Відео

I always liked the area! Yeah it’s kinda pointless but I used it to battle all the trainers and sorta lvl up my Pokemon. I think the trainers are supposed to be easy though..

I think the point of Routes 12-15 were to punish players who didn't obtain the bike.

Please explain why some inanimate objects have genders and others don't roggenrola is a... rock and has genders, while solrock... also a rock, doesnt

I always loved normal type as a kid because they could learn certain moves of all the types so to me that ment they were strongest 💚

Just last uear at 30 years old did i finally understand the meta lol. Stats, accuracy, and power were just numbers to me but now that i understand pokemon is 1000% more fun and compelling.

Think you really should have done males females unknowns and just done count out of 1000

Bro as a girl, when I was a kid I hated the fact that starters were mostly male and would always reset the game until I got a female one, I also would only play with female pokemon.

My theory: there are more male starters than female starters because the professors are all freaks and are keeping the female starters for themselves

I notice that pokémon with unknown gender are pokémon in which it simply does not make sense to have a gender. Pokémon that aren't biological beings tend to not have gender, i.e. klink & golett. Ditto is an amoeba that can shapeshift into any other pokémon, maushold is a family of mice, in which you'd logically otherwise have a pokémon with two genders, and shedinja is the shedded skin of a ninjask, which shouldn't have its own gender, because why would it.

1:00 its not really that important for competitive pokemon anymore With the exception of 0 IVs in attack and speed, all desirable traits can be more easily obtained with items like mints

While the 87.5% male group skews things in that direction, there are more all-female Pokemon than all-male. Also, I wonder what happens if you account for evolution families? Pokemon do not change gender as they evolve (Azurill notwithstanding) so each evolution family should really count for 1. As starters and Eevee are all relatively large evolution families, this could balance things out better.

Now I need to know what is the average Pokémon gender across the trainers in each game… very intriguing video

There are five Pokémon who, despite being Gender Unknown within the game mechanics, can be given values for your calculation, and two more that can, by relation to the first five, can be *assumed* to have genders. The Pokédex describes Solgaleo as the "male evolution of Cosmog", and Lunala as the female evolution. This lines up with the real world alchemical genders of the sun and moon, and the terminology of "celestial sex" for an eclipse. With this knowledge, we can presume that the fact that Solgaleo and Lunala are counterparts and treated as equally common, that Cosmog and Cosmoem have 50/50 gender ratios. Similarly, Zacian's Pokédex entry refers to Zamazenta as her brother, and vice versa for Zacian's description within Zamazenta's entry. Thus we know that Zacian is female and Zamazenta is male. This one is more word of Dante than word of god, but Lugia was intended by its creator to be female. He saw her as a motherly creature, and was pissed when it was marked Gender Unknown just because it was a legendary.

stats nerds coming out of the woodworks for this one

Engineer here with a couple of recommendations for refining your analysis. 1. Consider using a variable-based approach instead of a binary scoring system. Instead of a scale from 0 to 1 to explain how “female” a species trends, describe the percentage outcome of a species as a sum of variables A, B, and C, where those letters represent the three gender values possible for a Pokemon, with the sum of these three values being 1 for a given species. Each of these values can be tracked in a spreadsheet column, and averaged at the bottom. 2. Perform an analysis of evolutionary families, rather than individual species, as a comparison to examine how much large evolutionary families skew the results. In the world of Pokemon, evolved forms do not seem to exist in isolation of their pre-evolved forms, so the whole evolutionary line’s population is dependent on the first stage. For this reason, when considering species that can only evolve when they possess a particular gender, use the first-stage species’ ratio and do not average. After all, the sum of females in a population of Salandit and Salazzle cannot exceed the initial female population of female Salandit when all individuals were unevolved.

I love the weird gender ratios between azurill and maril because it makes a few of them trans when they evolve and i think its cool

I like this subject quite a lot But also I have to point out something… curious Pokemon has 100% male and 100% female pokemon That’s a bit weird but… sure But… if we search for those pokemon There is a mayority of only female pokemon Which I feel makes it so A- they reproduce more easily so there are more cases of this happening Or B- is just a justification to make more femmenine pokemon, making less only male pokemon I also get that they use stereotypes but… most only male pokemon are fighting type And with only females we have at least more variety Grass Fire poison Bug flying Fairy Just curious, because I feel like we could get more only male pokemon with unique types, more than… fighting guy 100th time Also, is funny how pokemon like Lopunny, Diggersby, Gothitelle or Aromatisse and others are very much pointing to a gender difference. Yet… they can be both female and male. So… you can see a Male Gothitelle with dress and a female Diggersby with beard

I love videos answering questions nobody asked.

Feel like there should have been some accounting for evolution families... feels a little off that Eevee effectively gets 9 spots in the statistics Oh, and I'm pretty confident in saying that most of the mostly male ratioed 'mon are done specifically to make breeding them harder... I even want to say that Pokemon Coloseum's Espeon and Umbreon you start the game with were hard coded to be male 100% of the time for that very reason.

It's definitely a holdover of false scarcity.

I wonder if anything changes if instead of give all Pokémon equal weight, a Pokémon has more or less “weight” by total encounter rate in a give game/region. Would the more common mons have a 50/50 ratio, and push the average even more balanced?

Nice video!

I suspect the skewed male gender ratio for starters is at least partially because the game is and historically has been predominantly marketed towards boys, and they thought it would be better for the average consumer to relate to their starter on some level. That theory aside, I’ve actually also done some statistical analysis on the gender ratio of pokemon for a data science class of mine. Some interesting things to look at via linear regression are the correlation between gender ratio and type and each individual stat value (as well as total stats combined) and gender ratio. I did this a while ago (just with a data set of up to SwSh) and the results were pretty striking. Also it was pretty easy to do a quick test for stats-based power creep along the way.

3:30 you could make an average gender that's partly gender unknown and call that agender

You know what would be realy masochistic? Factoring in wild pokemon encounter % to calculate what the average gender of a wild encounter is in a given region

as it turns out the -eons are not universally 87.5%.....

The biggest effect the 87.5% male Starter had was making Whitney that much harder, because Pokemon can't be gay, and apparently need a gender to fall in love (Justice for Cryogonal ❄️)

I guess one interesting expansion would be to see if there are any correlations with broader colour categories. Like, sure, red isn't a majority colour for fire type, probably because while a lot of them are orange, it's kind of split between being lumped into red and brown, but if them and yellow were all counted as "warm", would there be a significant majority of fire types that were warm-coloured? And what correlations exist between monochrome colours for typing? And I guess the mention of how you can predict a pokémon's type based on whether it has wings could also lead down the rabbit hole of looking into how type does or doesn't correlate with body type, though the dex also has some oddities with its body type classifications (both cutiefly and ribombee have wings, but only ribombee counts as having wings according to the dex, for example). As for the classification oddities in the dex, I think originally colour categories couldn't apply to different forms with the same dex number, so that's why frillish was classified as white, because saying males are blue and females are pink wasn't an option in gen 5, so they were just treated as white for sharing a relatively pale complexion. That seems to be similarly the case with shellos, which was originally always classified as purple to seemingly average out them either being pink or blue (which couldn't individually be done between variants in gen 4). As for dialga, I'm guessing someone thought palkia's purple markings stood out more than its main white colouration and classified it accordingly, then thought they should be consistent and classify dialga by its markings as well? Yeah, kind of weird. Bronzor and golett are a bit more understandable though, as the boundaries of adjacent colours varies between languages (some people just learning English may call something green which a native English speaker would more likely see as blue, for instance) and I think it was actually relatively recent that the green/blue distinction was made linguistically in Japanese (hence oddish being called green in one line in gen 1, as the word being translated covers both green and blue).

I think evolutions would also skew the data. These pokemon are of the same species but having more evolutions would skew their particular ratio group more than a 1 stage Pokémon.

mathmatically the "average" pokemon would be nonbinary because the female/male ratio would largely cancel out, leaving the nonbinary pokemon as outliers. What you are looking for is the "median" sx for a pokemon. Aka: which out numbers the other

How did you handle gender-dependent evolutions? While Vespiquen is exclusively female, only 12.5% of Combee can become Vespiquen at all. Ralts family are 50/50 but have an exclusively male and female branching evolution.

Where are you reading that kecleon and finneon have the same gender ratio as eevee and the starters? Bulbapedia doesn't say they do, so either there's an oversight there or an oversight wherever you were reading from. But yeah, for the starters it seems safe to say that kind of like the legendaries, the idea is to keep them rare, especially considering this is shared with the fossil 'mons, which one can also see the developers wanting to keep rare (it wouldn't make sense to have a bunch of presumably-extinct omanytes wandering around, right?). Though with that in mind, one could argue that counting each species as equal falsely assumes equal scarcity between them, which is certainly false - it's more likely that you'd have one starter and several of the usually-even-gender-ratio species in one game. Not to mention that treating each form in a line as separate will also skew things - realistically most trainers will have their bulbasaur, ivysaur and venusaur for example all be the same individual in one playthrough. So it seems the conclusion of this data reading would more state that the average stage of a species of pokémon is likely male more than the average individual pokémon is (assuming stages were counted separately).

Next step: factor in spawn rates to get the average gender of Pokemon instances, not just species Great video, thank you :)

Okay but how many % of all Pokémon are genderless?

I won't advise actually doing this because it'd be _a lot_ of work, but you could also extrapolate this question out; while this is the average gender per species, you could also take into account how rare the species are. For a _simple_ example, FRLG Mt. Moon bottom floor spawns Clefairy (a 3:1 F:M Pokemon) at a 6% rate. Zubat, Geodude, and Paras (the other Pokemon down there) all have 50/50 genders. This means that there's a 48.5% chance of catching a male Pokemon in Mt. Moon's bottom floor and a 51.5% chance of catching a female. Again, way too much work to actually _advise_ trying to figure this out, but the title _does_ imply the question, so...

And Solgaleo and Lunala are in the gender unknown group, but a Solgaleo and a Lunala must get together somehow to create a Cosmog as seen in the generation seven games when we go to get a Cosmog for the Pokédex in those games. One has to be male and the other female, but scientists in the Pokémon world can’t determine which one is which gender, thus the genderless category for both Solgaleo and Lunala along with their pre-evolutions.

Did 3 stage pokemon get 3x as much weight in the scale compared to single stage pokemon?

I'd like to see a chart that weighs pokemon species by how common they are. After all, you're more likely to run into 10 zubat than a single starter.

I'd count gender unknown as another category. I took your spreadsheet and adjusted it slightly. In the "Alll of em" tab, I renamed the gender ratio tab Female, added a column next to it, which was 1-Female, which I labeled male. Then I appended the list with the unknown Pokemon, which all had a value of 1 in a third column "Unknown" Finally, at the bottom, I divided the sum of each column by the number of Pokemon (1025) Here are the results. Female Male Unknown 38.45% 46.43% 15.12% That being said, I don't believe this is a sufficient model. It fails to account for encounter rates. We all know that there are far more Zubat's than Charmanders. I would propose getting encounter rate tables, then multiplying the rates by the number of tiles the encounter rates apply to, then applying gender ratios. All Pokemon that can't be found as random encounters would effectively be removed from the equation, as these Pokemon are finite, while random encounter Pokemon are infinite. I'd count all recurring objects (rock smash, headbutt trees) as 1 tile a piece. Swarm Pokemon would have their encounter tables multiplied by the percentage of the time you can expect swarms to be active. It's less clear what to do with encounters tied to time periods (Lapras on Friday) or purchasable Pokemon.

I feel like if expanding on the concept of attack IVs, it would be really cool if the Attack IVs to gender would be reversed with certain egg groups (or Pokémon related to the egg groups of their evolution stages), to reflect on how certain female animals are bigger and more powerful then their corresponding males. Things like Water 2-3 and Bug for example could have this trait.

Saying gender unknowns were "TERFed out" is brilliantly subtle.

That's a fair start but distribution is worth factoring in. You should check all the encounter tables and add them together and multiply the gender rate of the species by how populous the species is to determine what the actual gender distribution is of pokemon in the world.

You're awesome, keep up the good work

5:38 but... That's not true... Kecleon, Finneon and Lumineon are all in the 50-50 category. I have no idea where you got that data, honestly. I feel like this could be engagement bait, maybe?

Maybe this was already calculated out, but since in game female pokemon have a lower attack/lowered of certain stats, is the starter pokemon trending more male simply a developer tweak to make the starters tend to be stronger than average?

5:43 No they aren't. Kecleon, Finneon & Lumineon are all 50/50. Also, you may've missed another group in the 87.5% M/12.5% F group: The fossil Pokemon. (Excluding the Gen 8 fossils, which are Gender Unknown.) Not to mention, the -eon suffix is generally only in the English names, but all Pokemon original names are Japanese; The Eon suffix is an English localization quirk. Otherwise, okay analysis video! Thanks for uploading!

Now I have some other questions. Average Gender of eaxh Generation/Region? Average Gender of Types? Average Gender of Final Evolution Pokemon?

this is fantastic and deserves more attention. i love this so much

it would be cool if we just took the percentage of each gender among each species of pokemon and averaged all of the percentages of the same gender, then took a look at each average gender value. this way we can still include the genderless pokemon, with each genderless pokemon having 100% genderless and the others just having 0% genderless in the calculations. that way, the male and female percentages of all pokemon would be slightly lowered, and there would be a small genderless percentage.

Maybe they decided to make starters mostly male because it makes for a better average attack DV in Gen 2, and all starters begin with a physical move. And that started a tradition.