I think what you're saying would be fine if we were creating the game from scratch, but from the angle of building on what we already have such HP scores are unappealing and would the Pokemon with the highest s.attack or attack be hitting for around 200-300?
As we are not designing the game from scratch, it would require carefully scheduling releases. I still believe it possible, because right now the game has a crazy amount of Energy acceleration coupled with attacks reaching new highs. Already in the current format Pokémon functioning as “main attackers” hit reliably for 80 to 120 points of damage , and even in “slower” decks this is done reliably by the player’s third turn, and can be sustained. Some decks can hit even harder though it is more taxing on them. This is before Weakness, mind you.
Once you do factor Weakness in, especially if my suggestion to alter Weakness and Resistance to the +X/-X system is implemented later, I believe we could get four sets that provided an excellent transition phase or "buffer". It is also important to remember that I am suggesting damage output and speed of attacking reflect Base Stats as well.
There's also the fact that we have Trainer cards in the TCG that you don't get in VG battles (minus the limited and rarely used wonder launcher). Inserting these Pokemon into the current game wouldn't work with cards like Max Potion. As it stands I think the current range of HP and damage, 10-200 or 1-20 as you put it is fine, but this design space needs utilising in more creative ways.
We have Items in the video games, as well as Abilities and attacks, that also work radically different than their TCG counterparts. You will also remember I favor making attacks more expensive, beginning the transition with due diligence in selecting what cards are brought over. A 500 point
Shuckle introduced early on need merely have a somewhat expensive attack, not easy for acceleration to meet, as well as an appropriate Weakness to avoid it being horribly overpowered.
...but also a Shuckle with 500 HP (unless said Shuckle ends up with an Ability or attack effect to better simulate its amazing Defense and Special Defense. Pokémon with good HP, Defense, and Special Defense would be significantly larger than those with better offensive capabilities... well other than Legendary Pokémon (a separate issue from this, but which can address later).
So Blissey and Shuckle with HP in the high 100s would be fine so long as you don't give them decent offensive capabilities.
If the guidelines I keep stating are followed, why would they? Blissey has most of its Base Stat points stuck in HP and Special Defense. Its Base Attack is the third lowest in the game, tied with Shuckle and Magikarp. Magikarp! It's base Special Attack and Speed are much better than its Base Attack, but still noticeably below average for fully Evolved Pokemon. Shuckle on the other hand is also tied with Bonsly and Feebas (Feebas!) for the lowest base Special Attack, and is tied with Munchlax for the lowest speed.
If, as I have proposed, Creatures, Inc. began using Base Stats from the video game as a guideline, it would be just that: a guideline. It would also influence the role of the Pokémon in question, and adjustments can and would be made as game balance necessitates.
If you want to take the HP even higher you can virtually do it via an Ability, e.g. a 200 HP Pokemon with a Buffer sort of Ability, though this might be better on a Stage 2 defensive Pokemon. It's important to take into account the mechanics of the card game, not just port the stats across, so a Rhyperior or Aggron should be in some way better than a Blissey in the TCG, say... similar HP but some offensive capability included (though still not too much!)
I must confess, it seems like you are ignoring me with this last comment, but perhaps my lengthy posts are obscuring what I am saying. First and foremost, an Ability is an Ability. Unless we are going to start cramming in multiple Abilities or more attacks on cards, using it for HP is not the same thing as having more HP. You reduce what the Pokémon can do (it can't have a different Ability and can at most have one attack), plus Abilities can be shut down. I am not rejecting such an idea completely, but I am rejecting it as the standard.
I have been taking into account the mechanics of the card game; what the card game does not appear to currently do is take into consideration how the mechanics it takes from the video games are incomplete and altered, and thus perhaps reducing the differences where appropriate would be useful to solving certain issues.
As always, it's just a case of balance, not just within the final meta but within the sets and cards themselves, it should be obvious a card can't have offence, defence, utility... and at Basic.
Again, I disagree with making the end results of fully Evolved Pokémon (which includes Basic Pokémon that don't Evolve at all) radically different. If the concept of the Pokémon, as indicated by what it is in the video games, indicates it is to have good offense, good defense, and high utility, some version of it in the TCG should approach that...
However I also support (and if I failed to specify this earlier, I apologize) that the video game stats are a guideline, not the final rule. Cards with abnormally high Base Stat totals, for example, are going to have to be reined in, whether they are Basic Pokémon or Evolutions. Those with abnormally low Base Stats may have to be bolstered in what they can do (unique Abilities or effects). Balancing Evolutions versus Basic Pokémon comes from other areas, and all attackers are meant to be slower.
At very least all Rares should be roughly the same overall power level, taking into account the different criteria just mentioned and not straight up outclassed by the super rare mechanic.
Again, I dislike the current rarity scheme as well, but I want all cards to have a place in the game other than "filler"... except perhaps the upper rarity cards, ironically.
I want to conclude by bringing up a point; an unpleasant break is likely necessary to avoid repeating mistakes of the past. If we continue to do the same things, we should not expect different results. If we do almost the exact same thing, we may get lucky but just as I believe has happened in the past, we will enjoy formats in spite of their flaws, and usually both the player base and Creatures, Inc. will repeat the cycle.
We are already past the point of no return; even if every set after this one begins shaving stuff back down, it will mean two or three formats where the oldest cards dominate all but the best of the newer cards, and sets continue to be mostly filler. For those that fancy Unlimited (or alternate formats :wink: ) the damage is already done. Things weren't really "right" before and are not right now. Change is needed; it may seem radical when first introduced and it may make a lot of older cards obsolete, but we have that problem simply staying the course.
