04-30-2017, 10:28 AM | #1 | |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,772
|
Lanette's PC, Slot Restrictions and Active Pokemon in Zones/Shops
Hello everyone,
I would like to discuss the former implementation of Slot Restrictions and Lanette's PC, as well as the various restrictions that previously existed regarding Pokemon who were active in a zone or in a shop. For Lanette's PC and Slot Restrictions, here is what was previously in place: Quote:
--- In regards to active Pokemon in shops and zones, I believe that, given the fuzzy timeline FB operates on in respect to zones and shops, that Pokemon should be allowed to be active both in zones and in shops. So, for example, if we have a new member with a Spoink as her starter, that Spoink should be allowed to stay in Daycare as well as be with her in her Cortoza opening post and her continuing adventure in Phantom Isle. So, Pokemon should be allowed to be active in multiple zones simultaneously, in addition to a shop. Where it gets hairy is posting the same Pokemon for multiple shops. So, can that same Spoink stay in the Daycare, Move Tutor AND Beauty Salon in the same week? This, to me, seems excessive, but I'm willing to hear what others think on this. --- tl;dr, here's what I wanna know: 1) Do you want to keep Lanette's PC, and the idea that only six Pokemon can be available to a trainer at one time? 2) What's your opinion on Slot Restrictions? 3) For active Pokemon:
__________________
|
|
04-30-2017, 10:44 AM | #2 |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,213
|
1: Honestly? I don't think we need the PC. In my recent zone adventures, the updators have been keeping track of which Pokémon I use in a zone, to ensure I don't go over six. I see no reason why something like this can't become the new norm. Different adventures will obviously require different Pokémon, and I'd like to be able to have different teams of six going in different zones simultaneously should it be necessary.
2: I'm all for eliminating slot restrictions altogether. 3a: To disallow shop Pokémon in zones seems a bit counterintuitive when we're trying to encourage RPing as much as possible. 3b: I don't see why not. Adventures happen at different times. If our own Trainer characters can be in multiple zones simultaneously, why not their Pokémon? 3c: This one I'm unsure about. Might it be a bit much for me to have my Venusaur learning Grassy Terrain at the Move Tutor while also leveling up in the Daycare at the same time? I'm not sure one way or another here, honestly. Never really questioned the old restriction there, but it's definitely an idea worth consideration. |
04-30-2017, 11:10 AM | #3 | |||||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Slot limits, theoretically, are a necessary evil if (and only if) you continue to have an economy in this game. So long as people can trade with one another for Pokémon, and so long as there is a rarity list, the rich will get richer barring emotional reasons to not trade with the rich (e.g. "I dislike that person"). No one is going to trade away their Dratini for a Bidoof when they could have had a Larvitar or a Ditto for it instead, not even if Bidoof/Bibarel is on their personal wishlist and the others are not. What I've said falls apart if Bidoof is equally rare as Larvitar and Ditto, or if players can't even trade amongst themselves. But keep inter-player trading and keep rarity, and you're going to have economic strata within the playerbase. Slot limits are a way of ensuring that, at some point, the rich can't continue to hoard Pokémon. All of the previous paragraph stated, this is all in theory. In practice, I'm not entirely certain how effective slot limits were at ensuring fair distribution of Pokémon. Because in practice, it was rarely one newbie vs. one veteran: it was one newbie vs. the mob. And if the mob consists of 50+ veterans, each of whom has exactly one spare slot on their squad (or could make room by releasing someone to the AC), then that newbie is still virtually up against 50 members richer than himself/herself when it comes to that rare Pokémon up for grabs. So if you want to do away with slot limits, I think it'll end up being okay ... maybe ... But don't be surprised if newbies complain that older members have too much trading muscle. As for allowing for at-will usage ... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I needed a divider that was aesthetically pleasing. So, one last thing: I think it might be good if, going forward, adventurers declare at the start of their adventures who is on their squad of six. (This assumes we keep squad size limits in zones.) So for example ... Something like this, where the squad is declared. I imagined it in my head being nice and compact with tiny little images (as shown above), but I realize it may be necessary to be a little less compact and to actually include creature nicknames, levels, etc. to make it clear to an updater which of your Pokémon you're actually bringing along, as many of us have 2+ of certain species.
__________________
|
|||||
04-30-2017, 11:14 AM | #4 |
'Munds of fun
|
Personally, I've always considered shops and zones to be their own enclosed bubble (heh) in space and time. This is how we can accept there being multiple adventures with the same pokemon available on each, without causing some sort of contradiction or paradox. That said, while we tend to view shops as completely independent from the happenings within zones, we do view shops as a whole as a unified "shop zone", and thus, I can see how you could consider having the same 'mon simultaneously on several shops to be too much - and I agree. So, I believe it's reasonable to restrict the use of only one pokemon per shop at a time, but otherwise dispense of any restrictions regarding using the same mon in a zone or more. I also think Lanette's PC needs to go. Updaters can usually keep track of which Pokémon have been used within a zone already, and having a restriction on the number of pokemon you can own is just silly.
Edit: Since I just saw Talon's post, I agree that detailing your active squad within your opening post during an adventure is a good idea. It cements the state of your squad for the duration of that adventure, and helps provide the updater more tools to craft your adventure around (instead of, y'know, having to always consider your entire library). Last edited by Balmund; 04-30-2017 at 11:23 AM. |
04-30-2017, 11:16 AM | #5 |
a quick fly cuppa
|
>declaring squads at the start of an adventure
Fuck off. This completely and utterly hinders the adventurer, as then the updater knows exactly what they're bringing and can build their adventure based solely off the team encounter-wise. It also spoils the surprise of an updater who has a set of encounters planned, which they expect the adventurer to choose their squad to take on. This is a bad idea and you should feel bad for thinking about it. It inhibits the updater's creativity and locks the player in right at the start, rather than allowing them options as the adventure goes on. |
04-30-2017, 11:19 AM | #6 |
The Scientist
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,211
|
I personally feel PC limits are kind of silly. With the coming egg house changes, I feel like we don't particularly need to worry about members accumulating an ungodly amount of Pokemon anyways. The limit of six actives is I think completely reasonable. To respond to the final question, yes to all three. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think any of these are really an issue; as MM mentioned, the only one I hesitate to say yes to is 3c, for the same reasons.
__________________
|
04-30-2017, 11:26 AM | #7 |
Dance till you're dead~
|
Echoing my thoughts on Lanette's PC from previous discussion, personally I never saw the reason for it to exist in the first place and it just seemed like another annoying thing to keep track of. Although I have to admit seeing everyone's variants of the PC in the thread was kinda cute, it had this weird charm that I will probably miss when it's gone.
As for Talon's idea to declare all 6 pokemon you bring to an adventure at the start, I'm of two minds about the whole thing I mean, on the one hand a trainer shouldn't be all omniscient as to what he'd need to bring to an adventure just to settle some small obstacle in true RPG style, and it'll let the updators have some power in that they won't have their plans completely changed because LOLGOCHARIZARD On the other, people like having that freedom of choice mid-adventure, and some updators like having their plots change on the fly. Improvised plots can be a lot more fun to work with depending on the trainer and the updator. It also allows the use of pokemon that might not even be considered whereas having to declare a full squad of 6 might limit a person to some all-around team to get through zones - for example you could bring Sunkern but you can't because you'll more likely need a water type to surf on and/or stop a fire, and a strong pokemon to clear boulders, and a flyer, and...
__________________
|
04-30-2017, 11:31 AM | #8 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you already knew all of this and are irritated I'd even imply that you didn't, then maybe you ought to calm down and rethink your whole attack. In reality, the opposite of what you said is true: it isn't that declaring squads hinders players so much as it is that not declaring squads hinders updaters. If the updater doesn't know in advance what the player intends to bring, he can accidentally write an adventure which is too easily derailed. For example, when I wrote a labyrinthine adventure for Meetan years ago, I made a point of two things:
Furthermore, having a template to work with gives the updater better focus. They don't have to be overwhelmed by a squad of some 50-100 Pokémon. When you have a specific set of six Pokémon in mind, it can greatly help you with your writing. Contrary to what you say, it doesn't hinder anyone's creativity. In fact, it allows writers to get creative. They can try things out that ordinarily they'd go, "Oh ... No ... That won't work " when they're up against the 100-mon squad. You can have a lot more diversity in your storywriting when the squads themselves are that much more diverse from the outset. For what it's worth, I never said that players would be locked in to what they declare at the start. This is entirely up to the updater. You can go old school and say, "You have to reach a Pokémon Center to change out your squad." You can go newer school and say, "This is something that can be done remotely out in the field by use of a PokéGear/Nav/Etch." The point is that the adventurer is not completely off the leash. They are on at least somewhat of a leash. Criticize this all you like, but it's my opinion from years of RPing that some degree of restriction is healthy for an RP experience -- and that simply answering, "Yeah: my restriction is, I don't own everything yet!" is not a good enough answer.
__________________
|
||
04-30-2017, 11:57 AM | #9 |
a quick fly cuppa
|
re: 'fuck off'.'
Perhaps the lack of context deems it more of an insult than anything else, but given I'm scottish and said term's pretty much commonplace here as a statement of disagreement, I'm not apologising for any apparent offence said statement's caused. I will however state that I disagree with your spiel over tailor-made adventures. I'm greatly against the whole enforcement of revealed teams at the start of adventures due to the fact that the player knows absolutely nothing about what perils the GM has in store for them. It's not like video game at all, whereby you, the player, have extensive resources and knowledge of what is coming up. The GM here also has your character sheet, which anyone can see: It's the member's post. Any GM worth their salt would prepare for anything the user has on their member's post. If the player throws a curveball, they can always utilise pkemon's open nature of movesets to give said challenge extra zing with an expanded movepool the player knows nothing about. In regards to the whole Teleport argument, you as a GM can always hinder teleportation, such as Abra not knowing what the 'other side' meant and warping them into danger. |
04-30-2017, 11:58 AM | #10 |
The Scientist
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,211
|
If there's a huge divide on this, leave it to the ZA and call it a day. I do agree with Raves on this, though.
__________________
|
04-30-2017, 12:18 PM | #11 | ||||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
What's more, the announced team at the start of the adventure simply cuts out the middleman. A vs. B here:
The only foothold you have to stand on would be if you're in support of infinitely-sized squads within zones. That's it. You have absolutely no reason to be freaking out over declared squads like this if you're on the team that supports active squads being limited to six Pokémon at a time. Quote:
Quote:
Loki has brought this up previously, when speaking in favor of resets. I too can speak for it from tabletop experience. I'm really not sure what there is to not get here. But at the end of the day ... Correct. Heck, I wouldn't even say "a huge divide": I'd say if any updater wants to do it my way or Raves' way, let them do so. (If a ZA is against it, let that updater update elsewhere or create his own zone, one which he can ZA for himself.)
__________________
|
||||
04-30-2017, 12:41 PM | #12 |
Dragon's Tears
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,469
|
Honestly I kinda like Talon's idea for those who want to be strictly game-adherent. Really, I'd be down for doing away with P.C. slots altogether, and letting people RP as they see fit. Personally I'd like to see FB return to a more lax, freeform RPG where everyone operates on a more trust-based system rather than minutely keeping track of where everything is. Linking/proof of purchase may still be necessary for currency/Items, but as for 'mons themselves I say let people go wild if they wish.
The fact of the matter is over the course of an Adventure situations can easily change, people may forget details/make mistakes, but rather than buckling down on "rule-breaking" I'd rather see both Updator and Updatee (I know there was some controversial discussion about the use of this term but I myself see no problem in it Even Inventory issues can be fudged a bit if it fits the story, I feel. Another early memory I have is of encountering a Gulpin (who would become my first Zone capture), and RPing my character as offering it some cookies, whilst asking OoC if it was all right to say I had said cookies on hand, and was allowed a pass. In the end, I believe cases like these should be handled between the Updator and Updatee, and simply set a ground that feels comfortable for both of them. Limiting 'mons in Shops from participating in Zones for the duration of their stay was already kinda ridiculous from a meta sense, so if we're eliminating that logic then I say let people reply when they want, with whom they want, if they want.
__________________
|
05-01-2017, 12:07 PM | #13 |
Weavile Pillow
|
I'm in total favor of just scrapping the PC and lifting the restrictions on slots. As far as having Pokemon being in zones/shops at the same time, that's fine, as well as having one Pokemon in multiple zone adventures, but one Pokemon being in multiple shops seems pretty silly to me.
__________________
Avatar made by din-of-hyrule Battlecut made by the crazy Daisy! *happy snek sounds* Twitch | YouTube | Twitter | Wild Future |
05-03-2017, 09:10 AM | #14 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Personally, my opinion is that you should basically remove every restriction that's been put in place. Abolish the PC (half the time my PC was never properly updated), abolish squad slots (I thought about this more and its a great way to make Rare Candies less useful), and allow Pokemon to be in multiple shops / zones all at the same time. I don't think the illusion is really broken with shops factoring into RP, but if other people feel differently, that's fine.
__________________
|
05-03-2017, 02:17 PM | #15 |
Beloved Mascot
|
I generally agree in removing a lot of the restrictions as Emi have said, and speaking as someone who has experience in handling shops, I personally think that we should allow the same mon to be dropped over in multiple shops as to make it convenient for the SO as well xd
Last edited by uhhhhh; 05-03-2017 at 06:55 PM. |
05-03-2017, 06:55 PM | #16 |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,213
|
I got no problem whether we remove the "a Pokémon can only be in one shop at a time" restriction or not. My opinions on everything else remain unchanged- I'm all for removing the limits and abolishing the PC as a whole.
|
05-07-2017, 11:19 PM | #17 |
Droppin' CDs and beats
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Quebec province, Canada
Posts: 2,350
|
Following-ish Marion's format... (I know some may have said the same things already ^^;)
1.a) Do you want to keep Lanette's PC? I would say yes because it could be used as just a different thread other than the user post to track all Pokémon, but I say now because what's the use of tracking them on another thread when we already do with the user's thread? I never saw much of the use anyways, besides the whole thing with the slots. 1.b) the idea that only six Pokemon can be available to a trainer at one time? Well I never really saw that rule being applied/put to action. I say that trainers can take whichever Pokémon they have in their arsenal, but following the game's rules, only able to have 6 out at one time in a zone/adventure. 2) What's your opinion on Slot Restrictions? KILL IT WITH FIRE! It was more annoying than anything. What's the point of not being able to get more Pokémon just because you don't have any Pokémon at level 100? For active Pokemon: 3.a) Should we allow a Pokemon who is active in a zone to be active in a shop, and vice versa? Of course. Not only it never made sense when starting, but it's hard and annoying for updaters and shop owners alike to keep track of anyhow. 3.b) Should we allow the same Pokemon to be active in multiple zones? I don't see why not. Pretty sure we were doing that before anyways, and there was no objections. 3.c) Should we allow the same Pokemon to be active in multiple shops? Alright, part of me would say no because being able to raise your Pokémon's stats at the same time can make it a little bit OP. However, after some thought, here's some counter-points that made me realize that yes, we should allow the same Pokémon go in different shops:
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|