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

Yes, I think the game gender-ratios are about right, although a little annoying sometimes. If it were so easy to get females starters and rare Pokemon, I can imagine the flood of them in the GTS...thus making the Pokemon not very uncommon anymore.
And BillSpringerJr., that is an awesome avatar. XD

Originally Posted by Dark Blueberry

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.

Another ridiculous thing is the Snubbull and Granbull have a gender ratio of 3 females to 1 male, despite masculine appearances (common bulldogs looks masculine to me). I think they shall be 87.5% males to 12.5% females instead.

Originally Posted by SwampertShoes

Yes, I think the game gender-ratios are about right, although a little annoying sometimes. If it were so easy to get females starters and rare Pokemon, I can imagine the flood of them in the GTS...thus making the Pokemon not very uncommon anymore.
And BillSpringerJr., that is an awesome avatar. XD

Thank you your grace, I made it all by myself like a big boy. XD

Originally Posted by BillSpringerJr

Thank you your grace, I made it all by myself like a big boy. XD

Oh, hah! Ever since Diamond and Pearl, Gyarados have been my worst enemy. *Laughs*

Originally Posted by S.S. Shadow Minun

Originally Posted by Dark Blueberry

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.

Another ridiculous thing is the Snubull and Granbull have a gender ratio of 3 females to 1 male, despite masculine appearances (common bulldogs looks masculine to me). I think they shall be 87.5% males to 12.5% females instead.

I think Snubbull and Granbull should have 50:50 gender ratios instead. The Lillipup line ends up with rockin' mustaches (they are terriers after all) and they're 50:50, so the Snubbull line should be the same in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Miles101

Originally Posted by S.S. Shadow Minun

Originally Posted by Dark Blueberry

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.

Another ridiculous thing is the Snubull and Granbull have a gender ratio of 3 females to 1 male, despite masculine appearances (common bulldogs looks masculine to me). I think they shall be 87.5% males to 12.5% females instead.

I think Snubbull and Granbull should have 50:50 gender ratios instead. The Lillipup line ends up with rockin' mustaches (they are terriers after all) and they're 50:50, so the Snubbull line should be the same in my opinion.

Yeah I can pretty much agree with what your saying 100%.

Nope. Many animal populations have highly skewed sex ratios, why shouldn't some Pokemon be the same?

It never bothered me :P But I guess so