UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > Independent Forums > PASBL > Suggestions and Inquiries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-31-2017, 08:40 AM   #1
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,762
Rotom Suggestions Thread

Have an idea for a new mechanic, a new rule, or just a change to the game? Suggest it here!
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 08:05 PM   #2
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,998
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Have we given much thought to how gyms will work under the new system? With AP rather than TL now dictating access to pokemon, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back badge requirements as gating at certain TLs. I also think it'd be an idea to make getting one or two badges easier whilst still retaining the prestige of gathering lots. One way to do this would to be instead of drawing gym squads from a leaders main squad to have gyms have fixed rental teams at certain AP limits depending on how many badges the challenger has - for example a 15AP team for no badges, 25AP for one badge, 35AP for two etc up to unlimited at 5 badges. Most monotypes are pretty beatable at low AP limits even with a good trainer behind them particularly if they're fixed squads and the matches are at least 3v3 (to mitigate the Snorlax problem), but getting more requires you to be pretty good and because of AP not being able to get more still doesn't stop you playing with your favourite mon. Throw on badge gating for say TL3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 and a single token purchasable badge for those stuck in a rut or for when the league is slower and you're maybe halfway to a system in which getting one or two badges is obtainable for more players but getting more still means something.

Also potentially controversial idea: gym defences no longer count towards the leaders w/l ratio. I wanna encourage a league where aspiring to pick up a couple of badges is a realistic mid term goal for most players rather than the old system where you had to be pretty much a vet yourself to pick up even one.

Another potentially unpopular idea to encourage aapiration; GL term limits. You get your gym for say six months and then you're out and can't claim the same gym type back for (insert time period here). SS decade long stint in "defending" the poison gym is the best example of why. Stops someone hogging up a type for ages whilst being barely active or actively crap and opens it up for more people to get a chance at it - and at the type they want - without the stigma that used to put us off firing even mediocre, nigh-inative GLs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 01-02-2018 at 08:32 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 08:39 PM   #3
Sneaze
On The Hunt
 
Sneaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sigs Hell
Posts: 5,719
Send a message via Skype™ to Sneaze
I actually quite like the above suggestions and would like to throw my personal opinion behind them, but I feel the need to point out that gating at TL3 is probably bad given people don't get any of their legacy stuff they earned before until TL4. Also that a hard cap on how long you can be a GL for a type is bad and we should really evaluate on an individual basis on a regular set period of time instead. If nobody wants the Electric Gym we shouldn't boot out Joe Electric and force him to use a type he's absolute ass at until his time's up again, but if there's a couple people wanting the Water Gym we should be willing to discuss things with even the most active trainer to let others have their shot.

Also letting GLs defenses not count towards their w/l is a great idea because seriously who hasn't thought someone deserved a badge at some point in a grueling battle and still beat the ever loving piss out of them because "NO MY W/L" at some point?
__________________
Wild Future - FizzBy
PASBL - Ghost Grass Gym Leader - Dragon Elite Four


Daisy wins at life for making this Battle Cut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Whatever Sneasel says is right
Sneaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:18 PM   #4
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,998
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
We could do a thing where we re-open applications for a type in the run-up to their time running out and then if no-one quality applies for it the current GL can keep it? As for gating the specific TLs are up for debate. Could equally go 4/6/8/9/10 or something, although if people really want to get their legacy stuff then having a single purchasable Participation Badge (you tried!) to hop that first hurdle could work.

Idk I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this I was just unable to sleep and thought-dumping, but I think the general idea is solid enough. If nothing else any gym system we settle on should probably;
  • Make getting one or two badges a realistic mid term goal whilst preserving the skill requirements for getting more
  • Avoid people hogging one gym for ages
  • Avoid the "let's all pile on Tdos and clog his queue because he's the only GL we can beat" problem
Gym trainers could be incorporated easily enough by having them be more a "junior GL" style role - ie they defend your lowest level or your two lowest level teams for you. That further helps the "first one or two badges are against weaker teams/opponents than later ones" thing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:39 PM   #5
Snorby
Snackin'
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,750
The plan was for one GT to be basically like the kind you're describing, 'cept, and for the other to be what it is now. Senior GT and Junior GT if you will.

That said, my big qualm with this stuff is forcing the GL to spend enough AP that they can field good squads from 15 AP on up to unlimited seems tricky, lest we allow them to basically rent 'mon for their gym or give them ridiculous amounts of AP for it, both of which imo go against what we want in GLs (real dedication to and affinity with the type). I have a similar issue with a term as short as 6 months. Should be a year at least if we do that at all. And if we do it there should be other reasons besides longevity for someone to get removed. If you're not a good GL or you're inactive you shouldn't be hogging time in a hotly contested type.
__________________

Click on Fawful for my ASB squad summary. Other links coming soon.
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 10:05 PM   #6
Sneaze
On The Hunt
 
Sneaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sigs Hell
Posts: 5,719
Send a message via Skype™ to Sneaze
We could always treat rentals similarly to how we do the E4 and then just say "Have enough 'mon to field three levels of difficulty" or something. If we allow three rentals per tier it's nine 'mon the GL then needs, which isn't a huge issue AP wise unless the GL is super low level.
__________________
Wild Future - FizzBy
PASBL - Ghost Grass Gym Leader - Dragon Elite Four


Daisy wins at life for making this Battle Cut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Whatever Sneasel says is right
Sneaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 10:28 PM   #7
Brave Saix
Boulder Badge
 
Brave Saix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 136
Maybe a complete team of 3's, 5's and 7's?
__________________
Brave Saix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 08:42 AM   #8
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,998
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
I'd scrap old style GTs entirely, tbh - their good points (experience for GL wannabes and reducing clogged queues) are nicely dealt with by new style ones, and it gets rid of the substantial downside of forcing low level trainers through an extra hurdle to get a badge. The problem of queue clog isn't a problem of "oh man I want my sixth badge and there's all these newbies taking up the queue space" it's "I want my first badge!... oh all the queues are full of vets". Old style GTs deal with the former.

My issues with the gym system is that the design philosophy behind it is along the lines of "hey we want to be cool and badass gym leaders let's do that". In that sense it succeeded, but at the expense of locking the majority of the league out of any kind of participation - most people are not gonna get the gyms they want themselves because the same people hog them for years, nor are they gonna get badges because for most part the crusty old vets aren't going to lose to anyone but each other (and anyone who is either rusty or new enough to be an easier gym challenge gets completely clogged up by old timers looking for an easy badge). The only redeeming feature of the current gym system imo is that we have gyms and badges. Every other aspect of it can stand to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

New style GTs - ones who fight at like a 20AP limit and can give out a badge on defeat but can only be challenged if you don't have a badge yet - are a good start to get people on the ladder but there's still a massive gulf up to the big boys once you've got that first badge and you're still never gonna get a gym of your own if the same people are hogging the spots for years at a time.

Things could be simplified from my earlier thoughtdumping - make the tiers 20, 40 and unlimited AP, the 20AP only GTs, the unlimited only GLs and the 40 either the GL for weaker gyms or a strong GT for the big guns. Restrict who can challenge which tier by # of badges*. Suddenly you have a decent progression system without newbies clogging high level queues or vets clogging weaker ones, and with GTs being a much more meaningful role rather than just a roadblock to keep non-vets further from having nice things and without having to give GLs either rentals or ludicrous amounts of AP. Some kind of term limits (with exemptions if no-one else good enough comes and says they want it) only increases the number of people who can participate.

>If you're not a good GL or you're inactive you shouldn't be hogging time in a hotly contested type.

This has been kicked around since I was a newbie as a thing we're totally gonna start doing now (and I'm sure Sneaze will chime in and say it predates me). It's never worked, it has never materlalised. We need something more concrete. Like if no-one else is applying for the type sure, keep it, but even if you're both active and good hogging a much desired type for yonks is bloody selfish.

*I mean, I'd scrap TL's entirely and tie AP to KO's and all other progression (legendary access etc) to # of badges but I know no-one will ever go for that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 09:24 AM   #9
Emi
The Cutest Tsarina
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11,385
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
So Gyms is something I agree with Concept on fully. It needs to be completely reworked. The last system was very good at having very cool, high difficulty Gym Leaders, but it never really encouraged forward progress at all in the game, especially as Gym Badges became vital in going up Trainer Levels. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that at points in ASB's history, it made more sense to become a Gym Leader than to ever challenge one, because even if you were pretty good (like myself), when Gyms primarily consist of the best of the best or GLs who never order, its hopeless otherwise.

I'm very for AP limits. One of the issues with Gyms in the past is that you basically were never guaranteed an even playing field, and the anime has consistently shown that Gym Leaders don't have static defense teams they use. Many Gyms were never Equiall, or if they were it was at a specific level so they didn't lose their best Pokemon, and so that meant if you were TL3 or 4 and you wanted a badge, you just had to hope and pray your GL went easy on you, which is really rather bad. Having AP limits would allow people a real chance to get a badge (which we want) while also providing a challenge. It's a pretty great idea, although it may need to be tweaked somewhat.

Quote:
Also potentially controversial idea: gym defenses no longer count towards the leaders w/l ratio. I wanna encourage a league where aspiring to pick up a couple of badges is a realistic mid-term goal for most players rather than the old system where you had to be pretty much a vet yourself to pick up even one.
Maybe because I never really cared as a GL about my W/L ratio, but how exactly does this help? For the most part, as a GL I gave it my all because I wanted to see if they could still beat me at my best. I think what you're saying is that GLs won't be as tryhard in their defenses, which may be true, but I think its a leap.

What we may actually want to see is more leniency in when a Gym Leader can give a badge out (and, in return, our LOs as well). If it is a 6v6 match and the GL wins in the final match-up, the challenge probably does deserve a badge. A fair number of Gyms are often held by the best of the best in the league, and for the grand majority of ASBers, there is basically no hope in ever defeating them, and usually, you just want to come out of it with your pride. If you can come out of a Gym Match with a loss but with your pride intact, you should get the badge. This should also apply to AFK GLs as well. Too many Gyms gets picked up and then immediately dropped like an irresponsible mother with a baby, and the only people who are hurt by this are the challenger, who is robbed of a chance to get a badge and their time, especially since you're only allowed on one queue at a time. I myself have been part of this problem as well, but at least the last time I left, I tried to make it right by the people who were challenging me.

I think that's all I have to say here on GLs tbh, but I figured I would give my input here and throw my support behind some suggestions.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 10:16 AM   #10
Crys
There's like no fanart zz
 
Crys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,240
Could do something where it's like, if your app gets approved you get the gym for an allotted period of time, after which the gym becomes vacant and open for new applications. if you were that GL and want the gym again, you'd have to reapply, but probably with some stipulation as to not end up with people getting denied for a gym and, as the only accepted applicant, you get the gym by default again.

I'm thinking that for the ap wise restrictions, having it tiered could probably work. This is a seperate idea from what i've seen written so far I guess and a bit out there, but like: a Tier 1 Fairy GL. A Tier 2 Fairy GL. It'd give more chances to those who want the types, and also solve the "well i want to fight this gym but they have a murder squad and experience that i don't have." If you're a noob, you'd fight the tier 1 or something. Probably have a badge that scales with the challenge. lower tier badge for a lower tier challenge, while higher challenge slots have better badges. or something.

Just spitting some ideas out, but I think they have good points to them.
Crys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 12:52 PM   #11
Snorby
Snackin'
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,750
For the record when I chime in in this discussion it's not as an LO it's as a community member with an opinion. Jeri's on TA and I'm not about to say anything official on something this big without him lmao.

With that made clear I'm gonna give more of my thoughts tonight
__________________

Click on Fawful for my ASB squad summary. Other links coming soon.
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 01:17 PM   #12
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,998
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Fair. And I do agree that keeping the whole "dedication to type" thing would be nice, I just think there's bigger priorities that I personally can't see how to fix whilst keeping that. I'm not hung up on the details anywho, so I'll leave the general idea as my suggestion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2018, 09:12 AM   #13
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,762
So before I give my opinions on suggestions, there are a few things we decided previously about GLs that I think would be fine to keep: any GLs under the previous system have first dibs on Gyms when we properly reopen, GLs get 15 AP in lieu of the old GL slots, and a Junior-Senior GT system. None of those things seem particularly game-breaking to me so I think we can probably still consider those.

-Gym Leader "Levels"

This is probably the most radical system change but tbh, I think this is one that is probably welcome. Thematically, the games have always suggested that GLs have variable teams depending on experience levels of the trainers (and hell, Origins outright stated it), so I think we're smart to implement it. It also makes gyms, well, a proper test of skill instead of "can I beat this vet with way more experience".

That said, there are a few decisions that need to be made on how this system would work. It seems that people like the idea of a TL-related system where there are different tiers for each TL, and I think it also makes sense to fold GTs into some of the lower levels. The question is the number of these levels and what they consist of. My first thought is probably something like four/five levels - two-ish GT levels (maybe one for TL1-2 and one for TL2-3 that is Jr/Sr GTs respectively), one low level, one mid level, one high level and an "ultimate" level.

As for the exact composition of these, I'm a little iffy - part of the issue is that it's kind of tricky to do this in a way that won't become repetitive for the GLs. We could do fixed teams, but then those can become kind of counterable in their own right and not be a huge challenge. And it will become boring to use the same six mon against every TL3 you come across. We did set teams for the E4, though, so maybe my concern is unfounded. Set pools might be workable but I don't have a system in mind that would be great. I'd like some suggestions on this one.

(One thing I will say is that the set team tiered system does make it a bit easier to do theme gyms since it's possible to just review individual tier teams for balance than it is to say "all these Pokémon taken together are broken".)

-GL Term Limits

I'm also going to express my hesitance when it comes to fixed limits on a GL's tenure - forcing GLs to give up their gym after a set period of time won't probably have a ton of benefits. That said, I think we definitely need to do a regular review of gyms and after a while, encourage GLs who have been in one gym for a while to consider switching it up.

-Gym Dogpile Problem

So this is something that hopefully the tiered system would tackle to some extent but the fact of the matter is the Gym system really just kind of encouraged vets to steamroll people for fun and profit. I actually like the idea of not counting w/l for GLs in their general League Table overview (or at least keeping it separately), and also just to encourage people to give out badges if the challenger did pretty well but still ultimately lost. I know when I was a leader that I would fight to win, not to test whether or not my opponent was a good trainer or anything. A change in perspective here is definitely needed, and we should probably design the system to be more of what Gyms are supposed to be instead of a glorified trophy position like they are now.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > Independent Forums > PASBL > Suggestions and Inquiries


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 02:36 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.