UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > Independent Forums > Fizzy Bubbles > FB Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-23-2017, 10:45 AM   #1
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Pumpkaboo Registration, Starter Pokemon, and Resetting

Hello everyone. Given that the subforum now exists, I think that this is an important topic to discuss. Right now we don't really have much a consensus on what we wish to do in these three areas, and the purpose of this thread is to hash something out that would allow us to put these systems into place.

There is a Google Doc here, which gives a concise idea on some of the ideas pitched on this issue as well are where many people sit on things like Starter Pokemon and the Registration Test.

Feel free to give your opinions and suggestions on the topic. Ideally, I hope we can have something like this finished by the time the new mods come in. Resetting is something I think we can accomplish by ourselves since I don't think there is much we need to do there though.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 10:58 AM   #2
Lil'twick
Insanity
 
Lil'twick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fizzy Bubbles
Posts: 5,751
Send a message via Skype™ to Lil'twick
Reading over the doc, most of the ideas in there are solid. I support just having a RP test, to show that the quality and potential is there. As for starters, while the previous list had some good ideas, some of the restrictions still made zero sense. Things like Type: Null or Tauros shouldn't be starters, but let people start with a Goomy or Pikachu if they want to. Also the resetting thread is probably the best idea. It allows people to soft and hard reset, and shows how they're doing their reset. Also the adoption center tie in is a good one, as it'll allow people ot adopt new Pokemon without potential AC droughts.

These are just my preliminary thoughts and can go more into depth if needed.
__________________


I fill my lungs with everything
You want someone that I can't be
You say it's insanity, but
I say that's my life

Fizzy Bubbles
Lil'twick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 11:00 AM   #3
Whimsy
Dance till you're dead~
 
Whimsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Literally everywhere
Posts: 1,888
Send a message via Skype™ to Whimsy
Ok so first of all I'm of the opinion that we should allow some of the Baby Pokemon's evolutions to be starters, but not all of them. If I had to split it up, I'd say Pikachu, Clefairy, Jigglypuff, Marill, Roselia, Wobbuffet and possibly Chimecho. I'm not quite sure about Mr. Mime, Sudowoodo and Mantine but the others I feel are either "too rare" or "too powerful" to be starters. Though this does bring up the issue of that split seeming arbitrary and that we should allow exceptions for all the pokemon.

With regards to resetting, I believe that a trainer should be allowed to keep as many of their pokemon as they wish, and any remaining pokemon should be put up for adoption. speakingofadoption*coughcough*
With regards to items, I'm of two minds. Part of me feels that resetting and losing all items wouldn't be as big of a deal as resetting and losing all pokemon would be, but on the other hand if I were to reset, I'd lose my three evolution stones for my Panpour/Sear/Sage and that would be no good at all.
Currency is the easiest to decide on, that can be reset ez. Though if people would want it we could allow them to use up as much of their currency as they please on something or other.

A resetting thread is a good idea just so people have somewhere to document things.

Finally, no forced resets please. If everyone is forced to reset it'll just lead to resentment and possibly to member loss which we just cannot handle right now
__________________


Spoiler: show
Fizzy Bubbles Profile/Whimlist/ASB/Wild Future
Inactive Ref, laziness op~

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost™ View Post
In Mother 3 Swampy was Flint and you were Hinawa. You two were a wonderful couple. Icarus was your dog, and Toy and I were your twin sons. Well, until a dinosaur impaled you through the heart. So yes, where is he!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
#still
#fucking
#salty



Last edited by Whimsy; 04-23-2017 at 11:47 AM.
Whimsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 11:17 AM   #4
Missingno. Master
An actual game I made!
 
Missingno. Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
Registration: Absolutely all for getting rid of the rules scavenger hunt. I did not have much trouble with my FB registration test if memory serves, but I'm aware that I am by no means the majority on that. A registration test for FB should emphasize RPing skills over a comprehensive knowledge of the rules, IMO. I mean, I can see the logic behind the old test to an extent- you want to make sure newcomers are aware of the rules- but as I said, the RPing skills, that's what's important.


Starters: I've often been baffled by a lot of the restrictions behind starters. I mean, obviously, being able to start off with a Groudon or a Politoed, that would be something of a problem, but then you had a bunch of Pokémon that were just barred from being starters for arbitrary reasons- I mean, you could start with Gothita but not Solosis. That's just screwy.

One idea I have is, we make it so the only things you absolutely can't start with are as follows;
-Evolved Pokémon that are not evolved from baby Pokémon (IE: Clefairy and Roselia would be allowed as starters, but not Weezing and Victreebel)
-Legendaries

And make a list of stuff that could be started with, but your registration post must contain a well-written backstory for it. This could include the following;
-Shinies
-Any Ultra Rares (Type: Null, Phione, fossils)


Resetting: I'm all for making it an allowable option. Emphasis on "option"- I'm absolutely against forcing everyone to start fresh. I like the idea of a resetting thread, something to keep the mods up to speed on what kinds of changes would be made, let them make sure everything that's being done is OK.
__________________
Missingno. Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 11:28 AM   #5
Nerd Violence
Sayonara Bye Bye
 
Nerd Violence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,003
All I ask is that if Starter allowances change, existing members are grandfathered in if their starters are rendered no longer acceptable. I'd hate to lose my starter; something like that would lead to a lot of resentment.
__________________


Meet me at
Spirit ★ World

!!!

Nerd Violence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 11:43 AM   #6
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Nothing here is going to address a mandatory reset: the community has made it rather obvious we don't want it. This is the kind of thing I feel would be going off-topic.

Quote:
-Evolved Pokémon that are not evolved from baby Pokémon (IE: Clefairy and Roselia would be allowed as starters, but not Weezing and Victreebel)
This is a good idea, but there is also a difference between Clefairy and Snorlax or Hitmonchan.

Quote:
And make a list of stuff that could be started with, but your registration post must contain a well-written backstory for it. This could include the following;
-Shinies
-Any Ultra Rares (Type: Null, Phione, fossils)
I think starting with Shinies is fine, but I disagree with starting with the "ultra rares". I think it goes against the flavor of these Pokemon to have them be available as a starter, even with a very well developed post. But I might be in the wrong here.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 12:11 PM   #7
Missingno. Master
An actual game I made!
 
Missingno. Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
This is a good idea, but there is also a difference between Clefairy and Snorlax or Hitmonchan.
A fair point. Lemme go over the stuff that evolves from baby Pokémon real quick, pick out which ones might in fact be a bit much to start out with, at least in my opinion.

Ones that should be OK: Pikachu, Clefairy, Jigglypuff, Togetic, Marill, Wobbuffet, Roselia, Chimecho.

Unsure about: Sudowoodo, Mr. Mime, Mantine.

Too much: Hitmonlee, Hitmonchan, Hitmontop, Jynx, Electabuzz, Magmar, Chansey, Snorlax, Lucario.

On a related note, are we allowing all baby Pokémon, or putting restrictions on any of those as well?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
I think starting with Shinies is fine, but I disagree with starting with the "ultra rares". I think it goes against the flavor of these Pokemon to have them be available as a starter, even with a very well developed post. But I might be in the wrong here.
My thinking here was that you'd have to come up with a damn good backstory and write it well, put in that kind of effort in order to earn the right to start with something that rare, though I won't deny it still might be a bit much to allow starting with something so rare.
__________________
Missingno. Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 12:15 PM   #8
Schala
Savior of Pokemon-kind
 
Schala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
I think we just have to decide on a specific set of criteria that all Pokemon are graded on, which we use for all subsequent generations as well.

For instance: "Your starter Pokemon must have been either a starter Pokemon, or catchable in any main line Pokemon game. It can not be a legendary Pokemon. It cannot be shiny. It can only be the lowest stage available in that Pokemon line (barring possible exception for Pikachu/Celfairy/etc, though the part of me that wants to make this as simplified as possible says to just axe exceptions, so either every basic stage of a baby line that is catchable in a main line game is allowed or none are)."

That, to my knowledge would disqualify Type:Null, Phione, and Fossil Pokemon, as well as every legendary, of course. It also prevents Pokemon that are allowed from becoming disallowed in the future because their rarity in the current generation has changed.

I think that allowing any non legendary or shiny Pokemon, for a "well developed" post is another layer of complexity to add into it. I suppose I'm game for that as long as the ones approving special Pokemon are consistent about the level of quality needed to obtain them. It wouldn't be fair if say, two people with different ideas of what is 'good enough' were approving starters.
Schala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 01:05 PM   #9
Missingno. Master
An actual game I made!
 
Missingno. Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schala View Post
For instance: "Your starter Pokemon must have been either a starter Pokemon, or catchable in any main line Pokemon game. It can not be a legendary Pokemon. It cannot be shiny. It can only be the lowest stage available in that Pokemon line (barring possible exception for Pikachu/Celfairy/etc, though the part of me that wants to make this as simplified as possible says to just axe exceptions, so either every basic stage of a baby line that is catchable in a main line game is allowed or none are)."
I do agree that simplicity is a good thing to shoot for here, but considering that the evolutions of baby Pokémon are just so diverse... It's like Emi said- starting with Clefairy is one thing, but starting with a Snorlax, that's a whole other swarm of Yanma right there. If we allow all baby evolutions, then we allow starting with the likes of Jigglypuff and Marill, not altogether unreasonable, though that opens the floodgates for people who want to come in with the likes of Snorlax and Chansey... On the other hand, a blanket ban on baby evos means that while we keep out the more broken possibilities, such as starting with freaking Lucario, we also prohibit some of the more reasonable starter choices. I'm all for simplicity, but in my personal opinion, none of the easy answers are really gonna solve this one. There's no one criteria we can go with- if we prohibit baby evos that were fully evolved at the time of their introduction, that would forbid starting with stuff like Roselia, Chimecho, and Togetic, all of which I at least feel still fall on the more reasonable side of things. If we only allow baby evos that can still evolve further, on the other hand, we're still letting in Chansey, Electabuzz, and Magmar. Unless someone can come up with something I'm missing here, the only way to really be fair to every Pokémon this concerns is to decide which baby evos are allowed on a case by case basis.

I also have the question of where this would leave Pikachu if we do just an outright ban on starting with stuff that evolves from baby Pokémon- would it be barred as well, meaning only Pichu can be a starter out of that evolution line, or would Pikachu's status as the starter in Yellow take precedence there?

__________________
Missingno. Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 01:13 PM   #10
Heather
Naga's Voice
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
Quite frankly, letting people start with some rare/special Pokémon at the sole cost of a good intro bio kind of puts me off. I'm sure Type Null has been resolved in most of our heads already, but low hanging fruit. Type: Null is the sort of thing that I would be going on at least one epic level adventure for, likely two, even, and this is regarding Marion's ideas about adventure length. Quite frankly, you can't match that level of complexity in a registration without writing an actual novel, and forcing anyone to have to read and evaluate that is simply not fair. In my opinion, just don't bother with a system like that beyond "if I would require a novel for a person to start with this, maybe let's not allow it as a starter."
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
Quoth the Honchkrow (nevermore!).
Fizzy Member Post: Catherine Park
Heather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 01:34 PM   #11
Schala
Savior of Pokemon-kind
 
Schala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missingno. Master View Post
I do agree that simplicity is a good thing to shoot for here, but considering that the evolutions of baby Pokémon are just so diverse... It's like Emi said- starting with Clefairy is one thing, but starting with a Snorlax, that's a whole other swarm of Yanma right there. If we allow all baby evolutions, then we allow starting with the likes of Jigglypuff and Marill, not altogether unreasonable, though that opens the floodgates for people who want to come in with the likes of Snorlax and Chansey... On the other hand, a blanket ban on baby evos means that while we keep out the more broken possibilities, such as starting with freaking Lucario, we also prohibit some of the more reasonable starter choices. I'm all for simplicity, but in my personal opinion, none of the easy answers are really gonna solve this one. There's no one criteria we can go with- if we prohibit baby evos that were fully evolved at the time of their introduction, that would forbid starting with stuff like Roselia, Chimecho, and Togetic, all of which I at least feel still fall on the more reasonable side of things. If we only allow baby evos that can still evolve further, on the other hand, we're still letting in Chansey, Electabuzz, and Magmar. Unless someone can come up with something I'm missing here, the only way to really be fair to every Pokémon this concerns is to decide which baby evos are allowed on a case by case basis.

I also have the question of where this would leave Pikachu if we do just an outright ban on starting with stuff that evolves from baby Pokémon- would it be barred as well, meaning only Pichu can be a starter out of that evolution line, or would Pikachu's status as the starter in Yellow take precedence there?
Like I said, there's just a part of me that sees exceptions as complicating things, because you could argue a lot of things either way, and having exceptions naming specific Pokemon opens the door for more exceptions. Suddenly we have a system similar to what we had before, where things are allowed and disallowed in what many might think of as an arbitrary fashion, especially if no one can agree on what should and shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't mean we can't make exceptions, just that they open the door to a lot more issues and complications down the line.

I don't know that a perfect system to figure out starters exists. The best we can manage might be finding something that puts most of the Pokemon on the right side of the line, and be able to live with the few that aren't.

See, I actually disagree on Togetic, because Togepi wasn't created later like most baby Pokemon. For me, Togetic, like Lucario, is a much clearer cut 'evolved Pokemon'. They never existed as the most basic form. Edit: there are also some Pokemon that don't exist in the wild while the baby form does. You cannot catch Hitmonchan or Hitmonlee in any main game as it stands for instance, so they would not be allowed as starter choices under my example. I'll see if I can't make a list of any others.

The way the that my example was written would disallow Pikachu from being chosen. Pichu is the lowest available form in that line, and the Pokemon must fit ALL criteria. It doesn't mean that you couldn't change it to say something like "Any Pokemon choosable as a starter can be chosen at the form it is obtained as a starter in the games" or something to allow Pikachu, however.

Last edited by Schala; 04-23-2017 at 01:40 PM.
Schala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 01:44 PM   #12
Ex-Admiral Insane
Marsh Badge
 
Ex-Admiral Insane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Neverland
Posts: 1,791
Send a message via Skype™ to Ex-Admiral Insane
Giving my two cents on what's been given so far;

I'm in agreement with removing the questionnaire part of the registration test. If the rules are clearly provided in the opening post of shops, registration threads and zones then I'm sure people can follow them with or without that test. I'm all for having a RP test decide if someone is capable enough to join. My question for this though is who gets to decide what is and isn't good as quality can be a subjective matter and is dependent on the examiner. Before, we had mods do everything that pertained to accepting new members; giving the test, examining it and approving members. If we keep this it means we allow only three people to decide these matters, and one of the problems with old!FB was the the mods took up too much responsibility and control. I think ZAs - who should have been approved as ZAs for being great writers in the first place - should also have the power to approve new members. As for removing bias and the subjective part of the examination it's usually best to have more than one person involved in approving members without it having to slow down the whole process because of discussion. I don't like the idea of blatantly copying WF but something like a '3-approval strikes' from different members is quick and efficient and polls an opinion from a slightly larger pool. Add to that, if we can get the approvers to add their feedback to the player it will help the member in knowing what they've done right and where they can improve upon in the future.

As for the RP test itself, I have two minor (alternate) suggestions:
1. Make the RP test be a zone intro. It will better show if a person understands the idea of not self-updating. Add to that, it won't give the member the idea that their piece is cast aside immediately upon joining. After being accepted they can copy their RP test straight into a zone, instead of having provided work on a quality piece only to have to redo it entirely again.

2. Have the RP test be the backstory itself. Downside to this is that it doesn't show if a person understands roleplaying in zones. Upside to this is that the player has to provide reason for their character having X Pokémon if needed. Make the person justify their reason for having a rare Pokémon they want - instead of just doing it because they like it. This one is also hugely dependent on whether we restrict certain Pokémon from being starters or not.

As for starting Pokémon, I do believe that some restriction should be put in place, and unfortunately I don't think it can be done by a simple rule. Instead we'll need a list of what is and isn't allowed, the same way we might have to make a list on rarities. But I consider these lists to be fluid in that Pokémon will probably change in rarity over time anyway. Just looking at ASB, they too often discuss Pokémon characteristics and restrictions periodically. It's not that I want to continuously change Pokémon rarities but I think we need to consider the possibility that that will have to happen every so often with community input.
BTW, Alto (and I) have made a starting list for rarities we can work off of if we want to. (The idea is that anything but Rare+ can be used as a starter.)

If I had to restrict starter Pokémon I would at least mention Fossils and Pseudo-legendaries. If we're not going to have restrictions then I definitely believe the player should have to write a good backstory that justifies how they have an Aerodactyl, rather than just 'because I like it'.
As for Type: Null, I practically consider it to be on par with legendaries even if it isn't one itself. Albeit, a near-legendary that will have a lot less restrictions on it than most others.

EDIT:
Oh, and about resetting. No mandatory (full-on) reset as it'll put off a lot of people. It's been said enough times I think. A reset on items I could understand, especially if we're changing currency but I agree with Whimsy that we should allow people to have a buffer period in which they get to use their items or currency for whatever it is they want. Otherwise you're just going to have a group of people who are frustrated about not having it spent before the FB overhaul, rather than people who understand the decision to wipe it.
__________________
ASB Profile
Fizzy Bubbles Profile|Wishlist Post
Wild Future

Fizzy Bubbles Team:
Spoiler: show
Party:
Traitors:
Lost Souls:

Last edited by Ex-Admiral Insane; 04-23-2017 at 01:51 PM.
Ex-Admiral Insane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 02:25 PM   #13
Escalion
Getting married! :D
 
Escalion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,158
Send a message via Skype™ to Escalion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-Admiral Insane View Post
As for starting Pokémon, I do believe that some restriction should be put in place, and unfortunately I don't think it can be done by a simple rule. Instead we'll need a list of what is and isn't allowed, the same way we might have to make a list on rarities. But I consider these lists to be fluid in that Pokémon will probably change in rarity over time anyway. Just looking at ASB, they too often discuss Pokémon characteristics and restrictions periodically. It's not that I want to continuously change Pokémon rarities but I think we need to consider the possibility that that will have to happen every so often with community input.
BTW, Alto (and I) have made a starting list for rarities we can work off of if we want to. (The idea is that anything but Rare+ can be used as a starter.
This is something I disagree with. For FB I believe, much like Schala, that we need some criteria that we judge all Pokémon on now, and for future generations. This because ASB is much more fluid in itself and you can change Pokémon in your team basically any time you want. FB is different, once a starter is chosen, that's it. And with a fluid system like you propose you'll inevitably end up with people saying things like "I wanted [Pokémon] as starter too but I wasn't allowed?!"

Making a rarity list that's more fluid is one thing, we had that before with the Egg House anyways, that's fine but let that be in relation to Eggs and the new AC. But for the starter Pokémon I think we should look for some uniform criteria to judge all Pokémon by. And something like "No end game Pokémon can be a starter" already blocks a hell of a lot of really rare and powerful, if not all.


As for registration; A simple RP test should be enough, in zone style I think is best, to help get a feel for that.

And resets; Let people decide for themselves, I most definitely won't be resetting, and allow for soft and hard resets.
__________________
Escalion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 02:38 PM   #14
Sneaze
Mrow?
 
Sneaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,934
>starters

Honestly the easiest way to handle this is exactly what Schala has suggested. It just gives the absolute most options available to people. Sure, you don't get to start with a Pikachu, but you get a Pichu and honestly if you want you've got your Pikachu in no time flat. The primary factor here is that people can still get that special Pokemon they want, with a tiny bit of work, as opposed to an arbitrary rarity list where people get screwed out of things for what, to them, is seemingly no reason.

>registration

Honestly can someone right here and now tell me why we would actually need a test? Just make sure they've fleshed out a character and whatnot and they can learn as they go. If they accidentally break a rule of any kind just give them a little bit of a wagging finger and explain the situation. No need to overcomplicate what should be a simple process.

>resets

Just let people do whatever here. If they want to hard reset, go for it. If they want to soft reset and drop some stuff, that's fine too. If they want to reset so soft it makes Charmin look bad and drop moves or individual levels on Pokemon, cool, it's not like it's an abusable system to be having a net loss.
__________________

Daisy wins at life for making this Battle Cut
Sneaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 03:08 PM   #15
OkikuMew
Droppin' CDs and beats
 
OkikuMew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Quebec province, Canada
Posts: 2,348
Hey there! I'm still having a hard time to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best, a little at a time, to do so

>Starters
Legendaries are a no-go, obviously. Just to be safe, I would throw in the terms of mystical, ultra beasts, guardian deities and Pikachu variants (surfing, flying, cosplay) for good measure.

For the whole evolution thing, I had something like MM said in terms of exceptions with baby Pokémon, but as he says, it's not possible to be simple about it. The best I can think of is to either:
  • Ban all evolutions, from babies or not; or
  • Agree and list out the exceptions for the "no evolutions" rule.

For the second solution, here's a list of all the evolved (next stage) baby Pokémon, and I have color coded what I would like to suggest: green those I think their next evolution should be available as starters (because they're not that rare and not as powerful), red for those that should be banned as starters (too OP/rare), and yellow those I am not sure:
  • Pikachu
  • Clefairy
  • Jigglypuff
  • Togetic
  • Hitmonlee/Hitmonchan/Hitmontop
  • Jynx: Although they are part of that "trio" of sorts, Jynx isn't as powerful as the others and doesn't have a second evolution. Thoughts?
  • Electabuzz
  • Magmar
  • Marill
  • Wobbuffet: In one hand, they're not super-rare and is a cool, general Pokémon. On the other, it is still kinda rare, and also can be very powerful. So I dunno?
  • Roselia
  • Chimecho
  • Sudowoodo
  • Mr. Mime: A case where both the rarity and strength are in question...
  • Chansey
  • Snorlax
  • Lucario
  • Mantine

I also agree that Type: Null, Fossil Pokémon and shiny Pokémon should be banned too.

Oh, and I also want to put on the table question some Pokémon that are rare/have special abilities, but they're not legendaries:
  • Unown
  • Castform
  • Rotom
  • Ditto
  • Zorua
I may be missing some, so correct me if I'm wrong ^^; Should we banned those or not?



Registration test:

I agree for having that RP test evaluated by more than one person (by mods and VAs).

However, to be 100% honest, I'm not sure about removing the rules questionnaire part. I understand that the rules are there and can be looked into any time, but FB has a LOT of rules and a LOT of stuff to look into, and it would be nice to have something that will tell us that the new member has, at the very least, look into some of the basic stuff. Perhaps we could strip down those questions into very basic ones, instead of super-specific, so that way we get a sense that the person who's trying to get into at least looked at the rules beforehand and knows all the things this RP has to offer? Or perhaps we could make it that although the questionnaire is there, failing to answer a few questions correctly will not make a person fail its entry, but instead just give the correct answers?



Resets:

I am definitely down to be able to do resets (without being forced) and that at any time. I also fully support having a thread to keep track of those resets. I, for one, would like to do something close to a hard reset.

What I'm wondering though, although that's more of a case-specific situation... I dunno if the kind of reset I want to do would be legit.

I would like to do is to nuke everything from the beginning, as if I'm registering again (so all my previous items/Pokémon are gone, getting the basic starting items, getting a starter Pokémon, etc).... for the exception of keeping one single Pokémon from my original team, that is my Cosplay Pikachu. (Because dammit, it's as rare as you can get in terms of FB, and I sure will keep her if I can!) Do you think it's fine that I hard reset absolutely everything, and get a new starter Pokémon and items alongside of keeping that one (rare) Pokémon? Part of me think it's not fair as I'll be starting with two Pokémon, one being effing rare and the other that can be almost anything I want, but in another I think it is fair because I had to trade that "choice" for all my old Pokémon and items. Thoughts?




ANTI DOUBLE-POST EDIT: In a completely unrelated subject of the current discussions, I just thought of something: Should we perhaps change what's included in the starter kit of items? Perhaps we could maybe add more flexibility for the members to choose from? Maybe (although I don't think it's the best idea, but hey throwing it in there) including a key stone and/or Z-Ring?
__________________

Art || FB || WF || Tumblr

Last edited by OkikuMew; 04-23-2017 at 04:21 PM.
OkikuMew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 04:21 PM   #16
Missingno. Master
An actual game I made!
 
Missingno. Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
I see Schala's point about Togetic. I just never really considered it to be on the same level as the likes of Hitmontop or Lucario- Togetic's never really been known as a strong Pokémon, which is likely why Togekiss became a thing to begin with. That said, I can see the logic behind disallowing it as a starter in any case- it still was never at any time the lowest point of its evolution family. Everything else we've been discussing can at least be said to have been considered unevolved at some point in their existence.


Still think that if there would be any exceptions to the "it can't be evolved" rule, Pikachu would be it. Even if it ends up the one and only exception, it just seems wrong to disallow it as a starter, considering it actually was a starter at one point.


The registration test... it should absolutely focus on RP more than rules, but a stripped-down rules questionnaire that exists to simply acquaint newcomers with the very basics, at the very least, would accomplish what I think the original registration test was meant to, without sending potential newcomers on an ultra-infuriating scavenger hunt.


Of the list Okiku gave, I can understand disallowing Rotom, Ditto, and Zorua as starters. Maybe Unown as well- it's rare, but pretty damn far from overpowered. IMO, that balances it out somewhat, but that's just my opinion. Castform, though, I'm not so sure about banning that one as a starter. It's not quite as rare as it once was, it's something you can catch in the wild, it's not really insanely overpowered... I mean, I'd agree it's kinda rare, but whether it's rare enough to warrant banning as a starter, I can't really be sure. What I'm worried about is getting right back into the territory of arbitrary starter bans, honestly. I mean, I don't think talking about Rotom, Ditto, Zorua, and Unown qualifies as heading that way, but I still want to be careful about that.


A reset like Okiku's talking about... I wouldn't be opposed to allowing it. One rule that's been consistent in FB for as long as I can remember is that you're stuck with your starter no matter what. It's why I chose to start with Koffing- start with the pre-evo of my favorite Pokémon, so I wouldn't want to get rid of it anyway. I see what she's saying about the potential unfairness of getting to choose a new starter while also keeping something from your old team, but then there are two good points that come up. One, Okiku's amassed an impressive team over time, including two Eeveelutions, two starters, a Mienfoo with Fire Spin, a Shiny Snover, and so forth, and she'd be willing to surrender all of that. And two, the one she's thinking of keeping is a freaking Cosplay Pikachu, one of only two in all of FB. Speaking as someone with the only Shadow Ledian in all of FB, I can understand the desire to not want to get rid of something so ridiculously rare.

EDIT:


Quote:
Originally Posted by OkikuMew View Post
Hof the current discussions, I just thought of something: Should we perhaps change what's included in the starter kit of items? Perhaps we could maybe add more flexibility for the members to choose from? Maybe (although I don't think it's the best idea, but hey throwing it in there) including a key stone and/or Z-Ring?
That's not a bad point. I myself once brought up the idea of adding the Key Stone to the starter pack, in fact. I like the idea- you can get the Key Stone and the Z-Ring to start with, but to get Z-Crystals and Mega Stones you still have to either earn them in zones or buy them with the money you earned in zones. I don't see any harm in allowing the Key Stone and Z-Ring to be included in the starter pack- they're useless without Mega Stones/Z-Crystals anyway. Just my two cents.
__________________
Missingno. Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 04:34 PM   #17
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
I don't agree with Rarity locking, because the rarity system is something we're not going to have a lot of fantastic justification though, but I'm also not the biggest fan of Schala's idea either. It's a great place to start with, but I still think its weird that we're going to force people to use Cleffa but then turn around and say to someone else "Oh sure, you can start with Druddigon." One of the problems with the old system is that it seemed arbitrary because we weren't given solid reasoning or any reasoning for why certain Pokemon were disallowed. We can not only do that, but make it transparent. I will say that if most people don't think this is a problem, but I'm not going to get upset if we don't do it.

We're at the very least allowing both Gothita and Solosis to be starters. God that was fuckng dumb.

Quote:
Honestly can someone right here and now tell me why we would actually need a test? Just make sure they've fleshed out a character and whatnot and they can learn as they go. If they accidentally break a rule of any kind just give them a little bit of a wagging finger and explain the situation. No need to overcomplicate what should be a simple process.
I don't believe we actually need a test to determine whether people read the rules or not. Most people aren't going to continually break the rules and the ones that do aren't going to be filtered out by such a thing. But I think making them respond to some kind of RP prompt is more than kosher.

Quote:
Oh, and I also want to put on the table question some Pokémon that are rare/have special abilities, but they're not legendaries:

Unown
Castform
Rotom
Ditto
Zorua

I may be missing some, so correct me if I'm wrong ^^; Should we banned those or not?
IMO none of these are actually issues. Especially stuff like Unown which isn't really rare and is actually hot garbage.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 05:35 PM   #18
Schala
Savior of Pokemon-kind
 
Schala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missingno. Master View Post
I see Schala's point about Togetic. I just never really considered it to be on the same level as the likes of Hitmontop or Lucario- Togetic's never really been known as a strong Pokémon, which is likely why Togekiss became a thing to begin with. That said, I can see the logic behind disallowing it as a starter in any case- it still was never at any time the lowest point of its evolution family. Everything else we've been discussing can at least be said to have been considered unevolved at some point in their existence.


Still think that if there would be any exceptions to the "it can't be evolved" rule, Pikachu would be it. Even if it ends up the one and only exception, it just seems wrong to disallow it as a starter, considering it actually was a starter at one point.
I see it as less of a "by strength" thing. After all, I believe one of the draws for FB is the fact that Pokemon don't have stats so there's a lot less focus on what is traditionally weak or strong. Starting with a Charmeleon doesn't make any more or less sense to me than starting with a Metapod. Pokemon that have baby forms that were created in a later generation than they were are a gray area, I agree. But I still see that as an all or nothing thing. I have no different opinion on a person starting with a Magmar than one starting with a Jigglypuff.

Like I said you can easily enough tweak wording to exclude or include certain Pokemon, such as what I mentioned earlier to allow Pikachu. I only see the problem when specific Pokemon outside of the guidelines are named to be allowed or disallowed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
I don't agree with Rarity locking, because the rarity system is something we're not going to have a lot of fantastic justification though, but I'm also not the biggest fan of Schala's idea either. It's a great place to start with, but I still think its weird that we're going to force people to use Cleffa but then turn around and say to someone else "Oh sure, you can start with Druddigon." One of the problems with the old system is that it seemed arbitrary because we weren't given solid reasoning or any reasoning for why certain Pokemon were disallowed. We can not only do that, but make it transparent. I will say that if most people don't think this is a problem, but I'm not going to get upset if we don't do it.
I should mention that I am hardly attached to the specific example I used. It was just that, an example of a way to determine which Pokemon are allowed to be chosen as starters that uses an 'objective' view. You can argue rarity, but rarity is subjective. Whether a Pokemon appeared in the wild/catch rates/what games a Pokemon appears in/the percentage chance a Pokemon has to appear/etc. Those are things that are easy to look up. All that has to be decided is what the benchmark for allowed or disallowed is and then it is applied to every Pokemon.

I chose that example because it was one of the first ways I thought of, the benchmark was simple, and what was allowed based on it aligned well with my beliefs on the matter. For the sake of full disclosure on the matter, I believe that barring legendary Pokemon and ones like Type:Null, with a near legendary status and canonically only three in existence, that people should have access to as many families of Pokemon as possible for starter choices. I put the focus on baby Pokemon because it is currently much more possible to evolve than devolve. I don't have much problem with people picking Snorlax over Munchlax personally (or any of them besides Togepi and Riolu lines for reasons I stated earlier), but if people are against letting people pick certain ones but not others, I'd prefer to only allow babies rather than having a list of 5-6 being banned for being "too strong" or "too rare".

The thing with forcing someone to start with Cleffa versus starting with Druddigon, is that it ultimately is up to the person. Is the person who starts with a Caterpie worse off than the person who chose a Piplup? If they were both happy with their pick, why should it matter? If a person wants a Clefairy, but has to start with a Cleffa, is that any worse than having to start with an Eevee even though you want an Espeon?

If people are allowed to get "rare" Pokemon as starters, will they deliberately choose them for their rarity? Probably some people, but starters are not tradable, and again, as long as they wanted that Pokemon to start with, should it really matter if they went "Well, I want an Eevee and a Zigzagoon, but I'll go with the Eevee as my starter because Zigzagoon will likely be easier to get later"?

-----
Since I said I would finish the list:
The list of Pokemon that would only be available via baby based on my example, even with non-babies being allowed from the line:
Hitmonchan
Hitmonlee
Hitmontop
Togetic
(Lucario and Snorlax both either exist as overworld and/or SOS encounters only, so you could ban those by disallowing those particular methods if you so chose)
Schala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 06:48 PM   #19
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Personally, I don't mind lifting any and all restrictions. Any restrictions the community does need in place (e.g. "No one can start with Mewtwo, because {Reason 1}{Reason 2}{Reason 3}[...]"), I feel should be what constitutes the ban list for starters. Anything else, I say go for it. So like ...

* Person has a really great idea for an RP with their trusty Arcanine who has been with them since they were a baby (and he was a Growlithe), but now they're a teen and he's an Arcanine, and like ... he's like their big guardian Totoro and they have this story in mind for him, and ... [etc, etc] ... I say go for it.

* Person wants to RP with a grandfatherly Beartic, inspired by Tracey's Old Man Logan Scyther from the Orange Islands arc of the anime. I say go for it.

* Person wants to RP with a pair of starters, two sisters, instead of just one starer. I say go for it. I have no problem with this.

"Fair", "Unfair", these notions only start to gain traction when trading, battling, and other inter-player activities come into play. What does it matter to you that someone else has what you don't have in a world where you're never going to cross paths? "If she's gonna have two starters, then I have to get two starters too! Otherwise it's unfair to me! But I don't want to have two starters! I have a great idea for this single starter!" Then just have the single starter. "NO! IF SHE HAS TWO, I HAVE TO HAVE TWO!" No you don't. Relax. You do you, you let her do her. "NOOOOOOOOO! I HAVE TO--" Stop. Stop right there. See, I think this is the problem with a lot of FB right now: losing sight of the bigger picture. You're not here for other people. (Are you?) You're here for you. So long as other people aren't harming your enjoyment of the game, you enjoy it just fine the way you want to enjoy it. It's no one else's fault but your own if you're an obsessive min-maxer who can't find happiness unless the rules, compliant with his min-maxing tendencies, allow him to have exactly the best case he was hoping for. Like, "Oh boy! The rules forbid everything except for starters like the one I have a great idea for! Oh boy, yes! I'm so excited!" Why? I mean, be excited. But why are you excited contingent on others' happiness being prohibited?

If you're going to ban a Mewtwo starter, do it because you're going to craft an FB where Mewtwo is 1) not ownable or else 2) ownable but only ownable under special circumstances.

If you're going to ban an Arcanine starter, do it because the same. Either Arcanine isn't ownable or else he is ownable but only to a select few. Don't say, "Well, he can only be owned by people who get their hands on a Fire Stone first." Why. Why does that even matter? Why are we poisoning the creativity well here and shitting on people's dreams for the perfect starter for their character?

Maybe I'm too coming at this too strongly with the mentality of a novelist and not an RPer. The mentality of someone who says, "I know the story I want to tell; and I want to tell it." But I feel like starters should be the kind of thing where we allow a pretty free rein, to encourage people to have fun with their No.1 starter of choice and to build a narrative around that bond.

But in conclusion, and just to be clear ... I am in favor of lifting restrictions on all of the following:
  • species (players can choose whatever they like, provided it's a Pokémon you could ordinarily own in FB)
  • coloration (shiny, non-shiny but different colored, makes no difference)
  • stage of evolution (I am perfectly comfortable with evolved starters)
  • number of starters (I am a-okay with duos or trios. Anything more starts to raise even my eyebrows.)
  • size (as ostracizing as it might be for the member, I even don't mind if someone wants to start with a starter as large as the griffin in The Last Guardian, and their updater can think of clever ways to update that person the same way you'd write scenarios for any story where a person's mount cannot follow them every step of the way)
I'm not saying I strongly advocate for each and every one of these bulleted points. Just that ... I think I have a fairly laid back position on starters compared with most of the members who have spoken up so far. And I'm kind of curious if people are assuming things as set in stone / matter of fact with starters, when really ... it's your guys' game, you're at the crossroads of a brand new era, you can re-write the rules to however you want.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 08:08 PM   #20
Meetan
Soul Badge
 
Meetan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: England
Posts: 1,041
Starting with legendaries is just an absolute no, and I'm sure I don't need to state the reasons why.

As for the other stuff, I get where you're coming from, but in a big multiplayer forum-wide RPG it's just a mess waiting to happen. When you're just writing with one other person, or where it's a plotted role play with a fully developed character and off you go, it's generally different. Evolved starters defeats the point of it being a /starter/, that the trainer's meant to be at some sort of beginning, and anything more than a duo is just too much. Three is half of a standard party, for Arceus sake. As for sizes, markings and things, I'm all down for that, though. I loved the Orange Archipelago, and they had giant Pokemon for days!

I'm not resetting, mind, so the rarities fight and stuff I'll leave to the others. I'm quite chillax about it. My favourite Pokemon would likely be available if I wanted to reset, anyway.
__________________
Meetan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 08:43 PM   #21
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schala View Post
I see it as less of a "by strength" thing. After all, I believe one of the draws for FB is the fact that Pokemon don't have stats so there's a lot less focus on what is traditionally weak or strong.
I feel like you're preaching a bit to the choir here; these aren't Smogon!RPs. Traditional stats have very little influence on any of the RPs on UPN, so a lot of us have experience in what makes things more different that just pure stats or abilities.

Quote:
Like I said you can easily enough tweak wording to exclude or include certain Pokemon, such as what I mentioned earlier to allow Pikachu. I only see the problem when specific Pokemon outside of the guidelines are named to be allowed or disallowed.
I don't see the issue with it as long as we're open, honest, transparent, and willing to listen. Because that's really where the issues lied in the previous list: it wasn't open, honest, or transparent. It was a list decided by one person instead of a community, and I feel if someone in the future says "Hey, I think X Pokemon being banned is unfair and here's why" we should be open to listen. I've done similar things and I've seen similar things work: it really does work well as long as the community is involved.


Quote:
I should mention that I am hardly attached to the specific example I used. It was just that, an example of a way to determine which Pokemon are allowed to be chosen as starters that uses an 'objective' view. You can argue rarity, but rarity is subjective. Whether a Pokemon appeared in the wild/catch rates/what games a Pokemon appears in/the percentage chance a Pokemon has to appear/etc. Those are things that are easy to look up. All that has to be decided is what the benchmark for allowed or disallowed is and then it is applied to every Pokemon.
Rarity gating is every bit as subjective as any other method, except it also has the added deficit of having less consistency because GF is dumb.

Quote:
The thing with forcing someone to start with Cleffa versus starting with Druddigon, is that it ultimately is up to the person. Is the person who starts with a Caterpie worse off than the person who chose a Piplup? If they were both happy with their pick, why should it matter? If a person wants a Clefairy, but has to start with a Cleffa, is that any worse than having to start with an Eevee even though you want an Espeon?
I think you have to view things from a different perspective here, because while we both have years in FB, anyone joining isn't going to have that. Let's say someone did actually want a Clefairy. For whatever reason. maybe they think Clefairy is the mascot Pokemon needs but doesn't deserve and that Pikachu should be slam-dunked into the depths of hell. So they go to sign up and see that you can't have any evolved Pokemon period. The person might be a little sad, but hey, Cleffa isn't that bad and its not like getting a Clefairy is too hard! But then someone signs up with a Druddigon. Or a Miltank. Or a Spiritomb. etc. Now this person is actually confused. Why was this limit put into place? Was it for balance? Probably not. After all, Druddigon is 4000x cooler than a Clefairy. So why?

In this regard, the only reasoning we have was "well its simpler". And you're right, but to the viewpoint of another person, its no less arbitrary. So its still forcing someone to make a choice. But I'd feel better disallowing the Druddigon because, says, its versatile and hence doesn't have the "feel" a starter should have, then to disallow Clefairy because we don't want people running around with Infernapes and Hydreigons and its just easier for us.

Rarity isn't really a factor for me, to remind you. I don't care if someone starts with an Eevee. Eevee isn't really rare anymore. There are plenty of places in the Pokemon world where you can catch Eevee. Just because you couldn't in Kanto doesn't make it rare. There will be exceptions to this for me. I'm uncomfortable with people starting out with fossils, for example, because I feel it betrays the lore of the games in regards to the fossil Pokemon. Same with something like Phione, or Type: Null, or legends. Ultimately, I think that having consistency for new people is also important. You must be this "short" to be a starter if we want to meme.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 09:52 PM   #22
Schala
Savior of Pokemon-kind
 
Schala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
I feel like you're preaching a bit to the choir here; these aren't Smogon!RPs. Traditional stats have very little influence on any of the RPs on UPN, so a lot of us have experience in what makes things more different that just pure stats or abilities.
I suppose so. I was specifically responding to a comment about allowing a Pokemon because it doesn't seem as strong as some of the other Pokemon. Given some of MM's team, he certainly knows first hand that traditionally weak Pokemon can be very strong here. Which is why disallowing something simply because it is a "strong Pokemon" seems silly given how FB works, at least in my opinion.

Quote:
I don't see the issue with it as long as we're open, honest, transparent, and willing to listen. Because that's really where the issues lied in the previous list: it wasn't open, honest, or transparent. It was a list decided by one person instead of a community, and I feel if someone in the future says "Hey, I think X Pokemon being banned is unfair and here's why" we should be open to listen. I've done similar things and I've seen similar things work: it really does work well as long as the community is involved.
Perhaps. I could certainly be acting as the pessimist here. I've seen cases where people brought up that they thought something shouldn't be banned while making a character, been shot down, and then when a newcomer asked about the same thing a few months down the line, had the GMs decide to unban it. It created a lot of resentment from the person that was turned down originally. I'm not necessarily saying that situation would happen here, but it's something to be concerned about with exceptions and fluid lists like this. We are obviously coming from different places, you have seen it work well, I have seen it destruct pretty badly. An active community might help, or say, if it was based on votes by members, an influx of new members might vote to unban at a later date after one vote has failed, possibly leaving those that originally wanted it upset that it didn't pass when they were choosing their starter. I want to keep things simple and cut down on the possibility that something like that occurs in the future, that's all.

Quote:
Rarity gating is every bit as subjective as any other method, except it also has the added deficit of having less consistency because GF is dumb.
I'm not really sure why you are bringing up rarity gating, since I'm arguing against it as well? Unless you meant my suggestion of picking a benchmark for something and sticking with it, in which case, yes, there is still some subjectivity, but it adds consistency. A list that just needs to have the new generation Pokemon added to it as they come out, with a specific criteria that allows for the easy sorting of said Pokemon, because the criteria is consistent.

Quote:
I think you have to view things from a different perspective here, because while we both have years in FB, anyone joining isn't going to have that. Let's say someone did actually want a Clefairy. For whatever reason. maybe they think Clefairy is the mascot Pokemon needs but doesn't deserve and that Pikachu should be slam-dunked into the depths of hell. So they go to sign up and see that you can't have any evolved Pokemon period. The person might be a little sad, but hey, Cleffa isn't that bad and its not like getting a Clefairy is too hard! But then someone signs up with a Druddigon. Or a Miltank. Or a Spiritomb. etc. Now this person is actually confused. Why was this limit put into place? Was it for balance? Probably not. After all, Druddigon is 4000x cooler than a Clefairy. So why?

In this regard, the only reasoning we have was "well its simpler". And you're right, but to the viewpoint of another person, its no less arbitrary. So its still forcing someone to make a choice. But I'd feel better disallowing the Druddigon because, says, its versatile and hence doesn't have the "feel" a starter should have, then to disallow Clefairy because we don't want people running around with Infernapes and Hydreigons and its just easier for us.
What does "coolness" have to do with balance?

As I said, I don't have any particular problem with allowing Pokemon with baby stages added after the fact to be chosen, I just want it to be consistent. If Clefairy is fine, then Jynx and Chansey should be too. Allowing evolutions, or disallowing single stage evolutions, because of how "cool" they are is arbitrary to the max. If something has to "feel like a starter" and not be too versatile, then how are we quantifying that? Only small, "cute" Pokemon? Only Pokemon with three stages? Pokemon that learn no more than x type of attacks/HMs?

Again, we will just have to disagree on things. I'd rather have Cleffa and Druddigon than Cleffa and Clefairy available. Those that want Cleffa get Cleffa, those that want Clefairy get a Pokemon that evolves into Clefairy, and those that want Druddigon get Druddigon. Sure, Druddigon, Cleffa, and Clefairy all being available might be best, but if something gets limited, I'd much rather axe the one with a pre-evolution available than the one that cuts off an entire line (evolutions or not).

Quote:
Rarity isn't really a factor for me, to remind you. I don't care if someone starts with an Eevee. Eevee isn't really rare anymore. There are plenty of places in the Pokemon world where you can catch Eevee. Just because you couldn't in Kanto doesn't make it rare. There will be exceptions to this for me. I'm uncomfortable with people starting out with fossils, for example, because I feel it betrays the lore of the games in regards to the fossil Pokemon. Same with something like Phione, or Type: Null, or legends. Ultimately, I think that having consistency for new people is also important. You must be this "short" to be a starter if we want to meme.
I mean, Eevee was just an example of something that has traditionally been in the rarer categories for eggs here, for example. Feel free to substitute any "rare" Pokemon in Fizzy Bubbles. Larvesta, starters, baby Pokemon, etc.

I think most people (besides Talon), are more or less in agreement with that list. No legendaries, no Type: Null, no Phione, and no fossils, seems to be something that everyone besides Talon in this thread have if not outright stated approval for, than something that they don't mind being a restriction.
Schala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 10:06 PM   #23
Missingno. Master
An actual game I made!
 
Missingno. Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schala View Post
Given some of MM's team, he certainly knows first hand that traditionally weak Pokemon can be very strong here. Which is why disallowing something simply because it is a "strong Pokemon" seems silly given how FB works, at least in my opinion.
This is a very true statement and a very valid point. In one adventure in Whale Island, I went up against a Scrappy Kangaskhan with a low-level Shuppet whose only moves were Knock Off, Flash, and Ominous Wind, and won. To say nothing of my Weedle!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schala View Post
I think most people (besides Talon), are more or less in agreement with that list. No legendaries, no Type: Null, no Phione, and no fossils, seems to be something that everyone besides Talon in this thread have if not outright stated approval for, than something that they don't mind being a restriction.
Yeah, overall, that list seems to be the way to go- no legendaries, no Ultra Rares. I would ultimately not be opposed to outright banning evolved forms of baby Pokémon, considering that they are, here and now, no longer unevolved, and you can always just start with the baby form and evolve it. I'd still argue in favor of making an exception for Pikachu, since it actually is a starter in a main series game, but if I'm in the minority in wanting that exception to exist, I got no problem letting it go.
__________________
Missingno. Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2017, 02:25 AM   #24
Schala
Savior of Pokemon-kind
 
Schala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missingno. Master View Post
This is a very true statement and a very valid point. In one adventure in Whale Island, I went up against a Scrappy Kangaskhan with a low-level Shuppet whose only moves were Knock Off, Flash, and Ominous Wind, and won. To say nothing of my Weedle!
I was actually thinking specifically of Hermione (and Albus as well, now), but that Shuppet battle sounds like it was an interesting challenge!

Quote:
Yeah, overall, that list seems to be the way to go- no legendaries, no Ultra Rares. I would ultimately not be opposed to outright banning evolved forms of baby Pokémon, considering that they are, here and now, no longer unevolved, and you can always just start with the baby form and evolve it. I'd still argue in favor of making an exception for Pikachu, since it actually is a starter in a main series game, but if I'm in the minority in wanting that exception to exist, I got no problem letting it go.
Pikachu as an actual starter in a game wouldn't be difficult to add in with a little rewording, even if evolved forms of baby Pokemon don't end up allowed overall.


Since I haven't weighed in on much besides the starters:

Registration Test:
I'm all for at the very least drastically cutting the questions part of the test. It's long (it took me at least twice as long, if not longer compared to the RP portion), intimidating, and frustrating. If we do keep a few questions just so people have a general idea of rules, having all of the answers in one thread so people don't have to go on a hunt, and as Okiku mentioned, making it so a wrong answer or two isn't a failure would be my vote. I certainly wouldn't be too sad to see that part of the test disappear, though.

I actually really like EAI's idea of making the test an intro to a zone that could then be used. At the very least, I think that should be an option. (I personally liked the "write a reply to this scenario" as well, so having the person choose to either respond to a prompt or write an intro to the zone of their choosing, perhaps?)

Having ZAs be able to weigh in and approve a test seems like a fine idea too, as long as there can be a decently quick turnaround on tests. I remember only having to wait a day or two for my test to be sent to me, and I heard back about the results fairly quickly as well, but I've noticed it taking weeks from when a person posted in the registration thread to their post being edited saying it was sent out. By that point, there's a good chance that that person has lost interest, so making sending out, grading, and sending back results something that occurs quickly is important. If any step (besides the person filling out the test, since there's no time limit unless we plan to implement one,) takes weeks, there's a problem.

Starter Pack:
I've got no problem with a Key stone and Z-ring being included in the starter pack, since they still have to purchase the stones and crystals to use them.

As for the stuff already in the starter pack, barring Pokedollars and coins changing in value drastically (which they might depending on the numbers the economy thread ends up with I suppose), those should be fine. Everything else in the starter pack is fine as it is. Other things added in can also be discussed.

Resets:
Specific thread is good. No forced resets (barring a possible currency reset if people feel it is necessary for the economy). People can choose what parts to reset. Pokemon can be dropped off at the Adoption Center by the person resetting if they want.



On another topic, since it hasn't actually been talked about that I've seen: Do we plan on keeping the starter level (Lv 5) as is? Does anyone want to argue for a change in starting level? (I assume no change, but I'm not sure how many people have even thought about it. I certainly didn't until right now.)
Schala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2017, 08:57 AM   #25
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
I think at the moment the best thing for us to do Schala is agree to disagree. I do think you bring up good points, and regardless if I agree with them or not I think the community should keep them in mind.

Quote:
Make the RP test be a zone intro. It will better show if a person understands the idea of not self-updating. Add to that, it won't give the member the idea that their piece is cast aside immediately upon joining. After being accepted they can copy their RP test straight into a zone, instead of having provided work on a quality piece only to have to redo it entirely again.
This is a good idea but I do have one concern on this: what if the zone they want to write an intro to is full? Let's say they really like Phantom Isle, but none of the updators in Phantom Isle have any spots open? This could be an issue in that they would probably have to write an entire intro again. A minor one, but I think if we want to do this its one we should address. It might be a good idea to mention in the registration test which zones are open, and allow to newcomer to either A) make an intro to a zone that's open or B) make an intro to a zone that's closed if they really wish. We could even potentially allow reservations, but that might introduce a kettle of worms.

Quote:
In a completely unrelated subject of the current discussions, I just thought of something: Should we perhaps change what's included in the starter kit of items? Perhaps we could maybe add more flexibility for the members to choose from? Maybe (although I don't think it's the best idea, but hey throwing it in there) including a key stone and/or Z-Ring?
This is something I actually glossed over mostly because I think the starter kit was fine, but I think I'm interested in hearing what people have to say on the matter. I know there are some things I had considered that don't actually need to be there but would be nice little touches, such as a Fishing Rod for example.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > Independent Forums > Fizzy Bubbles > FB Development


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.