that Hardy is the neutral Nature for Attack, Docile is Defense, etc, and the tables displays this without a need for some unnecessary footnote, hidden table information, or making it confusing by making them display Att+/Att-, etc, and that is valuable, even if you believe it's not. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)- EDIT: Ah, okay, I see, you did make it display that way. Cool. You aren't good at explaining that, Tiddly. Anyway, the more important information is which stats are where, not the names; being able to rearrange the table back to the article's default is handy, however. For quick-refs, yes, alphabetical serves the purpose, but for display, it's about the stats, and that's why the current order is more encyclopedic than an alphabetical arrangement. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 14:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Portuguese name
Reads this ideal: adds the portuguese names of natures in In other languages section.
- Adamant: inflexível
- Bashful: tímido
- Bold: arrojado
- Brave: valente
- Calm: Calmo
- Careful: Cuidadoso
- Docile: Dócil
- Gentle: gentil
- Hardy: destemido
- Hasty: apressado
- Impish: endiabrado
- Jolly: alegre
- Lax: frouxo
- Lonely: solitário
- Mild: Brando
- Modest: Modesto
- Naive: ingénuo
- Naughty: malcriado/Desobediente
- Quiet: Quieto
- Quirky: Peculiar (the best translation, but i think that isn't exactly this)
- Relaxed: relaxado
- Sassy: petulante
- Serious: sério
- Timid: tímido
--Blacknigth (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you meant by "ideal" here, but we don't add fan translations. The list in this page is only for official terms taken from the game. --超龍「Chao」 01:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- If I may be so bold as to try to clarify the top line of Blacknigth's comment, "ideal" was probably a synonym for Nature. Anyway, even if we don't add these translations to the article, I think it's probably a pretty good place to start since they're probably pretty close to the games' official terms (as any translator gives several different translations for a lot of different words, particularly adjectives). Superbreeder 08:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Position of neutral natures in the second (compact) table
I personally think that the five neutral natures should be located in the fivetions that are empty in the main grid, with (neutral) placed just after the name of the nature. This would reduce the size of the page. Which one goes in which slot can be determined by the order of the natures when selecting one to sort by in the PC, which is the order used by the big table by default. In addition to reduced page size, it also would make the compact table more compact. PartHunter (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not think because it would mean that the nature decreases and increases by 10% statistics: 1.1 * 0.9 = 0.99 = 99% not 100% --Dominikololo (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- They do both increase and decrease, it's just that in both cases it is 10% of the original, not 10% of the modified value.
x + x*0.1 - x*0.1 = x--SnorlaxMonster 13:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Nature determinant
In Generations III and IV, Nature is determined by the Pokémon's personality value.
In Sapphire (and possibly Ruby), instead of being determined by pokemon's personality value, wild pokemon's nature is determined even before the personality value is calculated. In fact, personality value is recalculated if it doesn't match the pokemon's nature. Is pokemon's nature a mere product of RNG, or is there any other deciding factor?--Q-orca (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying that's true in all cases, or are you actually talking about a specific circumstance (in particular, if Synchronize is used)? And how do you claim to know this? Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I mean in general cases. From the description, Synchronize affect wild pokemon's nature in Emerald onwards (R/S version is before Emerald). I know this since I've looked at the code (and IMO, this is the reason why Gameshark / Action Replay for modifying Pokemon's nature exists).--Q-orca (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as far as we've heard, the game does not specifically store the Pokemon's Nature anywhere, only its PV, so in that sense it's very true that Nature is determined by the PV. This is really splitting hairs, but I think you can mark a difference: the game decides which Nature it will accept, but the PV is still what determines whether the Pokemon's Nature will be what the game is looking for. You can make an analogy to a person going out and looking for someone with a certain eye color; in the end, the person's eye color is determined by their genes, not the searcher. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I mean in general cases. From the description, Synchronize affect wild pokemon's nature in Emerald onwards (R/S version is before Emerald). I know this since I've looked at the code (and IMO, this is the reason why Gameshark / Action Replay for modifying Pokemon's nature exists).--Q-orca (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Toxtricity
Not sure, but this table might be more useful for Toxtricity.--Rocket Grunt 21:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
| No change ↘ | ↓Attack | ↓Defense | ↓Sp.Atk | ↓Sp.Def | ↓Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ↑Attack | Hardy | Lonely | Adamant | Naughty | Brave |
| ↑Defense | Bold | Docile | Impish | Lax | Relaxed |
| ↑Sp.Atk | Modest | Mild | Bashful | Rash | Quiet |
| ↑Sp.Def | Calm | Gentle | Careful | Quirky | Sassy |
| ↑Speed | Timid | Hasty | Jolly | Naive | Serious |
| Amped Form • Low Key Form | |||||
- I actually like this, much more user friendly to read. I think I will implement it on the page. 4iamking 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Dorsal form animation in Trivia
It says this happens in "Pokemon Emerald, Diamond, and Pearl"
Is this not in Pt/HGSS?
