Thread: Should Gender Ratios be 50/50 for most Pokémon

The question is simple do you guys think that Pokémon with the chance of either being male or female should be 50/50 for all or if not most. One of reasons behind this is when I bought my White2 Game I found myself having the hardest time getting a Female Snivy I had to at least Soft Reset for about an hour and I just thought how ridiculously long it took for it to finally appear. Though I do understand some like Female Combee and why they're rare. What do you guys think of this?

The reasoning behind Pokémon like the starters and Eevee etc. being 87.5% male is because they are supposed to be rare, and as female Pokémon pass on species, it made sense to have them more likely be male so they'd be harder to breed without a Ditto and thus the uniqueness of that one Pokémon you get to choose at the start of each game is not lost.

I don't really think it needs to be changed, as gender has no effect on gameplay and only headcanon.

Most Pokemon already have a 50/50 gender ratio. I don't mind it being a little more difficult to get males or females of certain Pokemon. It makes the ones of the rarer gender a little more unique. And as Keasbey mentioned, it means that Pokemon that are meant to be more rare/special (Starters and Pokemon that are/were traditionally obtained as one time, in-game gifts) aren't able to be mass bred as easily.

As for how long it took you to get the female Snivy, I think you were just unlucky. The chance of getting all males 8 times in a row is ~34%, and the chance of getting all males 16 times in a row is ~12%. I don't know how many soft resets you did or how much time it took per soft reset, but it sounds like you were one of the minority that ends up having a more difficult time getting one.

No. Because a male Miltank would disturb me beyond all thought.
In all seriousness, nah, the genders are fine the way they are (and a good chunk are already 50/50). The rule as stated above tends to apply to rare Pokémon; the lower chances of getting a female is to keep that uniqueness in tact.

Gender specific Pokemon should stay just that. I personally think the ratios are fine how they are, sometimes it can be kind of a pain to get female Pokemon like Eevee and starters( especially if you're looking for a specific nature or something) but I've also been lucky and had female starters without having to reset the game, but I guess I'm lucky in that regard.

Originally Posted by Miles101

No. Because a male Miltank would disturb me beyond all thought.
In all seriousness, nah, the genders are fine the way they are (and a good chunk are already 50/50). The rule as stated above tends to apply to rare Pokémon; the lower chances of getting a female is to keep that uniqueness in tact.

No I think you misunderstood I'm not talking about Pokémon who are one gendered like Tauros and Miltank. What I'm talking about is Pokémon who have the chance of either being Male or Female like the chance of a Charmander being Male is 87.5% and the chance of it being Female is 12.5%. My question being is do you think it should be changed so that all Pokémon who have the chance of being either Male or Female are 50%.

As frustrating the gender ratio of the Starters and Eevee can be, I understand the logic. These are supposed to be rare Pokemon that are a pain to get just one of and if its a male, you can't breed more without a Ditto, which is also a moderately difficult Pokemon to catch in that its late on in the game usually and uncommon. If you had a 50% chance of getting a female Eevee or Snivy, it would decrease the specialness of getting one and defeat the point of them being rare, In nature, if you think about it, if there's fewer females than males, they are less common than creatures that have equal gender ratios. It's representative of real life... which I like, really.

Yes, it's annoying but I think you were just unlikely. In my playthroughs - especially Nuzlockes, oddly enough - I get females without even trying. Starters aside, in Pokemon Black 2 I went to the Castelia City garden for my encounter and got a the rarest of the rare female Eevee on the first encounter. Its all down to luck.

Most pokemon should have the 50-50 gender ratios. The last time Game Freak tried to tweak with gender ratios for the "common" pokemon, we found a third of our female Azurills evolving into male Marills.

Some pokemon, like the starters, Eevees, or masculine/feminine pokemon, shouldn't have the 50-50 gender ratio. I felt that evolutionary lines like Buneary and Ralts should have had the 25% male-75% female gender ratio.

I think, for the most part, they have the gender ratios right. Just a few niggling things like male Gardevoir that irritate me, but otherwise I can see why some Pokémon (like starters and Eevees) have a skewed gender ratio.

Originally Posted by Snubbull Lover 777

Originally Posted by Miles101

No. Because a male Miltank would disturb me beyond all thought.
In all seriousness, nah, the genders are fine the way they are (and a good chunk are already 50/50). The rule as stated above tends to apply to rare Pokémon; the lower chances of getting a female is to keep that uniqueness in tact.

No I think you misunderstood I'm not talking about Pokémon who are one gendered like Tauros and Miltank. What I'm talking about is Pokémon who have the chance of either being Male or Female like the chance of a Charmander being Male is 87.5% and the chance of it being Female is 12.5%. My question being is do you think it should be changed so that all Pokémon who have the chance of being either Male or Female are 50%.

Lopunny (based on bunny girls), Gardevoir (it's wearing a ballroom gown), Gothitelle (original name has madmoiselle in it ;_;)... personally, some pokemons have feminine origins or characteristics that should make higher female ratios reasonable, not 50:50.

No. I do NOT want to have to deal with a female Machamp. Besides, I like uneven gender ratios, Pokemon like my female Lucario become a little more special.

Could be more acceptable but since this is a discussion about games, most Pokémon species' gender ratio shall not be changed. However, Azurill's gender ratio shall be fixed to 50-50, aside it shall be pure-Water-type.

Getting a female starters could be a pain in games compared to in anime and manga where gender ratios are altered mostly. The trickiest one is Combee, whose having 7 males to 1 female, and only females evolve into Vespiquen. Female starters could be obtained easier in anime and manga than in video games.

However, I don't think gender ratio needs to be changed (except if Combee gets a male evolution). If Game Freak wants to fix breeding systems, gender ratios could not be changed, but egg groups shall (for example, Oshawott cannot breed with other Water starters excluding Piplup).

I think starters should be changed to a 50/50 ratio.

All genders are fine the way they are, I guess (although I have to admit, I can't get my head around males of the Gothita or Buneary lines). As well as that, I think W/W2 always wants me to have a female starter, because, in every playthrough I've done of either game (I'm on my third White playthrough, and my first White 2), I've gotten a female Oshawott, which is pretty neat, actually. I don't see how breeding is really an object, because you can breed through Ditto anyway to get a female and then go from there.

I think that they got it 100% right. It makes the game more fun having certain pokemon be harder to obtain than others.

Also, wouldn't it be easier to just breed your starter to get a female? That's what I do.