View Single Post
Old 09-23-2017, 06:41 PM   #50
The Scientist
Altocharizard55's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,205
I think that there's a good point to looking into ways to restrict people from swapping in and out their squads for gym leader/E4 abuse, but I don't feel like punishing people for changing their minds/testing things out is the way to go about it. By not returning the full value of AP (in my system) for Pokemon returns, players (especially newer players) would be punished for reworking their squad if they decide that something isn't quite working out for them. I actually really like that in the current system there's a lot of freedom in that regard.

At the same time, there is definitely a problem to be addressed. The easiest (IMO) suggestion to mitigate the aforementioned abuse in the system I proposed would be to require 'mon to be on one's squad for either X battles or T time until they are eligible for use in Gym matches. Having said that, this introduces another degree of bookkeeping.


Why I don't like a straight up purchase system: I've mentioned it before, but these aren't going to be very amenable to change. Let's say we "price" a 'mon at 10, and later decide it is too good for that price range and increase the price to 15. What happens to everyone who bought it at 10? Going back and making them pay a permanent 5 extra to keep the 'mon seems bad. There's a lot more freedom in an allocation-style system, as a player could simply modify the rest of their squad to accommodate the 'mon being increased in price. Plus, we don't have to worry about sellbacks, sellback pricing, etc. I just see it as being a lot more of a pain in the ass than the system I proposed (or something similar).


SE system: Switching to 4/6 would more or less nullify the point of swapping over in the first place numerically. Having said that, I agree with Snorby that a change like this would require testing beforehand.


Reffing Challenges: I can see the merit in implementing a system like this, but I'm also on the conservative end of things. While such may make reffing less of a pain for some refs, it also incentivizes battlers to not let newer refs take their matches, which ultimately ends up being unhealthy for the league. I think there are better ways to go about curbing argumentative behavior, and I feel that this is really only detrimental on the extreme end (A big one is that there should be more consistent disciplinary action taken against battlers who are warned for being overly argumentative).

I'm open to talking more about this, but I think it would come down to the exact implementation for this to be okay. I have a few other ideas as far as ref training goes, but those are still a bit unformed and I want to flesh them out a little more before trying to discuss them.


TL 4 (35-21-6)
Current owner of the Onslaught Badge and the Monolith Badge
Previous owner of the Indurate Badge and the Dual Wing Badge (Pre-scrap)
216 TP - 84 KOs - 20 SP (11 SP Debt to Machamp-X)
(W/L/D and stats recompiled as of 4/25/17)
Observe. Adapt. Evolve.
Altocharizard55 is offline