UPNetwork

UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/index.php)
-   Suggestions and Inquiries (http://forums.upnetwork.net/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   ASB Revamp Discussion Thread (http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=8223)

Snorby 09-06-2017 09:46 AM

ASB Revamp Discussion Thread
 
Hello ASB!

As those of you on Discord probably know, we've been working toward changing up parts of ASB and, in the long run, hopefully restoring activity around these parts. You would also know that everyone seems to have their own idea of how this should happen.

The goal of this thread is to make sure everyone has a place where their voice can be heard. Anyone in ASB with a Proposal can post a link to it here, and it will be added to the OP of the thread with its own section. Anyone in ASB can also share their thoughts on posted proposals, and suggestions for those proposals will be added to that proposal's section in a "suggestions" subsection.

Do note, all of this ultimately falls to the LO team to make final decisions on. Just because a proposal has lots of support in the community doesn't mean it will by default be enacted. We take the community's opinion seriously, but this is not a democracy- we have a team of officials for a reason, and that reason is to run and lead the game.

Also note, just because I'm an LO and wrote my proposal entirely doesn't mean that it carries any more weight than anyone else's. It doesn't even mean that it's a very good proposal, it just means I'm the guy who wrote it. It's far from an "official" proposal- if it was that it'd be sitting in the LO Forum- and I encourage anyone and everyone who's in the ASB or interested in joining/rejoining a revamped ASB to put their two cents out their, be it by giving opinions on existing proposals or crafting your own! This also goes for any suggestions or proposals put forth by other LOs unless otherwise stated.

Proposals:

Proposal #1- Snorby
Spoiler: show
>Linked Here<

Suggestions:
-Loosen restrictions on Type Changes
-Separate Level Purchases and 'Mon Purchases
-Use a points allocation system rather than a proper spending system for Pokemon
-Don't add incentive for longer Reffings
-Strictly enforce ref DQ system
-Slots being harder to purchase (supposed to be in there I just forgot it but yeah)


Proposal #2- Ironthunder
Spoiler: show
>Linked Here<

Suggestions:
-Purchasable Slots
-Doesn't address Ref Motivation
-No incentive to actually win battles


Proposal #3- Concept
Spoiler: show
Quote:

Originally Posted by Concept (Post 802034)

Suggestions:
None yet!


Proposal #4- Alto
Spoiler: show
Quote:

Originally Posted by Altocharizard55 (Post 802154)



Proposal #5- Biggggggg
Spoiler: show
Quote:

Originally Posted by biggggg5 (Post 802170)



Proposal #6- Zelphon
Spoiler: show
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelphon (Post 802200)
Acquisitions:
Spoiler: show

I'm of the belief that TLs in their current form are far to restrictive and inherently flawed in that people are going to have their favorite pokemon and it arguably degrades their ability to enjoy the game if a significant portion of the pokemon they love are locked behind heavy prerequisites.

Suggestion, do away with prereqs, if Johny Joe Noob wants his favorite mon Ninetales he should be able to access to it, a game is for fun let the lad have fun. Now I recognize just letting everyone that walks through the door run around with a Snorlax would probably trigger a number of people here but a somewhat popular idea that's floated around on the Discord has been having something of a points system where a Trainer has X amount of points and the point cost of their complete squad can not exceed that number of points.

Given proper balance this would allow everyone to have some of their favorites while still making sure a fresh of the boat player can't just line their squad with top of the line pokemon and even gives a trade off if they try to do so in part.


TLs
Spoiler: show

As I alluded to earlier I don't like TLs as a concept and think we should just ax them. Instead of using them I simply suggest that the system I mentioned in the above section have things set up to where battling and perhaps reffing can help increase the points one can have for the purpose of pokemon additions and evolutions.

Lets have the points be our current TP, given at the end of each match regardless of win or loss so people don't get into ruts and lose motivation. Maybe let people buy decent amounts of TP with their SP? Regardless that's something I'll go into more in a later section.



Sigs
Spoiler: show

I'm sure most of those that have been around me know I'm not a fan of direction we've taken with them. Throughout most of my time here sigs have been a way for Trainers to express their creativity, create unique tools, expand on the minor bits of RP that exist here and just in general have fun.

As I hope I've gotten across in my first section I want people to be able to use their favorite pokemon regardless of where they're at and part of this is being able to excuse using them once they actually get them, to make it short I want people to be able to sig their Eevee to be as good as Snorlax albeit in its own way. Why must some pokemon be blatantly better than others when one of the major strengths of PASBL is the freedom from moveset restriction and stat totals the game provides?

As a note for the above, perhaps have sigs on a pokemon contribute to its cost to a team, that way an Eevee as strong as a Snorlax still takes up as many of your options as an actual Snorlax.



SP
Spoiler: show

Honestly fine with how it works right now for the most part, I do think the conversion to TP should be greater than it is though. I'd also suggest good behavior as a battler be rewarded somewhat with some SP or SP gain boosts.



Reffing and Ref Grades
Spoiler: show

Just keep them the way they are now but do evaluations more often and perhaps open a court similar to the old Sig Court where people can submit matches where refs are being shitty for more immediate and personal punishment. Could also use such a court to give people better grades!


DQs
Spoiler: show

Take control out of the involved parties hands, make them fully automatic and shut down attempts to ignore the rule. Limit TAs to have a short cool down between instances where they are established and put a limit to how long they can go on for. We don't want to excuse people going away for months and we don't want to let them do it by chaining close proximity TAs.


Events
Spoiler: show

Do them more often, make them kind of radiate instead of going forward, by this I mean allow refs that just finished shit up right before them to recieve retroactive benefit from SP modifiers. Alternatively or additionally maybe just auto grant the event token to those who have done X amount of reffings within a time span.


Approvals
Spoiler: show

I mean this for items, HPs and other not sig stuff. Just let members you guys like be certified to help out with this sorta thing.


Member Generation:
Spoiler: show

Give us a social media presence already, see if anyone in the community is willing to upkeep and do the right kinds of spam, hell maybe decide on a list of people to do it so no one person gets overwhelmed.


Summary
Spoiler: show

I believe in a PASBL where anyone can use anything, both in acquisition and in actual practical in battle use regardless of how long they've been here or what they end up facing. I believe this can be achieved with a points based rework of our acquisition system and a do away with TLs as well as laxer sig rules. Let's make the highest denominator of pokemon the balance point instead of the middle ground, nothing can be overpowered if everything is.

The inner workings of PASBL need to be able to run smoother, let the best of us help lessen the burdens of the LOs by taking care of mundane things like HPs, Items and other stuff just needs a green stamp (sigs aside of course). More events, make it easier for our active refs to benefit from them.

Reward battlers for good behavior and be unforgiving to those that exhibit bad ones by having an extremely strict DQ system.

Make ASB more about fun than anything else, no point in a fine tuned machine if no one wants to use it.




Concept 09-11-2017 07:25 AM

Concepts collected thoughts

Chiko 09-11-2017 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concept (Post 802034)

"You need permission

Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with permission."


Concept 09-11-2017 07:45 AM

Whoops sorry. That should work now.

Ironthunder 09-11-2017 08:21 AM

Not a huge fan of the league table shit, but the reffing challenge system definitely feels like it should be a thing. Irritating battlers questioning every single last thing that didn't go their way is a huge motivation killer.

Heather 09-11-2017 08:26 AM

Basically the one issue I want to see addressed is losers still getting KOs. This irked me to no end when I was still playing, because let's face it, most ordinary matches are won by a 1-mon margin and essentially whoever sends out their last mon first is completely and utterly shafted as they lose and then get paltry TP for the match and nothing else. If TLs are gated behind KOs and TP both, then both parties in a match need to receive both, because otherwise, there is no incentive for people who find themselves to be less skilled to stick around-it's near on impossible for them to progress. Getting full KO's and double TP should be incentive enough to win, there is no need to give the loser the shaft. I like Iron'S proposal a little for this reason.

Snorby 09-11-2017 09:31 AM

There also needs to be an actual incentive to win, Heather. Slightly more points than the loser isn't much of an incentive. This is a competitive game lol

It'd be especially pointless if TLs dont restrict mon anymore.

In regards to Cept's proposal, I'll break down my opinions by category:

Building a Squad:
Spoiler: show
Okay so there's things I like and things I don't about this- The system for actually getting mon is nice, and from what I understand not too different from what I had??? If it is then I'm misreading so please correct me!

I'm sort of concerned about the movepool restrictions, though. While in theory it definitely helps with the issues we have with move oceans breaking the game, in practice I think it would make for some serious issues, especially if the base was as low as 10 moves. If we don't adopt the Reed System globally (which I think would be ideal but I'm not sure newbies could grasp easily), getting a bunch of offtype becomes extremely dangerous because your 'mon can end up just getting stuck with struggle or something if you're out of offtype (or, worse, your only moves left are ones the opponent resists/is immune to) because they tormented or imprisoned your STAB(s). In theory just spending three or four slots on STAB/Normal doesnt sound ridiculous but it gets much more so when you're reminded that thats anywhere between 40% and 20% of your entire movepool at the start, and you're left with as little as 6 moves for... literally everything else- offtype, defensive tools, you name it. If we're gonna limit movepools, I think all pokemon should have access to their entire level up pool (maybe their Egg pool too) and then you can spend whatever points we use to purchase TM/MT/Event moves, potentially at varying premiums so as to create an incentive to not just getting EQ and Ice Beam on everything. Oh, and one other concern I have here is this would take lots of tracking and I don't want ASB to become Links Inc. like FB was and if you have 15 links to buying moves on every mon thats kind of exactly what it is.

Also, I think TLs should still exist because they're useful for sorting the skill of trainers in a way less arbitrary than picking a couple thresholds on the League Table, and can be used to potentially gate off stuff that shouldn't be in the hands of newbies who don't fully understand the game (Lookin' at you Sigs)


League Table:
Spoiler: show
I like this, but Alto's set up a Glicko system we could use for a league table in the future. I'm not a maths guy so I'm not gonna weigh in on the pros and cons of them related to each other, I'll let people more qualified do that. I just figured I'd make that public knowledge for consideration.


Reffing:
Spoiler: show
Good stuff there, especially with the challenge system. I would recommend that the number of challenges get increased for high level matches ex: Gym/E4 (maybe scenarios??) because when there's serious weight in a match I think battlers are well within their rights to make sure everything is as accurate as possible.

I'd love to see a world where reffing is fun. That was kind of my goal with adding incentive for creativity/length in reffing, but people are afraid that's gonna cause Schaden style reffings. My thing is, if it makes reffing less of a chore for people to be able to RP it or pretty it up or what have you, why would we not encourage that? I think if a battler is seriously irked by having to read a long reffing of simple orders that much then they're the problem. Its not endorsing quantity over quality- WF and FB have length requirements/incentives for length, and there's perfectly high quality stuff there.

Concept 09-11-2017 10:33 AM

Glicko being a more established professionally designed system is probably a better measure of skill than my rather off the cuff proposals. My two worries with it would be that a) I'm a fan of designing things that are as easy to intuitively understand as possible and b) accounting for inactivity. I'm of the opinion that being minimally active/entirely inactive should cause you to fall down the rankings pretty fast. If we can accommodate that within Glicko than I'm on board.

The squad acquisition proposals are similar to yours, yeah, I just made it so that things were entirely ungated - I'm happy for newbies to have anything they want off the bat as long as a) its somehow balanced by restricting their other options and b) we address the moveocean problem. I quite like your idea of letting them have all level up moves and they pay for TM/Tutor/Egg stuff, so long as there's some sort of cap somewhere on either the total number of moves or total number of paid moves. As for becoming links inc.. I mean, we've always operated levels/evo on trust, I think that works particularly if you keep it as simple as "spend X extra points to expand its movepool by Y total moves, with *insert cap on total number of moves here* and have movepool changes rubberstamped a la hidden power.

Also worth considering whether we want to redesign how we do offtype energy.

Reffing challenges upping for more important matches can potentially be a solid idea but I worry about it pushing refs away from wanting to ref those kind of matches - I'd have thought gating through ref grade was a good enough ensurance but *shrug*.

Thoughts on Snorby's Stuff: I'll start with my main point of disagreement; TL. TL is imo a crappy way of gating things because it's no measure of skill. It's a measure of experience, to an extent, which has some mild correlation with skill, but there's very little stopping crappy trainers getting to high TLs (excepting badge requirements which have their own issues with relying on GL activity). I'd have thought we could gate things in other ways. Sigs could be as simple as five completed battles. GLs shouldn't be allowed to send anyone who already has a badge through their GT. Hoinestly Glicko to my understanding produces a number which we could use to gate things. Legends gate themselves naturally by being hard to beat and the better ones being even harder.

Like I said my pokemon acquisition proposals are similar to yours except I've ungated more heavily. Never saw the benefit of gating acquisitions, but when the league was active getting rid of it would've caused such an uproar it'd have been more trouble than it was worth. League's basically dead anyway so might as well rip this kind of thing out while we can.

The main difference for me is allowing varying squad sizes (as long as it's at least six) to compensate for getting better stuff at the start. The better your squad, the smaller and therefore more predictable and easy to counterplan it is. I'm happy just giving people a chunk of whatever we call the points when they join and letting them spend it on their squad and mega tokens as they please, as long as they have at least six mon. On that subject, we don't really need three types of points (KOs, TP and SP). If we go with a glicko system or something similar then you only need one type of points/currency to spend on shit.

Looking through your E4 proposals, I like them but think they're potentially a bit strict particularly given the turn around time for approving a new E4 arena/squad. I'd say rather than immediately kicking anyone who falls outside the top four in the rankings we should give some leeway here, keep the spot as long as you don't rank outside the top five/ten two months in a row. People have a bad patch sometimes.

I'm generally against being able to buy battle advantages through reffing rewards. Expanding/evolving your squad and acquiring mega tokens I can get behind, the other stuff not so much.

Thoughts on IT's Stuff: Requiring pokemon to actively participate in order to evolve is something I've always wanted to do but stuff like Magikarp and Caterpie makes it really hard to implement in a fair way. One potential balance is to make it so that using it in battle reduces the cost to evolve (every time it's actively used it counts as having had X points spent towards its next evo?)

Snorby 09-11-2017 12:23 PM

The way Alto explained Glicko to me (or rather, the article he showed me explained it) is Glicko is basically Elo that accounts for the (in)activity of a player. I could be wrong though.

Will respond to other stuff in a few hours as I'm in class atm

Ironthunder 09-11-2017 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concept (Post 802051)
Thoughts on IT's Stuff: Requiring pokemon to actively participate in order to evolve is something I've always wanted to do but stuff like Magikarp and Caterpie makes it really hard to implement in a fair way. One potential balance is to make it so that using it in battle reduces the cost to evolve (every time it's actively used it counts as having had X points spent towards its next evo?)

Honestly they were a factor in my saying that passive squadding allows for slower level gain which iirc is still in the proposal (think it's officially listed as something along the lines of 'being squadded allows for slower gains towards levels' or something) but it's definitely something that'd need working on. I'm currently editing my proposal with some new ideas that should sort this. It's also a whole new kettle of fish to boil and I've inevitably fucked stuff up, so any thoughts on the edits would be appreciated.

Heather 09-11-2017 06:14 PM

@Snorby: I mean right now the incentive is "getting any of the points that actually mean shit" so maybe possibly somehow that ought to be revamped? Like basically my sole gripe is the complete inability to progress if one loses, especially given the margin by which most matches are won. You can give an incentive to win without completely shafting the loser. It's not like the games actively strip you of any exp you earned in a losing battle.

Altocharizard55 09-11-2017 06:56 PM

I'm going to throw in a quick second that limiting movepools is going to be both a lot to keep track of and potentially extremely restrictive. A lot of the more situational moves would become very expensive to carry when you could just as easily instead grab a move more widely applicable. I see this as potentially making battling in ASB very boring.

On Glicko: I could modify the constants however I need to in order to account for inactivity in an appropriate manner.

On Ref challenging: I'm on the fence here. Frankly put, if I could only make a small number of challenges during a match, I would be much less inclined to actually hand off a standard match to a newer ref, and instead favor handpicking them from a smaller subset of "trusted" refs. (I already do this to an extent, and I know I'm not the only one). This is a case where I value battler "safety" a lot more than I value ref comfort. If a battler is being argumentative for little to no reason, it can and should be handled by the administration, but I feel that battlers should always be free to question the round.

We really should try to do a mentorship program as far as reffings go, where a more experienced member oversees some matches that a new ref takes and offers continual feedback, but that's a different discussion.

Concept 09-12-2017 06:22 AM

EDIT the first: Jesus this turned out to be a much longer post than I meant it to I'm sorry. Tl;dr version, do we at least agree on what issues we're trying to fix? Because that seems like a thing we should agree on if we're to have any chance of actually addressing them.

So in my mind we have a few systemic issues that need to be addressed if any revamp is going to be worth doing. I'm very much open to other peoples approaches on how to deal with them - mine definitely have flaws! - but I'd take an imperfect idea that goes some way to dealing with it over just leaving them as is any day of the week, because leaving them as is has lead to where we are now. Less than ten matches have had a post in them (across both forums) in two months.

Muyonses Whispers need to die

Spoiler: show
This is mostly just a case of getting off our arses and codifying shit properly in a place where it can be easily kept up to date, and massively clamping down on how much we edit swathes of mostly irrelevant things.


Battling is boring because move oceans overcentralise around certain mon and turn the game into a typespam fest

Spoiler: show
Basically, why take a mon that can do a cool unconventional thing well if you can take something that can do it well and typespam eveything to kingdom come? How we deal with this is certainly up for debate and I share your concerns that a good number of battlers are just boring people and would build out their mon to be typespam machines if movepools were restricted. My hope is that people of mindsets like myself, Emi, Sneaze, App, Slash etc would double down on our success with less conventional ideas and - by forcing more focussed movesets on them - we might see an increase in usage of niche moves as people like that restrict the more boring options away from themselves a bit more. In turn I'm hoping that seeing some vets thrive with these kind of builds might encourage more newbies to try them out. As for keeping track of them; yeah, some saddo's might be so desperate to win that they cheat the system but it's just a larger version of hidden power and I'm comfortable operating both on trust. I don't forsee it being an endemic problem. Other peoples opinions might vary, which is fair enough.


It takes ages to get anywhere as a newbie

Spoiler: show
Part of this is people learning how things work which there's a limited amount we can do to speed up - although the aforementioned killing of muyonese whispers would help cut down the skill growth time a lot. Beyond that, this is why I favour ungating 'mon acquisitions as long as it goes hand in hand with other restrictions to stop things getting silly (ie curtailing moveoceans and/or introducing some kind of points system so while you can start with that cool thing you really want, you can't just have a full squad of uber stuff).


Reffing is unpleasant and tedious

Spoiler: show
Historically we tried to address this by making SP better and hefting out tons of it for reffing quickly but quite obviously this hasn't worked in the long run because no-one's reffing. Doing more of the same strikes me as a bit silly. I share your concerns that I'd like to err on the side of battler "safety" more then ref comfort, but again; that's what we've done up until now and it's a major contributor to having driven ASB into the ground. One of the things you hear a lot from new refs (back when we had any - it's an issue I heard a lot of back when I was running ref school) is that they're too worried about getting things wrong to actually ref. Now part of that can certainly be addressed by codifying things better and teaching new refs better so that they feel more confident with what they're doing, but I'm personally of the opinion that that's not enough. In a choice between not having refs and having vets suck it up a bit and let small mistakes slide to focus on challenging bigger issues I'd take the latter. It also lends itself to a natural learming curve for refs; people will always use their challenges let's be honest, and they'll learn to keep them for the refs biggest errors so refs will pick up their biggest issues first and progressively be picked up on less important things as they address the big'uns, rather than being overwhelmed by being picked up on every minor thing in their first handful of matches and being put off for life.

It's also why I'd favour letting better refs do cool stuff like run small GMs, mini-tournaments, exhibitions etc; it's stuff that people want to do that relies more on their reffing/organisational ability than their battling prowess so I'd be inclined to say that if they're good enough to do it without breaking anything too badly then yeah sure kid go ahead.


Stuff changing too frequently and too much pushes out vets which in turn makes the league look less active and less attractive to newbies

Spoiler: show
This is the reason I was generally against tinkering with any but the biggest problems when I was an LO but now favour route-and-stem reforms; with the league already pretty much dead there's not much damage we can do with sweeping rewrites and potentially a lot to be gained by engaging the community and addressing all these little niggles all at once. Once it's done though, the rewrite parties need to end. They're a recipe for generating widespread fatigue as people get bored of trying to remember exactly how ice beam works this week just for the sake of fixing a tiny little problem that was some vets pet peeve. Sure some stuff needed fixing - old!Bide comes to mind - but if a rewrite isn't fixing a problem you're seeing in ~25%+ of matches then it's not worth doing unless the league's already dead.


Again how we address these problems is definitely open for debate, but I'm definitely of the opinion that an imperfect solution is miles better than the status quo.

Snorby 09-12-2017 07:32 AM

Time to comment on things whoo

>Heather
You know some of these proposals don't even have KOs or TLs in them, right? In fact, most of them don't have KOs.

>Concept's Acquisitions vs Mine
Yeah honestly that's fair I'd be fine with no gating and it makes squad size more valuable in a less artificial way than what I was trying to do. That said I think we need to look at the pros and cons of a purchasing system vs a point allocation system. I can see the merits of both and I'd love to hear opinions.

>TLs
'Cept's right that experience can be gauged through number of battles and TL is an imperfect measurement. Though I still do have some worries about removing them. One big reason we lose vets is they feel like they've run out of things to accomplish when they're at the end of the TL system- they've got their gym, they have a badge or two, they've gotten better than almost everybody, they're at TL6-7, they've got a legendary or two, what's left to do? When this is so prevalent I'm not sure I'm comfortable with removing the TL system because that's just one less thing to progress on.

>Movepool restrictions
I think we could pretty easily offset the concern of making ASB "boring" to play in with everybody just spamming the best moves by, like I suggested, making the best moves cost more. Sure, you can get Thunderbolt for let's say 5 Points (making up numbers for the sake of argument they aren't the actual values) but if you could also get something like Wild Charge for 3 or Shock Wave for 2 many people would maybe want to stick with Wild Charge and pocket the 2 Points leftover they would've spent on Thunderbolt to go towards an evolution.

I think it's also helped by giving 'mon their full level up pool, and I think it actually will increase diversity in that respect because it makes 'mon with cool level up pools valuable- for example Machamp is better than Conkeldurr on paper but Conkeldurr gets Rock moves through level up, meaning you have to spend less points to get a strong build going. Any dullness that comes from people wanting the same few moves on their mon would, I think, be outweighed by more variety in 'mon choices and moreover counteracted by pricing the best moves higher than the rest.

> Ref Challenging
Honestly, I value Battler safety... when the battle matters. Which is why I want more challenges on important matches- sure it might make new refs squeamish about picking them up, but honestly I feel like in important matches you should only be reffing if you're confident enough in your abilities to handle an extra two or three complaints. I'm all for making refs comfortable, but I don't want to see somebody dicked out of a Gym Badge because they ran out of complaints and their referee made a mistake.

This said... sorry, but I just don't think a basic 3v3 match is gonna make-or-break your life in ASB. There's no need to emphasize battler safety there, because they really dont have that much to lose. At WORST you'll fall down one peg on trainer ranking a miss out on a couple KOs. That's far from the end of the world, especially if we offer a grace period for E4 members to get back into the top X and keep their position.

>Down with Rewrite parties
Ehh... honestly they've not been that common as of late (meaning when ASB was still active), and just because you aren't seeing a problem all the time doesn't make it less egregious, especially in the case of a move that just... is bad, or not working the way it's intended.

If we wanted to limit them to 2-4 a year I'd be fine with that but ultimately I think they serve to make the game better way more than they confuse the playerbase.


Heather 09-12-2017 08:03 AM

I mean, KOs or no KOs or call a KO a Smeerp, I really don't care. What I care about is the loser of a match not being robbed of what they need to progress. Sure, give them more for winning as you very well ought to, but at the end of the day you're not gonna motivate people to battle above their skill level at all if the only way you're getting anything out of it is winning, which is substantially more likely against people of lower skill level. Why put the time and effort into a 4v4 with someone more skilled when they'll likely just beat you by one mon and the however long you spent with that match is essentially just time wasted? At the end of the day, if you need X amount of Smeerps for some arbitrary means of progression, be it evolving or getting moves or TLs as we know them or whatever, the loser of a given match really should only be getting 0 Smeerps if they lose like a 1v1, if anything, to prevent grinding 1v1s for very slow point gain.

Snorby 09-12-2017 09:05 AM

I'm sorry but it really feels like you haven't read these proposals. KO's don't exist in either, and no, there's new version of a KO renamed something else- why would we ever do that? That's just a waste of time. In both my and Concept's proposals the loser gets the things needed to gather mon (and in mine, TL up). And mine has a system built in that rewards players for battling above their skill level, even if they lose and especially if they win.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here.

Connor 09-12-2017 10:37 AM

Heather can I suggest you stop making everything you say seem like it's framed from a point of view where you are either coming across as aggressive or are seemingly trying to make the other party sound like they understand nothing and you are far more intelligent. It comes off as incredibly condescending and is never going to get your point heard in a proper fashion.

re: Concept changes. Agree wholeheartedly with the vast number of these. Prefer his system of acquisition to Snorby's, essentially just a more refined version which is nice.

Agree to some extent that limiting movepools to an extent could help make things more interesting - Snorby's example of Machamp vs. Conk is a good one - but would also warn to practice caution here. Maybe run a trial period or two. This could very quickly become too much to handle and could be consequentially confusing to any possible new blood (which should remain our focus when it comes to redesigning the League).

Likewise (surprisingly) agree with gripes regarding rewrite parties. I understand their inherent usefulness having done quite a few regarding SCs myself, but if we are going to fully commit here we should as a community be able to wrangle out most of the little idiocies here and make it so that things don't really need as much tinkering going forwards. Don't abolish them completely - as stated, they have use - but limiting them like Snorby suggested may be a smart move. This also gives people involved in the process more time to discuss at length and over time - opinions and minds change, and this can only ever be healthy.

re: accomplishments, Alto's suggestions of implementing 'post game' as it were is an okay idea, but how we do it is the crux of the issue. Spitballing we could implement some sort of 'prestige' system which gives some sort of award where the award is basically bragging rights, but that would be the only soggy idea stuck on my wall at the moment. This is an important thing, but less important than attracting new blood.

with regards to referee challenging, implement them primarily for the most important of matches. make it so that both challengers and referees can agree to implement the challenge system for anything else. you want to prove your bollocks in a 4 vs. 4 showdown with someone good, but want to give a bone to a newer referee and help them out here and there? ask for the challenge system to be implemented, make it clear you will offer constructive criticism whenever you challenge, and make it absolutely clear that LOs and moderation at large will not take kindly to someone who disrespects referees and continues to engender the culture of newbies being worried. how discipline is implemented is obviously up to the leadership but I was always a fan of Kush's ideas of barring problem members from roles of authority (GLship etc) until they can prove they are no longer being a problem.

i use extent a lot get over it

Altocharizard55 09-12-2017 07:22 PM

Alto's ideas

Snorby 09-12-2017 10:37 PM

Like with 'Cepty, I'll break down opinions based on category:

Acquisitions:
Spoiler: show
So the basic principle here is similar to my and 'Cept's proposals, except it's probably the most conservative on allowing newbies to get strong mon, where 'Cept's is the most loose and mine is some sort of middle ground (probably a little closer to 'Cept's than this)

It's also point allocation rather than purchase, which in theory I like, but it does bring about serious, serious problems that I think need to be addressed before we fully sign on with such a system. That big problem is drops/adds. You made very clear that there's no AP penalty for changes to your squad. I'm... not sure I'm okay with that. It makes squad slots pretty meaningless beyond "this is the number of mons you can have with signatures at a time". If you're okay with going in sigless, you pick up six extra rock types you'd normally never even think about right before you knock at the fire gym's door, then turn around and drop them for six dark types on your way to the Psychic Gym. Hell, you can even have a Gallade for the Steel gym, then devolve it and re-evolve it into Gardevoir and go knocking at the Dragon gym. You don't even lose your sig there under the current rules! This is bound to get out of hand really fast and make gym and badges pretty meaningless if not completely addressed.

As I understand it, this is basically a consolidation of TLs and a nixing of squad slots in favor of AP. TL1s will have access to 1-3, TL2s 4-5, and TL3s 6-7, at least speaking in very broad terms. My worry here is that, as we've seen in practice with other people before, TL3 can take a proverbial fuckload of time to get to, even if you're active, unless you're naturally good at the game- which not everyone is and while this is a competitive league I really don't want to make it so you have to have natural talent to get the mon you want in a relatively timely fashion.


TLs
Spoiler: show
Everything looks good here, though part of me wants to at some point down the line take my own crack at making contests a more common and accessible thing so I'd rather not see them locked off to later TLs. Would the amount of AP you get for TLing up be static throughout TLs or change from level to level?


Sigs
Spoiler: show
Definitely gonna disagree with you here on some things. The biggest one is that stronger mons should still be allowed to keep their current (and let's be real objectively pretty strong) sigs. I think there's definitely a massive range between giving your Dragonite a sig that makes it 2x weak to ice or my really good Gengar sig and sigs so bad that they aren't even worth putting on. I'd like to hit that range, ideally. Go ahead and give your Dragonite access to Gunk Shot and Sludge Bomb if you'd like but if you want a type chart change you better be sigging a Noivern.

The bigger picture, though, is that there's just so many things that if we change the mechanic all the sigs that go with it need to be dumped, so we'll at LEAST need to do wipes of certain kinds of sigs- for example if we change how offtype works we'll probably need to reevaluate sigs that grant new offtype (Which is a LOOOOOT of fuckin sigs). This is especially so if we switch to Reed because so many cap themselves at 2 uses or whatever and that's not how it would work anymore.

That said, any sigs we end up deciding don't need to be wiped (Be that because I'm overruled on the change to sig policy or we just don't change stuff that necessitates partial wipes) are more than welcome to be dropped in an icebox. If we're wiping some but not all I imagine Sneaze or I would run through each iceboxed post and make sure they don't fall into a wiped category but that's not too hard.


SP:
Spoiler: show
Generally looks good but I caution that we might want to make AP packages small and rather pricey unless we want an SP economy where the only thing people value is AP much like slots now.


Reffing and Ref Grades:
Spoiler: show
Like this stuff, though I don't think sporadic updates are feasible. Community feedback plays a large role in the current Eval system so the most we could really do is look at how many times a ref has been DQ'd and change their reliability accordingly.


DQs:
Spoiler: show
This stuff seems alright in theory, and I really do like the ref DQ plan. However, I tend to worry that the GL/GT stuff and the general battler stuff is awfully similar to what we have now that clearly doesn't work. As such I prefer my own GL DQ system and for regular battlers I think we should consider something along the lines of strikes in a match. Let's use the week hard deadline for the sake of argument. If Battler A exceeds the deadline, their orders are locked in as "Stand and do nothing". Battler B may then order as they please. Battler A receives a strike. Battler A is automatically disqualified after three strikes (roughly half a matchup). This means that if a match just slips your mind or you get super busy for a week, you don't lose outright, but it still provides incentive for people to stay on top of their matches and allows for DQs when someone is consistently inactive.


Typespam:
Spoiler: show
This is an idea worth considering but not something I'm immediately sold on. If we were to do this I would want to do a trial run with it- maybe do a few practice matches, then if those go well try it out league-wide for anyone who wants to participate in the trial for a month or two, then implement it if we like the changes it brings about.


SCs:
Spoiler: show
Looks fine, honestly seems like it's just taking what we do with Type Characteristics and applying it to individual mon which is by no means a bad thing.


Events:
Spoiler: show
I'd love to see your tournament system put into place but that's something for way down the line that we can't even begin to set up anytime soon. With regards to legends yeah the queue should move faster but I'm not sure what we can do in terms of policy to speed it up. Vets order slow, and DQ'ing isn't an option with the amount of SP spent on these things.


Trainer Ranking:
Spoiler: show
Looks fine, though I'd like to hear your suggestions for other factors beside ranking for consideration with E4 members, since I'm guessing its not GLship/Activity as I already brought those up in my initial proposal for that.


Member Generation:
Spoiler: show
Good idea on the referral system! We'd have to hammer out specifics for rewards after we finalize our system choice but I think this is something we should definitely implement.

biggggg5 09-13-2017 03:13 AM

Here is the link to my proposal.
I haven't kept up with the thread too much but I wanted to put my two cents in. I'm free to answer any questions about how things would work and while I know I don't have a ton of specific details I hope my general ideas might get across and maybe even work in conjunction with someone else's proposal as well.

Connor 09-13-2017 01:17 PM

So in so far as your proposal goes Biggles, your first point (a shift to pure numbers) realistically more or less already exists for the most part. We already have numerical value associated with certain damage terms, and it's not uncommon for less practiced referees to simply use a strict number system when it comes to refereeing - if anything, they are encouraged to use numbers so that they can begin to get a grasp on things. There are a few vocal voices who shout about no mAthSB but even they concede that numbers exist to some extent. I do agree wholeheartedly that we need to do more to help fledgling referees though, and I am sure people will be open to any suggestions regarding that matter - but a shift to replacing all our damage terms with simple numbers will probably not accomplish much other than making our descriptions awkward to read, or robbing ASB of some of the little quirks it can have.

I like your second idea from the viewpoint of coming to pure basics and trying to distill ASB into a more compact form but I honestly don't see there being much viability in it. It's a fine concept from the point of view of trying to find some sort of ground zero to begin working from, but as a functioning ASB I feel like this only really sets us back when it comes to progression. It means people can cut and change Pokemon with an even more damaging ease (enabling a scenario like Snorby outlined where trainers constantly swap teams out to counter Gym Leaders), and while the incentive of gaining a Sig is certainly nice, the fact that this loophole exists to be easily exploited really sours me on the idea of it.

Heather 09-13-2017 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heather (Post 802118)
At the end of the day, if you need X amount of Smeerps for some arbitrary means of progression, be it evolving or getting moves or TLs as we know them or whatever, the loser of a given match really should only be getting 0 Smeerps if they lose like a 1v1, if anything, to prevent grinding 1v1s for very slow point gain.

Reading.

Miror 09-13-2017 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heather (Post 802182)
Reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor (Post 802123)
Heather can I suggest you stop making everything you say seem like it's framed from a point of view where you are either coming across as aggressive or are seemingly trying to make the other party sound like they understand nothing and you are far more intelligent. It comes off as incredibly condescending and is never going to get your point heard in a proper fashion.


Heather 09-13-2017 06:28 PM

Okay, fine, I'll admit I was frustrated, but I really don't see what's so hard to get about "hey when we write our proposals can we at least make sure that you don't get basically nothing towards progression when losing a match of any remote substance." Like, I mentioned KOs because that's how the system works at present and figured that would be a way to get across what I was saying (and at the time was unaware that people were thinking of nixing KOs entirely, especially since Iron's proposal, the first I read, wasn't necessarily about that life at least at the time, which is why my posts later on turned to "whatever the system is, just don't fuck over the loser" ("I mean, KOs or no KOs or call a KO a Smeerp, I really don't care. What I care about is the loser of a match not being robbed of what they need to progress.")), so when I get Snorby over and over basically saying "what are you even saying" essentially because of some semantic when the point is still right there, it honestly feels like my posts aren't even being read in full.

EDIT: Going back over things, it probably didn't help that one of Snorby's posts implied I hadn't read (at the time) either of the proposals when my first post in this thread literally ended with "I like Iron's proposal for this reason." (aka Iron's proposal addresses this issue and I like it for that reason)

Zelphon 09-13-2017 06:57 PM

A New Challenger Appears!
 
Going to start off by saying that this is more or less me explaining where I come from and what I think would and has made PASBL fun, I am neither stupid enough to think the bellow would be good or balanced it's just an emphasis of how I view and enjoy PASBL more or less. Also I'm gonna shamelessly copy Snorby's format.

Acquisitions:
Spoiler: show

I'm of the belief that TLs in their current form are far to restrictive and inherently flawed in that people are going to have their favorite pokemon and it arguably degrades their ability to enjoy the game if a significant portion of the pokemon they love are locked behind heavy prerequisites.

Suggestion, do away with prereqs, if Johny Joe Noob wants his favorite mon Ninetales he should be able to access to it, a game is for fun let the lad have fun. Now I recognize just letting everyone that walks through the door run around with a Snorlax would probably trigger a number of people here but a somewhat popular idea that's floated around on the Discord has been having something of a points system where a Trainer has X amount of points and the point cost of their complete squad can not exceed that number of points.

Given proper balance this would allow everyone to have some of their favorites while still making sure a fresh of the boat player can't just line their squad with top of the line pokemon and even gives a trade off if they try to do so in part.


TLs
Spoiler: show

As I alluded to earlier I don't like TLs as a concept and think we should just ax them. Instead of using them I simply suggest that the system I mentioned in the above section have things set up to where battling and perhaps reffing can help increase the points one can have for the purpose of pokemon additions and evolutions.

Lets have the points be our current TP, given at the end of each match regardless of win or loss so people don't get into ruts and lose motivation. Maybe let people buy decent amounts of TP with their SP? Regardless that's something I'll go into more in a later section.



Sigs
Spoiler: show

I'm sure most of those that have been around me know I'm not a fan of direction we've taken with them. Throughout most of my time here sigs have been a way for Trainers to express their creativity, create unique tools, expand on the minor bits of RP that exist here and just in general have fun.

As I hope I've gotten across in my first section I want people to be able to use their favorite pokemon regardless of where they're at and part of this is being able to excuse using them once they actually get them, to make it short I want people to be able to sig their Eevee to be as good as Snorlax albeit in its own way. Why must some pokemon be blatantly better than others when one of the major strengths of PASBL is the freedom from moveset restriction and stat totals the game provides?

As a note for the above, perhaps have sigs on a pokemon contribute to its cost to a team, that way an Eevee as strong as a Snorlax still takes up as many of your options as an actual Snorlax.



SP
Spoiler: show

Honestly fine with how it works right now for the most part, I do think the conversion to TP should be greater than it is though. I'd also suggest good behavior as a battler be rewarded somewhat with some SP or SP gain boosts.



Reffing and Ref Grades
Spoiler: show

Just keep them the way they are now but do evaluations more often and perhaps open a court similar to the old Sig Court where people can submit matches where refs are being shitty for more immediate and personal punishment. Could also use such a court to give people better grades!


DQs
Spoiler: show

Take control out of the involved parties hands, make them fully automatic and shut down attempts to ignore the rule. Limit TAs to have a short cool down between instances where they are established and put a limit to how long they can go on for. We don't want to excuse people going away for months and we don't want to let them do it by chaining close proximity TAs.


Events
Spoiler: show

Do them more often, make them kind of radiate instead of going forward, by this I mean allow refs that just finished shit up right before them to recieve retroactive benefit from SP modifiers. Alternatively or additionally maybe just auto grant the event token to those who have done X amount of reffings within a time span.


Approvals
Spoiler: show

I mean this for items, HPs and other not sig stuff. Just let members you guys like be certified to help out with this sorta thing.


Member Generation:
Spoiler: show

Give us a social media presence already, see if anyone in the community is willing to upkeep and do the right kinds of spam, hell maybe decide on a list of people to do it so no one person gets overwhelmed.


Summary
Spoiler: show

I believe in a PASBL where anyone can use anything, both in acquisition and in actual practical in battle use regardless of how long they've been here or what they end up facing. I believe this can be achieved with a points based rework of our acquisition system and a do away with TLs as well as laxer sig rules. Let's make the highest denominator of pokemon the balance point instead of the middle ground, nothing can be overpowered if everything is.

The inner workings of PASBL need to be able to run smoother, let the best of us help lessen the burdens of the LOs by taking care of mundane things like HPs, Items and other stuff just needs a green stamp (sigs aside of course). More events, make it easier for our active refs to benefit from them.

Reward battlers for good behavior and be unforgiving to those that exhibit bad ones by having an extremely strict DQ system.

Make ASB more about fun than anything else, no point in a fine tuned machine if no one wants to use it.



Crys 09-13-2017 08:20 PM

Heather just wants loser compensation so when she goes 0-32 again she can actually level up this time.

Anywho, expect a mini proposal from me soon. It'll be nothing special and probably a bit memey but hey at least it's something.

biggggg5 09-14-2017 01:32 AM

As someone who also loses more often then not, should we decide to keep the current system I would also like to see "progress" despite losing.

Also I see your points Connor and I have a slightly clearer idea on what to say now. Maybe direct numbers for terms aren't quite the answer (i would again point to dnd as a model of what works but its nbd) but maybe we should standardize some other things. I want to point to one of the questions I received in my reref test as an example.

Quote:

Anna has a Female Nidoqueen (Level 6)
Johnson has a Male Poliwrath (Level 6)
Lawn Arena

"Nidoqueen, use Earth Power, then remain evasive."
"Poliwrath, use Surf to ride over that Earth Power, then charge him with Waterfall."

Both are fresh into battle.
Now I am going to post the current descriptions of the moves Surf and Earth Power.
Quote:

Surf (WA) -- The user forms a large wave that heads out to wash over the opponent, dealing heavy damage for heavy Water energy. If the user is not in a large body of water, it must create the water from thin air and the wave will be smaller than it might otherwise be, dealing only considerable damage. The user may send a Surf wave out ahead of it or choose to ride on it as it travels.

Earth Power (GD) - The user stomps on the ground and channels a stream of ground energy towards the foe, which erupts out from under them in a narrow column, dealing significant damage. Energy usage depends on the type of terrain - for example, thick clay will be more difficult to channel through than soft dirt, the attack generally requiring significant energy. It can also be used to manipulate the ground's shape somewhat, though more than slight alterations will tire the user significantly. This attack only works if the energy is sent through the ground - it cannot be used directly on an opponent. This attack has a 10% chance to lower the target's special defense.
The issue I have is that the size and range of neither move is quantified. How large is a "large wave"? How tall should that narrow column of earth reach? Should the earth power scrape the poliwrath's feet or should it be dodged entirely? And does evasive mean? It's spending a whole move to do so does that mean a good clean partial dodge? (I was going to say nidoqueen would be a larger target to the obviously smaller poliwrath but turns out they are the same size, who knew?) But that's not the case for something like raichu vs aggron where aggron really doesn't have a lot of business dodgeing the smaller and quicker raichu without things like teleporting or agility.

What I am realizing is, maybe I'm not as pro mathasb as I thought and maybe I'm more anti-ref's discretion. And I'm not saying it should be done away with entirely (I realize how unfun that would be.) but more things should be standardized and defined. Again I look to DND where spells have not only their own description and damage but also ranges and areas of effect. For example I will give a surf-like spell from the current dnd handbook. I'm not saying it would be one to one but the ranges give an idea of what I've talking about.

Spoiler: show
Quote:

Tsunami
A wall of water springs into existence at a point you choose within range. You can make the wall up to 300 feet long, 300 feet high, and 50 feet thick. The wall lasts for the duration.

When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 6d10 bludgeoning damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.

At the start of each of your turns after the wall appears, the wall, along with any creatures in it, moves 50 feet away from you. Any Huge or smaller creature inside the wall or whose space the wall enters when it moves must succeed on a Strength saving throw or take 5d10 bludgeoning damage. A creature can take this damage only once per round. At the end of the turn, the wall's height is reduced by 50 feet, and the damage creatures take from the spell on subsequent rounds is reduced by 1d10. When the wall reaches 0 feet in height, the spell ends.

A creature caught in the wall can move by swimming. Because of the force of the wave, though, the creature must make a successful Strength (Athletics) check against your spell save DC in order to move at all. If it fails the check, it can't move. A creature that moves out of the area falls to the ground.


I'm saying let Ash thunderbolt the sprinklers, but quantify what it means to "Quick! Dodge it!"

As for the second part Connor I see your point and counter with this: make the challenger squad first. It's what you do in the gym leader tower in stadium (provided you aren't looking up the roster online) They will already know what type of Pokémon they are battling, and maybe have an idea of what sigged Pokémon the leader would bring (although ideally a gym leader would have more than 6 sigged Pokémon of the type) and it will be a greater test of ability making the badges truly special achievements.

Snorby 09-14-2017 08:09 AM

The problem here is you can't quantify how tall exactly a surf is- Is it a magic surf or a surf using water? Is it a water type using it? Is the mon using it water familiar maybe? What's the weather, if there is one? That DnD description is longer than our descriptions for both Surf and Earth Power. We don't want to write a novel about every one of the hundreds of moves in Pokemon, and nobody wants to read it either. Besides, you aren't expected to get everything on the ref test correct. As time goes on, as you ref more matches, as you get more advice from vets you ref for, as you ask more questions in Q/A, you pick up knowledge and your grade goes up with it. If you were able to look up the interactions of every move on the site, what's even the point of ref grades? You're grading people on their ability to read words in front of them at that point, and you've lost much of the charm ASB has to boot. Part of what makes ASB special is that not every high level ref refs everything exactly the same. I don't ref everything like Sneaze and neither of us ref everything like Connor. To get rid of ref's discretion is to make the referee basically meaningless- the battlers could just look up what happens at that point.

And the challenger squadding first doesn't help, really. You know what type the gym is.
"Oh, this is the water gym, let me pack my Ludicolo, my Lapras, my Lanturn, my Eelektross, my Mega Glalie, and my Octillery."

"Oh, this is the rock gym, let me pack my Machamp, my Ludicolo, my Torterra, my Mega Swampert, my Lucario, and my Steelix."

"Oh this is the dark gym, I'll pack my Clefable, my Wigglytuff, my Forretress, my Infernape, my Mega Gallade, and my Scolipede."

You don't have to know anything about the opponent's squad to rent out a basically impenetrable squad, as long as you know the type.


Also Heather my point was that literally every proposal posted at the time had what you seemed to be asking for. Iron's proposal did what you wanted. As did mine. As did Concept's. Nobody else's was even posted yet. So I think asking what you're looking for is a pretty valid question in that case and wondering if you've read everything in all the proposals is also pretty valid. It certainly doesn't warrant any rude and overly aggressive responses, much less three of them after you've been asked to tone it down not once, but twice.

Ironthunder 09-14-2017 10:42 AM

RE: Zelphy's proposal

This is actually pretty decent tbh. I mean a good chunk of it is similar to the fluid levels system I've been putting into my proposal (A points-based system does seem to be the general agreement here, so I decided to edit my proposal to accommodate this), and I like the sigs plan. The DQs is a bit harsh but probably necessary. The events thing is pretty decent too, and farming out HPs/item attachments to trustworthy non-LOs is probably a good call.

Chalis 09-15-2017 12:36 AM

stop ordering stab x 2 and you'll win

Jerichi 09-17-2017 07:48 AM

Ok let's keep this discussion moving.

I'm not really fit to comment on much else re: full proposals but I like the idea of a point system for Pokémon acquisitions/etc. so let's elaborate on that.

The system I had in mind would basically be similar to what was described by a few people all mashed up - have an allotment of points you can spend on a set of Pokémon, all of whom have values assigned to their base forms. I think this would also help with the balance issue as we could have battles also be restricted through these point values, so you can set a value that will make it tough (or even impossible?) to bring your crushy mon without sacrificing the rest of your team.

Questions for you:

1) What criteria should be used to assign values to mon? Keep in mind, if we're going to do this, I'd like to see evolution take at least minimal effort to keep NFEs somewhat relevant.

2) Relatedly, how should evos work?

3) How much do we want to have to make people sink into new Pokémon? Do they have to buy a slot and then a Pokémon to fill it? Can they just buy 100 Caterpies if they can afford it?

4) How variable do we want to make the point rankings? 1-10? 1-100? How much nuance do we want to show?

5) Will point values be adjustable? How? When? I know that I don't want to fight over a single Pokémon's value for 10 pages, but I also know mistakes can be made or Pokémon can be reanalyzed as useful.

6) Do we want to try to balance clusters of Pokémon with similar values against each other or balance broadly?

I might have more questions later but this is a good start.

Ironthunder 09-17-2017 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 802311)
Questions for you:

1) What criteria should be used to assign values to mon? Keep in mind, if we're going to do this, I'd like to see evolution take at least minimal effort to keep NFEs somewhat relevant.

2) Relatedly, how should evos work?

3) How much do we want to have to make people sink into new Pokémon? Do they have to buy a slot and then a Pokémon to fill it? Can they just buy 100 Caterpies if they can afford it?

4) How variable do we want to make the point rankings? 1-10? 1-100? How much nuance do we want to show?

5) Will point values be adjustable? How? When? I know that I don't want to fight over a single Pokémon's value for 10 pages, but I also know mistakes can be made or Pokémon can be reanalyzed as useful.

6) Do we want to try to balance clusters of Pokémon with similar values against each other or balance broadly?

I might have more questions later but this is a good start.

Honestly, price bracketing is almost always going to exist- I doubt we can be arsed to assign an individual, specific price to every single one of the 800+ mons in existence when we could just throw out 'this is 30 points, this is 70 points'. And chances are it'll be based upon the current level acquisitions for translation convenience, either a direct carry-over or a re-analysis of what we have. Evos will probably require point investment, but equally I think they should be more of a banked system, so if you decide to devolve or drop stuff then you don't lose points. Depends how the system ends up working.

Buyable slots should probably take a hike or be limited in some way. If the main motivator for progression is slots, then unlimited buyable slots is sort of counterintuitive.

Reanalysing the point values, honestly it should probably be a case-by-case discussion for a set period of time before people/LOs vote on it.

Snorby 09-17-2017 10:39 AM

Quote:

1) What criteria should be used to assign values to mon? Keep in mind, if we're going to do this, I'd like to see evolution take at least minimal effort to keep NFEs somewhat relevant.
I feel like values should be assigned based on how strong the mon is compared to both mon in general and similar mon. "How strong the mon is" is purposefully vague because really all aspects of the mon should be considered- movepool, SCs, mobility, typing, size, the whole shebang. It should also include the ability to mega evolve if stones are still bought through SP and not just additional points. How they should be priced related to their NFEs gets tricky real fast. There's gonna be evos like Eelektrik to Eelektross or Mime Jr. to Mr. Mime than necessitate massive jumps in price because the final form is excellent and there's a huge benefit to evolving. Other mons, like Krokorok to Krookodile or Sneasel to Weavile, are just kind of bigger versions of themselves and the final form isnt amazing anyway so a small jump is fine. Then you'll run the gamut between those two- sure, Monferno and Chinchou don't gain that much when evolving, but Infernape and Lanturn are both amazing. On the flip side, Seismitoad and Breloom aren't all that great, but Palpitoad and Shroomish gain a huge amount from evolving.

Quote:

2) Relatedly, how should evos work?
I figure something like, "Use the form you have now in 1-2 battles, then you can drop more points to evolve it or take more out to devolve it as you please". I don't want it to be as easy as moving the points because, as I mentioned, you'll have people switching from Gardevoir to Gallade every ten minutes.

Quote:

3) How much do we want to have to make people sink into new Pokémon? Do they have to buy a slot and then a Pokémon to fill it? Can they just buy 100 Caterpies if they can afford it?
Definitely no need to buy a slot and then buy the mon you fill it with. If they want 100 Caterpies that's fine as long as they can field a squad of 6 while using only one Caterpie.

Quote:

4) How variable do we want to make the point rankings? 1-10? 1-100? How much nuance do we want to show?
Uh... I might want something in the middle, tbh. 1-10 doesn't leave room for anywhere near enough nuance, but by the time we get to 1-100 we're splitting hairs. 1-20 sounds good to me in theory but I think this is something we can workshop as we work on the values themselves.

Quote:

5) Will point values be adjustable? How? When? I know that I don't want to fight over a single Pokémon's value for 10 pages, but I also know mistakes can be made or Pokémon can be reanalyzed as useful.
I figure every year or so the LOs can put out a thread for people to suggest changes in, then take a look through everything (not just suggested changes, the community could miss things) and, taking those suggestions into account, release a list of changes or say that no changes were deemed necessary.

Quote:

6) Do we want to try to balance clusters of Pokémon with similar values against each other or balance broadly?
We definitely need to have similar value 'mon balanced against each other, lest you end up paying the same for an Audino as you do an Aegislash because there's a whole lot of normals better than Audino even though it's way better than Aegislash will ever be.

Concept 09-17-2017 09:24 PM

I'm too ill to sleep so I'm going to post my thoughts about pokemon on the internet at 3am instead. Also because of all the stuff here this one is the one I'm most interested in even though it's not the most important.

Do we significantly benefit from more nuance than the 1-7 TL range already gives us? I feel like the more nuance we get the more quibbling we're asking for, with no real gain. My initial reaction was to translate TLs directly into points for simplicity. My second reaction was to amend it slightly to a 1-10 to make it nicer to look at. It also means we can easily repurpose TP into acquisition points. Starting with 15-20 allows a newbie to build a broadly similar squad to what they could now whilst severely limiting their other options if they do pick up one uber mon right off the bat, and the TP for current level thresholds added onto that starting amount almost exactly buys the squad you'd have once you reached the the Trainer Level that amount of TP gets you.*

As for how to assign point values, I figure it's fairly similar to what we do now with acquisition levels. Venusaur and Vileplume occupy a similar role but Venusaur is better at it, similarly CSnorlax is better at its role than the comparable say Miltank but the latter niche is better than the former niche so Snorlax>Venusaur>Miltank>Vileplume in terms of point costs.

I also don't favour forcing people to use their mon before they can evolve them. I feel like the system naturally increases the usage of NFEs anyway because that's the trade-off you pay for making your squad bigger and for rushing a couple of high level favourites. Much better than right now where a TL4 has no incentive to use anything below its TL4 form. If we're worried about people swapping up their squads too freely for gym matches etc then just have all de-evo's/dropping rubberstamped once a month or something. People don't get the points back for stuff they've dropped/de-evolved until the end of the month.

I agree with Snorby on the not needing to buy slots thing. I'm also coming around to his idea of keeping TL milestones for non-squad related stuff. In video game terms, the continual drive of getting slightly better gear/levels (ie marginally improving your squad after every match) is nice, but so is the rush of beating a boss and getting a nice shiny milestone (ie reaching a TL and getting access to *insert thing here*).

*Assume we translate 7 trainer levels into a 1-10 points system. The average level X mon would cost 10X/7 points. By taking the number of mon you have at each level and the level of those mon - a TL2 currently gets 18 level 2 mon and 2 level 3 mon, for example - we can assign a points value to each level that looks like this (which also accounts for the extra slot every 50 TP):

Spoiler: show
TL1 = 27
TL2 = 60
TL3 = 104
TL4 = 159
TL5 = 230
TL6 = 313

Meanwhile taking TP being directly translated into acquisition points plus a starting value of 15-20 when a player reaches what is currently the TP threshold for each TL they'll have the following points;

TL1 = 15-20
TL2 = 45-50
TL3 = 90-95
TL4 = 135-140
TL5 = 215-220
TL6 = 315-320


The new system would lag behind slightly for the most part but that's offset by two things. A) currently you're stuck at the value until you reach a new threshold (a TL2 player with 74 TP still has a squad "value" the same as a guy who's just reached TL2, whereas in the new system they have essentially the exact same value as someone just reaching TL3) and also that a TL3 or 4 player will still have a number of acquisition level 1 or 2 mon on their squad that either don't evolve further or that they haven't reached the next evo form for yet). Someone who's just reached TL2 would be better off under the old system, someone just barely shy of TL3 is better off in the proposed new one, and someone halfway through TL2 is about on par with both. Similar progression with the spikes smoothed out.

Jerichi 09-18-2017 07:40 PM

Ok, I'm reasonably satisfied with what's been proposed so far. I like the idea of a point system where you buy individual mon with whatever currency you have and then matches are balanced by point limits in the matches. Let's assume that system (or something similar) going forward. I also like the idea of TLs as sort of a progression thing; maybe we still tie Legend Challenges and other things that might be good to lock away to those.

I think the next problem to tackle is reffing and reffing accessibility. I know we've already begun working on that to some extent and the suggestions I've seen (FAQs, coaching, etc.) are all good but I'd like to expand. A few more questions:

1) What specifically about reffing is most unappealing that discourages you from reffing?

2) What is the hardest thing to learn about reffing?

3) What could be simplified without detracting from fun/interest?

4) What incentives would you like to see tied to reffing?

I'm sure there are other questions to be asked but these feel like the most basic.

Snorby 09-18-2017 10:36 PM

Quote:

1) What specifically about reffing is most unappealing that discourages you from reffing?
It's a terrible mix of boring, frustrating, and time consuming. There's little room for creativity in actually writing reffings up, so you're stuck with the same drab thing over and over unless you want the battlers bitching at you for writing too much about simple orders- their poor eyes apparently can't handle more than 100 words or so.

It's also frustrating, not only because of battlers who nitpick every little thing and try to force their opinion onto you, but because sometimes move descriptions don't give you too much of any idea about how the move and another move/mechanic interact. I've gotten good at figuring that out for myself by now but that's an issue for a whole lot of folks.

And then for me personally one thing I hate about it is having the notes done and knowing exactly what's gonna happen but then having to spend 25 minutes writing up a bunch of uninteresting fluff to go with the meat of it. I can deal with barebones reffings (though I wouldnt like it) and I'd love to make reffings a creative outlet in terms of the actual writing, but neither of those are acceptable in the current climate, so you're stuck with a shitty mish-mash of the two.
Quote:

2) What is the hardest thing to learn about reffing?
As mentioned earlier, subtle nuances in how moves/mechanics interact and work. This goes beyond something like "What screen protects from Water Gun" where the answer is simple, it's more like "How does the battle change when the battlers cant see eachother due to Haze/Mist/whatever?", "How does freezing work?", "What are the effects of intimidation?"- frequently asked questions with difficult, far from uniform answers.
Quote:

3) What could be simplified without detracting from fun/interest?
I think we could pretty easily have effects defined without losing too much. We should be able to tell people what freezing does, how intimidation changes the battle, etc. We don't need to tell people exactly when Bulldoze should and shouldn't be interrupting, but they probably need to know how interruption itself works.

Quote:

4) What incentives would you like to see tied to reffing?
I'm gonna drop an unpopular opinion: Some things NEED to be gated behind reffing. Whether you like reffing or not, and very few people do, it's objectively a necessity for the game to function. We need people to do it, and a way to make that happen is to make sure that if you don't contribute to the game by reffing you can't get ALL the coolest toys. I'm not saying we should gate Pokemon behind reffing, in fact I'd advocate against that (except in the case of legend challenges or something like that that's decidedly a luxury) but there needs to be a tangible benefit to reffing that you can't get without reffing, and ideally it should be significant enough to make people actually ref so that they can have said thing.

Legend challenges, tokens/items, the highest TL or highest couple TLs, maybe participation fees for cool events are the things that come to mind immediately, but there could be more stuff.

biggggg5 09-19-2017 03:29 AM

I don't have much to add from Snorby's except that move ranges and sizes and maybe speeds could also stand to be defined. (At least an "average" example of the move) and that if we really want to motivate reffing we put sigs behind it. Maybe start out with some free ones but have to pay for them will force a lot of people to ref.

Concept 09-19-2017 08:04 AM

I think a main thing to address is helping newbies feel like they have a solid grasp of what they're doing. A proper Reffing 101 would go a long way. Set out how it works clearly with all the stuff a solid C grade should be sticking to, with links to things like attack descriptions, such species characteristics, a rough nguide to how statuses work. Make it clear throughout all this that more experienced refs may invoke the pony to add more nuance. It would also help to codify Muyonese whispers a bit more and change things up less often. A lot of good improvements have come from rewrite but parties but it's all for naught if refs get tired of having to check through four pages of a thread to make sure Ice Beam still works the way they remember it. Bring these rewrite parties down to every six months or so, make then an open discussion on the forum, and when they're done release a complete new attack and SC list (including every move, even if only a handful have changed) dated so people know that the one place they have to look. Keep old lists archived for people involved in matches started before the rewrites.

Beyond that, there needs to be a certain amount of culture shift in how battlers approach disagreements with their ref. I still support a challenge system a la tennis to formalise it as a thing that will happen while restricting how often it happens. Perhaps with extra allowances for stuff like gym matches, etc. If we properly codify everything and make a good Reffing 101 the number of technical issues with new refs should drop anyway, and the majority of complaints as I remember them are either the pony or battlers being salty things didn't go their way. A challenge system encourages battlers to prioritise issues which are a) actually significant and b) they're reasonably confident the ref is actually wrong about rather than just hoping to swing the refs discretion in their favour.

Also let refs do cool shit. We have a nice progression system for battlers getting access to legend matches etc. Refs need the same kind of thing. Higher rank refs should get things like being able to ref legend matches, run DMs and mini-tournaments, do exhibitions outside the normal rules etc. Some of that already exists but we could expand on it). People want to be GLs etc so they try hard to improve their battling. I think there'd be a decent amount of enthusiasm for doing that kind of thing which would work well as an incentive if we tied it to getting better at reffing, particularly if we make the work of reffing less of a pain in the arse as I said above. This does rely on regular ref evals though (3-6 monthly say).

An additional more punitive option is to tie battle slots to reffing. Say two battle slots standard plus one for every match you're currently reffing up to some cap (five total excluding special matches like gyms etc?).

Snorby 09-19-2017 10:12 AM

Iron, we just said we're gonna assume we don't have squad slots, so I'm gonna just assume you mean a small 'mon point bump.

Codifying stuff like ranges and sizes and speeds is a little to extreme for my taste. You quickly start losing the little things you have control over as a ref that can make reffing fun.

More or less agree with pretty much everything else that's been said. Though I think we should be careful not to gate TOO much behind reffing- it could either be tied to battle slots or sig moves, but certainly not both. And I'm not sure there's a need for a point bump if you have one of those gated behind it.

Oh, and I also want to say that while I'm fine with the concept of "Good refs getting to ref cool shit", we need to have much more than just that. A: It's not really an incentive for mediocre refs, B: Gifting refs who fundamentally dislike reffing more opportunities to ref isn't gonna motivate all of them. Since they're cooler opportunities it will definitely motivate some of them, but lots of people won't care.

biggggg5 09-19-2017 08:29 PM

I'm not sure how defining some ranges and sizes of moves would hurt. Or at least better approximations. Maybe it can even help differentiate some moves that are too similar.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.