UPNetwork  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-30-2017, 10:28 AM   #1
Marion Ette
Blades and Butterflies
 
Marion Ette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,756
Porygon-Z 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:
Originally Posted by Arnold View Post
Rules for Lanette's PC:

PC Access (Total of 44 PC Slots / Overall total of 50 Team Positions)
- You may access your PC immediately upon joining Fizzy Bubbles.
- You may store up to 49 Pokémon in your PC (you must always carry one Pokémon on your person). When you reach this limit you cannot add more unless you have Elite slots available.
- Pokémon in the PC are NOT considered a part of your active team.
- You CANNOT use PC Pokémon in any Zones, Trainer Battles, Contests, or any other RP related event.
- You CAN use PC Pokémon in shops (as they are not considered active team members)
- You can store infinite Items in the PC.
- Only make ONE post and edit it when you need to withdraw or deposit Pokémon and Items.
- When withdrawing or depositing leave a short description of your action in the "Reason for Editing:" box as a record.

Lanette's Elite Upgrade (+1 PC Slot for each Lv.100 Pokémon owned)
- For each Lv.100 Pokémon you own, you will receive 1 additional PC Slot (1 Lv.100 = 50 PC Slots = Total Team Space of 51; 2 Lv.100's = 51 PC Slots = Total Team Space of 52; etc.)
- If one of your Lv.100 Pokémon are traded or released, you WILL lose the extra PC Slot it gave you.
For example:
You have 56 Pokémon and 16 of those are Lv.100.
16 Lv.100 Pokémon gives you 16 Elite Slots.
50 + 16 = 66 which means you can hold up to 66 Pokémon on your current team so still have room to add another 10 Pokémon.
- PLEASE DO NOT POST SIGNATURES!
My inclination is to remove the PC altogether, remove restrictions on slots and allow people to have as many Pokemon as they'd like, and allow them to use them at will. With the movement towards revamping the egg house to reduce the flow of Pokemon into Fizzy Bubbles, I think the overabundance of Pokemon may be less of an issue than it is right now. Additionally, I don't see harm in people having as many Pokemon as they want in a cooperative game such as this - I think it should be up to the members to determine how many is too many for them. Individual zones can determine how many Pokemon can be active in a zone adventure at one time.

---

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:
  • Should we allow a Pokemon who is active in a zone to be active in a shop, and vice versa?
  • Should we allow the same Pokemon to be active in multiple zones?
  • Should we allow the same Pokemon to be active in multiple shops?
Marion Ette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 10:44 AM   #2
Missingno. Master
An actual game I made!
 
Missingno. Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
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.

__________________
Missingno. Master is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:10 AM   #3
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marion Ette View Post
My inclination is to remove the PC altogether, remove restrictions on slots and allow people to have as many Pokemon as they'd like, and allow them to use them at will.
The PC itself ends up being fairly redundant even in Old FB, as all members list their full squads in their member profile posts (necessarily) and PC posts weren't really ever used, to my knowledge, by either updaters or their adventurers that much in zones. So doing away with it and simply saying, "We know your in-universe character has to make use of a storage system but you, the player, do not" is fine by me.

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:
Originally Posted by Marion Ette View Post
Individual zones can determine how many Pokemon can be active in a zone adventure at one time.
Hmm ... While I would say you're not wrong, at the same time I would caution you and everyone else to consider the implications for updaters. Sure, individual updaters (or ZAs, or whomever) can stipulate that their zones are a 6-Pokémon-only zone if what I am about to say is an issue, but ... If you take away squad size limits in zones, it can make it very difficult, borderline impossible, for the updater to provide meaningful challenges to veteran members. I can choose a well-balanced team of six and still have shortcomings for an updater to exploit, but throw at them a squad of some 50 or 100 Pokémon and suddenly it starts becoming borderline impossible to deter me. "I have this one Pokémon who can teleport me places," "I have this other Pokémon who can morph into anything," "I have this third Pokémon who can detoxify anything," "I have this fourth Pokémon who can't be hypnotized," "I have this fifth Pokémon who cannot be harmed by blunt physical trauma," so on and so on and so forth. Updater throws a difficult puzzle at them, out goes Alakazam with his IQ of 5000. "If Kazammy can't solve it, then you certainly can't expect me to. So have Kazammy solve it, Mr. Updater Man. I just sent him out. He solves it. " Updater seals the trainer inside a cell of concrete, "That's okay, I send out Gengar and he goes through the concrete out into the outside world and gets help." These are already common problems with the squads of six, but make the squads ten times bigger and the problem, I worry, amplifies out of control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marion Ette View Post
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.
If you're keeping shop culture, yes. If you're trying to move away from shop culture towards RP culture, I'm actually not so sure about this one. Because think about it: the Pokémon in the zone shouldn't be getting too different from the Pokémon seeing the shops, as the changes otherwise a) show up in the zone and break the RP illusion or else b) dsn't show up in the zone and frustrate the player. Like: in the zone, I have a Level 34 Chikorita, but on my actual squad I now have a Level 78 Meganium because shop updates. This is perfectly acceptable to me if you're happy to keep a shop-heavy culture around, because I 100% agree with you regarding the frustration of being "locked out of shops" when a Pokémon of yours gets stuck in a zone adventure that has ground to a halt. But I become a little less enthusiastic about it when we start talking FB revamping and trying to put the "RP" back into "RPG".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marion Ette View Post
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.
I don't much mind this at all, to be perfectly honest. I don't see much practical difference between "I drop off Bidoof in these six shops" and "I drop off Bidoof, Spinda, Weezing, Seel, Gyarados, and Slowbro in one each of these six shops." Again, it really only matters from an RP perspective. "It doesn't make logical sense to be in multiple places at the same point in time, barring the supernatural." If you want shops to feel like they are a real part of the RP environ, then it makes sense to me to disallow simultaneous shop drop offs for the same creature. If shops are seen as more of a convenience tool than anything else, then sure, make them as convenient as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marion Ette View Post
Giratina
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 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sample
Sky Gate: The entrance to this wonderful world, here you will find your pokemon centre and any other things you may need before setting out on your adventure. There are several paths leading away from the Sky Gate and if you want you can hire a guide to help you with your travels, but they may ask for something in return.
Trainer: Cyrus
Active Squad:

TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT

TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT

TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:14 AM   #4
Balmund
'Munds of fun
 
Balmund's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A snake's lair.
Posts: 2,465
Send a message via Skype™ to Balmund
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).
__________________

::FB::WF::

Last edited by Balmund; 04-30-2017 at 11:23 AM.
Balmund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:16 AM   #5
Raves
a quick fly cuppa
 
Raves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Life and love make fools of us all. Gods reject the existence of love and life.
Posts: 2,452
Send a message via Skype™ to Raves
>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.
__________________
Stale Water.

Unruly Premonition.
Raves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:19 AM   #6
Altocharizard55
The Scientist
 
Altocharizard55's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Altocharizard55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:26 AM   #7
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
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...
__________________


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


Whimsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:31 AM   #8
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raves View Post
>declaring squads at the start of an adventure

Fuck off.

[...]

This is a bad idea and you should feel bad for thinking about it.
This is unhelpful and I'm going to call you out on it. You've been doing this over the past few days to a number of people, and each time it's been inappropriate. It needs to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raves View Post
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.
That's sort of the point. I take it you've not done much RPGing outside of Fizzy Bubbles before. Whether it's a tabletop like D&D or a video game like Final Fantasy, the entire point of knowing the player's team ahead of time is being able to tailor-make an adventure for them that is neither too challenging nor too simple. Video game RPGs will often do this by removing a particular character from your party and then throwing you into a dungeon which that player would have rendered trivial but which your other characters actually have to work hard to get through. In tabletop RPGs, it's even simpler: the DM knows your character sheet, i.e. he knows your entire inventory of weapons, spells, and abilities, and he then tailors the adventure accordingly.

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:
  1. she couldn't fly, jump, or otherwise scale the maze to get on top of the walls and just ... walk to the end. I achieved this by word-of-God'ding that the terrible beast in the maze could see things at that elevation and would Hyper Beam them into dust.
  2. she couldn't teleport to the end of the maze. I achieved this by checking that her team didn't have any natural teleporters.
Had she not had a declared team at the start of the adventure, it would have been trivially easy for Meetan to trade for an Abra mid-adventure, to then announce "I HAVE AN ABRA! " during the adventure, and to send Abra out and use him to teleport everyone to the end of the maze. The point of a labyrinth in an RP isn't to simply hit a "Win" button and reach the end like that -- it's about the adventure.

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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:57 AM   #9
Raves
a quick fly cuppa
 
Raves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Life and love make fools of us all. Gods reject the existence of love and life.
Posts: 2,452
Send a message via Skype™ to Raves
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.
__________________
Stale Water.

Unruly Premonition.
Raves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 11:58 AM   #10
Altocharizard55
The Scientist
 
Altocharizard55's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Altocharizard55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 12:18 PM   #11
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raves View Post
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.
This is beyond ridiculous that you want us to take "But I'm Scottish! :3" as a serious justification for your abusive and disrespectful behavior. But that's fine. Back to the topic at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raves View Post
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.
That's the entire point.

What's more, the announced team at the start of the adventure simply cuts out the middleman. A vs. B here:
  1. I make you declare all six at the start.
  2. You declare nothing at the start. I get you to send out 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, and finally 5 and 6 over the course of ten replies. I still have you locked into these six creatures.
So I don't understand how or why you can froth like this. You act like I'm some sort of Great Enslaver when, really, most updaters are going to have you soft-locked in to your squad of six after a small handful of posts. And once you're there and comfortably "locked in", they can write for you what I am proposing they could have written for you from Post One had you gone with a declared squad.

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:
Originally Posted by Raves View Post
It's not like video game at all, whereby you, the player, have extensive resources and knowledge of what is coming up.
"Extensive resources and knowledge"? The very first time (and for many players, the only time) you're playing the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raves View Post
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.
Absolutely. Case in point: pretty sure I fudged about the "no Abra on her squad" part of the story, and that in reality when I wrote the adventure I made it so that the realm itself disallowed the use of teleportation. But I was trying to make a point in the previous post so I wrote what I wrote. But I agree with you that an updater can Word of God any justification for why a certain attack or ability can't or will not work. "It's too damp for you to use fire effectively." "There's too much static in the air so your electric attacks don't travel to their intended targets." "You find that you are able to hold your breath under water, as if by magic." The point isn't that a clever writer can't work around player-presented problems. It's that players declaring a squad of six gives immeasurably valuable guidance to the writer (updater) -- and that in the case of veteran players a member profile post doesn't cut it, because the wealth of Pokémon and moves there is simply too big.

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 ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Altocharizard55 View Post
If there's a huge divide on this, leave it to the ZA and call it a 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.)
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 12:41 PM   #12
lilboocorsola
Dragon's Tears
 
lilboocorsola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,453
Lil' Bluey

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 and find it a bit silly anyone would even associate it with a stigma, so I will continue to use it thusly) be able to work around it and go with the flow. I remember in one early Adventure I accidentally called upon my Rhyhorn at one point when I was at the bottom of a canyon, only to later realize I had previously left him atop the cliff to keep post as guard. We just retconned the error into my character recalling him instead, and moved on.

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.
lilboocorsola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:07 PM   #13
Gemini Spark
Weavile Pillow
 
Gemini Spark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Resting with Leila <3
Posts: 2,739
Send a message via Skype™ to Gemini Spark
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
Gemini Spark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2017, 09:10 AM   #14
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2017, 02:17 PM   #15
uhhhhh
Beloved Mascot
 
uhhhhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,562
Send a message via Skype™ to uhhhhh
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.
uhhhhh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2017, 06:55 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 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.
__________________
Missingno. Master is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 11:19 PM   #17
OkikuMew
Droppin' CDs and beats
 
OkikuMew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Quebec province, Canada
Posts: 2,348
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:
  • If one Pokémon is being used in all the shops, well that Pokémon is stealing a spot for another Pokémon of that trainer's team... so who cares if one Pokémon is a lot stronger when the others are not as strong?
  • A new member wouldn't be able to use all the shops as he/she could see fit just because he/she got only one Pokémon. Wouldn't it be fair to give them a starting chance by being able to place the Pokémon multiple times?
  • I know from experience that it is extremely hard to keep tract of which Pokémon are in which shop, even if all the shops are run by the same person. Why do I know? ...Well to be completely honest, I got away multiple times of having the same Pokémon dropped off at different shops, which were all run by the same person... and never had anyone bother me about it in any way. So why implement a rule that shop owners checks for anyways?
So with all the points above, my vote will go towards allowing Pokémon to be in multiple shops.
__________________

Art || FB || WF || Tumblr
OkikuMew 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 04:19 AM.


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