losing to a gym leader

[LeoReborn]

I like all this, and I'm glad there will be a wait in between gyms also, now no one will be able to just fly through all the gyms, they will actually have to play and experience all the other features of the game.

Huh. I must've missed that one. Whoopsies.

yeah oh well it happens

I reviewed Raikt's post, and it was very confusing. I had to think about it. No, neokills, Raikt did NOT confirm anything. If you look closely, "I think" where he mentions between-Gyms

However, It took me a while to realize this, so dont I blame him.

Anyways....Back on topic, Please. I don't think we need to bicker about neokills misunder standing.

I like Raikt's IDEA, 2 hours seems like a reasonable wait period if you lose. I played PWO, with my usual starter, Charmander. However, it took forever to beat Brock. Here's why:
1: I assumed that since it updates a lot, the move pool would be acccurate. I know Charmander learns Metal Claw at Lv 11, but They didnt.
2: Everytime I lost, I had to wait 48 Hours, WTF.
3: (This one was more the trainers fault.) about 70 Percent of Trainers there had Crazy strong pokemon. So, i Gained 0 EXP.

In this case, 2 hours if you lose to a Gym, I agree.

and also, you should only be able to battle with players that have roughly the same number of badges. This should Prevent PvP Mismatch battles.

[Jerry]

Actually, Unbreakable, Charmander doesn't learn Metal Claw in the DPPt/HGSS moveset at all. It's only in FRLG that it learns Metal Claw, but then, at Lv 13.

[LeoReborn]

ok, Jerry, but read the Whole post.

[Jerry]

Uh... I did, already... twice.

And, do you want my opinion too?

Well, I like the idea of having to wait for some time before being able to battle a gym leader again if the first attempt was vain... and Raikt's post covered everything I would have said, plus the things I wouldn't have said, so...

[LeoReborn]

What about the Badge Restriction?

[Jerry]

Well, since they plan on making PvP only to players close in trainer level... I see no much need to include badge restriction. Often, you can have a strong player without many badges... who plans on having them shortly.

[LeoReborn]

true...............................................

[Frenchfry]

Alright, I support this idea, but I think we need to look at the downsides that it might bring...
Offhand, all I can really think of is that impatient players and angsty teenagers would get frustrated and produce rage, which they will use to go around bashing the PU team on the broadest chat option availible. Of course, the game shouldn't be made easier just to save players the trouble of muting immature people.

[Jerry]

Well, let them bash the PU Team, what else can they do? If they aren't a good player, that doesn't mean the game is not good. Games are to be challenging. The true gamers seek challenge and difficulty, which when they overcome, they can be satisfied with themselves of some sort of achievement. Is it not right?

[Raikt]

Bashing != productive criticism.

We have an ideas and suggestions forum for a reason; we're not only open to ideas and suggestions, but we would also like to hear back from the players. (Once that game is out, at least.) So, you can be sure that we're reading your ideas. If people don't like a time period between losses, but only because it bothers them, it's not a valid complaint.

If quite a few people complain that it is too long and they can't get in a victory more than once, say a week, because of time constraints, then we can easily modify it.

There is already a fine line between welcoming casual players and appeasing hardcore gamers. Keeping both audiences in mind is what I do when proposing ideas.

[TheGr8]

Phew. Topics move fast around here. (Or maybe I'm just slow...)

I was actually just thinking about this the other day after reading the newest posts in the other Gym Leader thread. It's like you guys here always know what is on my mind. I consider that a good thing. Anyway, to answer your question, I'm for a wait period in which a player cannot challenge a Gym Leader again. My thought was around ~2 hours. This gives them ample time to go train, learn, try out some new combinations, but without being overly annoying. (If you ask me.)

It also stops one, crucial thing; power leveling. There would be, unless we did something odd like giving  you no experience, no way to stop someone from power leveling their Pokemon by just losing over and over again while still accumulating experience. Trust me. People would do this; in fact, I can guarantee it would happen unless we impose some form of limit to Gym Battles.

The battles are already going to be hard, to stop people from breezing through them. I'll make sure of that myself. (Talent trees, IV's, and movesets if you will.) So, I can pretty much assue you that, unless you know what you are doing, the Gym Leaders aren't going to be anything like in the handheld games. I think people will enjoy it more this way. C/D that with me, but would you really want an MMO you can beat in like a week?

Another thing I think is that, once you beat a Gym Leader, there will be a wait period before you can challenge the next one. One to two days, at the most. Again, some people might see this as a drag, but with seventeen gyms, this will add a lot of playability while giving you incentive to explore and try other things out.

I think I started to ramble, lol, but I hope that answers your question. That's what I intend with PU, and I'll bring it up when we come to it.

Going to agree with everything except the no exp from gym battles. Then that would mean wild battles and other trainer battles EXP have to be raised right?

[Frenchfry]

Going to agree with everything except the no exp from gym battles. Then that would mean wild battles and other trainer battles EXP have to be raised right?

Then you're still agreeing with everything.

There would be, unless we did something odd like giving  you no experience, no way to stop someone from power leveling their Pokemon by just losing over and over again while still accumulating experience.

[lucifer]

I like the waiting period between Gym losses, but I think that two hours is too short.  Way too short.  I'm thinking it should be delayed by eight hours between challenges.  That way, it gives those who are actually playing respectably a chance to take what they learned during the Gym Leader battle and train to overcome what killed them.

I also like the idea that the Gym Leader's Pokémon should provide no experience on knockout.  That negates the power leveling problem.

And I think that a time limit between a Gym victory and a challenge at the next Gym is a good idea as well.  I think the waiting period there should be measured in days and not hours, though.

[boyben10]

I think hours is good enough, like make a person wait only a few hours, because time is longer while waiting.

[ghostman50]

I think that first attempt losses should only be penalized with an 8-24 hour wait period.
 
WHile a second loss to a gym leader should be penalised with loss 30-75% of money (goldz) or valuable items and an even longer wait period.
 
If a player were to lose a third time, all of the previous penalties plus the loss of a poke'. (possibly the weakest in the line-up.)
 
and etc.
 
Punishments as strict as these are more realistic than infinite battles with the only penalty being a wait period equivalent to one's bed time.
 
 
The harsh penalty also deters power leveling and any other perk one may have from losing to a gym leader.