08-16-2017, 12:14 PM | #51 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
100% agree with Gary's post in basically every aspect
|
08-16-2017, 12:31 PM | #52 | |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,213
|
Quote:
Change #1: Yes to it all, with the exception of rendering the offspring unbreedable. I think that the UPC winner in question should be able to stipulate whether the offspring is breedable or not, possibly indicate this at time of winning. Some of us may want to keep the winning entry all to ourselves. Some of us might be all for some limited distribution. But some of us may just want to see their creation spread as far across FB as the community may desire. Change #2: This sounds fair enough to me- makes sense for those three people to all have to be unanimous in such a decision. That way, those who don't want to encounter UPCmons don't have to, those who want to keep their creations to themselves still retain that right, and updators who don't want to mess around with any of this are free to not do so. Change #3: Makes sense, sounds fair. Change #4: Makes sense, sounds fair. Change #5: Obviously. If people want Pinaclsaur to win, it's got to earn that victory like any other UPCmon. Change #6: Speaking as the guy who once entered a Poison Eeveelution, naturally I'm a bit iffy on this rule. On the other hand, speaking as the guy whose aforementioned Poison Eeveelution got no votes whatsoever, I say, sure. Change #7: I suppose it makes sense. No objection. Change #8: Makes sense, sounds fair. Change #9: I'm cool with this. 2: None come to mind. I'll edit this post if I think of anything. 3: I vote C, as long as Change #2 is in place for the official zones, so as to ensure that UPC mons are accessible for those who want them to be, and inaccessible for those who don't. |
|
08-16-2017, 05:30 PM | #53 |
Dragon's Tears
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,469
|
Personally I'm against UPCmon appearing in Zones period, but I'm all for breedability. I think making it so only the parent can breed is fair (with perhaps some exception to the rules regarding gender mechanics).
__________________
|
08-18-2017, 08:26 AM | #54 | |
Shake it!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 522
|
Quote:
|
|
08-18-2017, 08:42 AM | #55 |
Volcano Badge
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,809
|
I wouldn't like seeing them appear in zones but I would be fine with them being breedable, but the offspring must be sterile, meaning the original owner is the only one that can breed them. That should stop every man and his Growlithe owning one.
|
08-18-2017, 02:56 PM | #56 |
Sayonara Bye Bye
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,003
|
I am also against them appearing in zones, but am accepting of them being breedable, at least in terms of the original specimen. |
08-18-2017, 03:10 PM | #57 |
Mrow?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,938
|
Right, so with 'mon having a strict breed limit I'm perfectly fine with that being a thing, however I must state that any and all UPC 'mon, whether the parents or the offspring, should be untradable. If you want the UPC 'mon, you have to use one of your personal breeding slots and one of your own 'mon as the other parent, end of story. And as for the children being sterile... I'm for the idea of allowing them as breeding partners so long as the egg produced would not hatch said UPC 'mon. In other words, having a male UPC 'mon breed with a female non-UPC 'mon is fine. Having a female UPC 'mon breed with a male non-UPC 'mon and a Macho Incense involved is also fine. Anything else is a no-go.
I also heavily agree that giving them out in zones in any capacity is a huge no. Beyond all that, I'd like to bring up the point that was mentioned some time ago. Anonymous submissions. People should be voting on the Pokemon they like most, yes, and anonymous voting does help with this a bit, but by having the name of the creator attached directly to the Pokemon it does skew things a bit as far as that goes. I think anonymous submissions best handles this. As per usual we have the issue of art giving away who the owner might be and swaying some votes, but if people want to draw their own art or commission someone like Daisy that's their own choice. |
08-19-2017, 12:05 PM | #59 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,280
|
I'm of the opinion that availability of UPC mons should be up to the winners. I would personally be fine with a potential winner of mine essentially being just another Pokémon. I mean, discovering a new species for only one person ever to own just doesn't sit right with me. If a ZA doesn't want it in their zone period, okay, but at the very least, any FFA Zones should be fair game so long as updator, adventurer, and winner are fine with it. As for breeding them, that should be entirely up to the winner.
__________________
|
08-19-2017, 01:19 PM | #60 |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,213
|
In complete agreement with Heather on this.
|
08-19-2017, 02:41 PM | #61 | |||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Q1. Can anyone else have this Pokémon beside you? Q2. Can wild ones of your UPC winner appear in the wild in zones? Q3. Can wild ones of your UPC winner appear in the wild for capture by other trainers? Q4. Can trained ones of your UPC winner appear under the ownership of NPCs in zones? Q5. Can the offspring of your UPC winner, if any, be bred to produce yet further copies of your UPC winner? Five questions. You could add a couple more, but these five address most of the complaints I'm seeing from the UPC winner side of things. Until and unless you get the answers to these questions from the winners, you assume the answers are "No" and leave it at that. As for the anti-fakemon side of things, my proposal is even simpler: make clear to your updater, via your member profile post, that you are not a fan of fakemons and/or that you do not want fakemons to appear in your zone adventures. That simple. Updater looks at your post. Updater sees your clause. Updater refrains from introducing these Pokémon to your story. Done.
__________________
|
|||
08-19-2017, 03:05 PM | #62 | ||
Savior of Pokemon-kind
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-19-2017, 04:16 PM | #63 | ||
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
08-19-2017, 06:22 PM | #64 |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,772
|
As stated in Discord, the agreed-upon compromise SEEMS to be thus:
-UPC will happen this year. -Voting will be done via PM and kept anonymous. -UPC 'mon will NOT be available as zone captures, but can appear in zones as part of adventures at the creator's discretion and at ZA/ZU discretion. -UPC 'mon are not tradeable and cannot be put in the AC (they can, however, be released). -Previous UPC winners can update their Pokemon to current Gen mechanics, but changes have to be approved by community vote. And suggested rule: -UPC 'mon will be breedable, but the resulting offspring will be sterile. The original owner has the right to refuse breeding of UPCs and this MUST be respected. Feedback is appreciated. |
08-19-2017, 06:24 PM | #65 |
Insanity
|
I think that's a fair compromise at this point. If the winner wants to share their Pokemon, they should have a way to do so. Am also agreeing on that there should be ways for them ot be updated based on current generations in terms of level-up pool and so forth.
__________________
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 |
08-19-2017, 06:26 PM | #66 | |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,772
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
08-19-2017, 06:27 PM | #67 |
Mrow?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,938
|
Again, I'm against resulting offspring being completely sterile as it kills people's ability to RP, however I am perfectly okay with preventing them from further breeding said UPC 'mon. This is easily enough explained away.
|
08-19-2017, 06:31 PM | #68 |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,772
|
Hm. We could, perhaps, amend the rule to allow for offspring to breed but said breeding does not result in further UPC mon.
__________________
|
08-19-2017, 06:55 PM | #69 |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,213
|
My personal opinion on the breedability of UPCmons and their offspring is that it should be entirely up to the UPC winner. They'd get to decide whether the original is breedable, and if so, to what degree the offspring can be bred, whether A: not at all, B: only if it'd result in non-UPC offspring, or C: no restrictions. I feel like that's something they ought to have a say in, personally. I mean, if we're making UPCmons untradeable anyway, and obviously both members involved in Pokémon breeding have to agree on what's being bred and who gets the offspring, then the UPCmon would still remain exclusively among those who embrace them as a part of FB. Just my opinion. Other than that, I see no issue with the proposed rules.
Probably stupid question, but just wanted to clarify now rather than have it come up later- the no-trading rule, I assume, would allow for a temporary trade for evolution purposes, yes? |
08-20-2017, 09:54 PM | #70 |
Team Mother?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 863
|
>UPC
so I believe I'm in the minority for this, but I'd like to give my two cents. I'm completely fine with UPCs running amok in FB zones, both old and any special one for UPC only. To me, it's another symbol of the creativity of this community for all of us. I understand how some people would like to stick as close to the canon as possible, but the thing is is that Pokemon is always evolving, to the point where there are those of us that feel comfortable in the ability that we can create these creatures that would very much fit in the world. And UPC is one of the things that makes me most excited about FB, it's something that is unique to the Pokemon RPing experience in my honest opinion. At the very least, I'd be happy if they appeared in zones, even if they aren't capturable. That being said, I am with MM on the consensus that the owner should at least be allowed to say whether or not this species is breedable beyond the original one. I personally see no problem with it, but I understand with those that do. Basically, I guess my consensus is, the creator has full control over the availability of those Pokemon, and it's up to both the updator and the updatee to establish whether they want those mons to appear. |
08-20-2017, 10:13 PM | #71 |
Droppin' CDs and beats
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Quebec province, Canada
Posts: 2,350
|
Sorry for being late to this party ^^; Here's my personal stance on the matter:
General thoughts I am personally not liking the idea of having fakemon in FB as I lean more on the "stuff should be canon" side, however, my beliefs in terms of FB in general is that everyone is allowed to be as artistic and free as they want in their RPing. Since Fakemon/UPC is in support with that creativity and freedom, not allowing UPC at all would go against the core ideas that FB is in my opinion. I find since UPC will be still a thing but will be restricted in some way is a good balance between my personal preferences and my "vision" of FB. UPC contest itself:
UPC themselves: I'm with MM in terms of breeding, that is that is up to the winner/UPC creator to decide the breedability of it (can't at all, only original can, only original and offsprings, only original and captured, all can breed). As for the use of UPCs in zones, I say that depends of the situation:
|
10-24-2017, 08:34 PM | #72 |
Insanity
|
Okay since TPCi are dicks and apparantly confirmed that Type: Null and Silvally are legendary Pokemon, I wanted to bring them up here. Since I assume that most of us would've treated them as ultra rare Pokemon akin to Porygon or Lapras, what do we do with them, since I k ow quite a few people want one. Do we just lump them in with legendary Pokemon and call it a day, despite Silvally being specifically obtained via friendship evolution, do we decide to class then as uktra rare pseudo legends? Since this was something that came out of left field for me personally, I thought oy was worthy to bring up.
__________________
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 |
10-24-2017, 09:04 PM | #73 |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,213
|
Wouldn't be right to just lump them in with other legendaries, seeing as the line was explicitly meant to be own by humans, especially considering the evolution method. I would say treat them more along the lines of ultra rare Pokémon along the lines of Porygon, personally.
|
10-24-2017, 09:06 PM | #74 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,280
|
Basically what MM said, really.
__________________
|
10-24-2017, 09:24 PM | #75 |
Volcano Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,464
|
A little nitpicky but Mewtwo was also explicitly meant to be owned by humans lol. Personally I see Type:Null in the same light as I see Porygon, but on the other hand it is also a "one of a kind" Pokemon since it was created through experiments in a lab. It's an odd Pokemon because there's literally nothing natural about it, but I would be okay with it being a super ultra rare Pokemon.
__________________
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|