i actually disagree i dont think there should be a time limit at all gym leaders are a very good way of leveling your teams up,
i actually disagree i dont think there should be a time limit at all gym leaders are a very good way of leveling your teams up,
Battling Gym leaders are only a good way of leveling up your team if you win....
Why allow a player to continue to lose over and over again? I do think that there should be some kind of wait period (which should be random imo) but if a trainer has an ultimate desire to lose an unwinnable battle, can't really stop them.
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.
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.
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.
Raikt never confirmed that there would be a waiting period... you act like he didHe isn't really. All he said was that there should be a wait period between fighting two seperate gyms.
Raikt never confirmed that there would be a waiting period... you act like he didHe isn't really. All he said was that there should be a wait period between fighting two seperate gyms.
Anywhoo, this sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't get the penalty of losing a trainer level for losing a match. Sure, it would make people be more prepared before the fights, but, 'cmon, don't all the old wise men always say that you learn more from losing than you fdo from winning? it's true. so why would your trainer get worse at training pokemon just because he lost a battle? Granted, making him improve would just make the game too easy, but, c'mon...
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.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.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.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.
yeah oh well it happens
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?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.
I would hate to lose my starter. And what would determine what your weakest Pokemon is?
I would hate to lose my starter. And what would determine what your weakest Pokemon is?
Lowest level and least number of attacks can determine what the weakest is.
Losing pokemon would only be a penalty for losing 3 times and that is fairly reasonable. Anyone losing to a gym leader (knowing they may not win), deserves to have something of value lost.
The handhelds were made easy because the Gym leaders are the one's giving the badges and exp, the TM/HMs, etc while the gym leader have absolutely nothing to gain in a win.
Adding penalties like this would keep the players, abusing the power lvling technique, honest and weed out the losers.
PLus, if you lose 3 times to the same gym leader, it is fairly obvious that the weakess pokemon in your team is the weakes link. Why keep?
Uh... I get the losing something of value, but... how can you justify taking away their pokemon
If you dont want to lose anything valuable... how about not lose.
or calling other players losers?
And... there shouldn't be a loss of exp, there should just be a loss of money
I get having to 'pay' for a second loss, so that can be justified, but will you honestly become a worse trainer by losing a match?
I would hate to lose my starter. And what would determine what your weakest Pokemon is?
Lowest level and least number of attacks can determine what the weakest is.
Losing pokemon would only be a penalty for losing 3 times and that is fairly reasonable. Anyone losing to a gym leader (knowing they may not win), deserves to have something of value lost.
The handhelds were made easy because the Gym leaders are the one's giving the badges and exp, the TM/HMs, etc while the gym leader have absolutely nothing to gain in a win.
Adding penalties like this would keep the players, abusing the power lvling technique, honest and weed out the losers.
PLus, if you lose 3 times to the same gym leader, it is fairly obvious that the weakess pokemon in your team is the weakes link. Why keep?
Even So, That goes Against everything Pokemon Stands for, If you lose a Pokemon like that youre losing a friend, even if they are weak.
I say No.
losing your pokemon because you lost a battle??? come on are you being serious??? thats is the dumbest and most ridiculous thing i have ever heard, i for one am sure glad you are not making this game, or have any part in making this game. enough said...
You keep saying harsh punishments, but, c'mon, there are ways to punish people without haxxing their pokemon. And as long as we're okay with doing things that could easily be considered unfair, why don't we make that punishment be that the words "Newfag loser" appear above their name until they beat the gym leader?
And honestly, they DO deserve the same status as someone who beat the gym on try one, regardless of how many attempts it took them. Wanna know why? Because the second they beat that gym leader, they have made the very same accomplishment that the other guy did, albeit it took him longer.
Moreover, you can lose to a gym leader three times... without xp farming or being a 'loser'.
It took me about four tries each game to beat the elite four, and PU is supposed to make the gym leaders much more challenging than anything from the handhelds.
And again, what is this gym leader, a secret member of team rocket? What business does he have, taking your pokemon?
...And even if this were implemented, it would be laughably easy to exploit. I normally only used three pokemon in the handhelds, which I pulled off by making them very different types and levelling them far beyond that particular zone's norm. That leaves three slots just for fillers, to save you the trouble of losing a rare pokemon you were in the process of training when you lost to the gym leader for the third time.
lol, if they are spending all of their time in the gym battling and re-battling.. no one's gonna ever notice. PLus, that isnt humiliating at all. Some may even strive for "Newfag loser" status for the lulz.And some people make an effort to die, it still sucks, though. And they aren't spending all their time in the gym. They have eight hours after the battle where the gym is totally useless after the gym trainers are beat.
That is just like saying that a person who works and goes to school all through his/her life and becomes an entreprenuer to finally become a millionaire (the player defeating the Gym leader with little effort) is at the same level as a homeless drunk meth-head, that dropped out of highschool, that wins the lottery (the player that takes a little longer to get to his million dollar goal, but FINALLY gets it.)It's not like that at all. The homeless guy just got lucky in the lottery, whereas the player who took several tries to beat the gym leader EARNED the win. Imagine someone who became a millionare at age twenty, as opposed to one that became a millionare at age twenty-seven. They're both millionares, but it took the second guy a bit longer. They're still on the same level.
Yea, they both have a million dollars, but seriously, are they really on the same level? Will they ever really be on the same level? seriously?>
Never mentioned the farming of exp. Only poke'sYou did, actually. Even in that post.
...If they are exploiting the system by power leveling...
Not a member of team rocket, but a member of the pokemon league commision (PLC).Are we touching up on your personal life here? :D
Example to help you all understand mi pointo, Try teaching the piano to a 30 year old guy wiht no sense of rhythm, timing, or talent whatsoever. Everyday, coming in just as bad as he was the day before. Are you going to quit tutoring him because he's bad? NO. because he's paying your bills. Why stop?
Will you continue to charge him (or charge him even more) even though he'll never get better? Probably.
Continuing to charge this guy, that is the toll for wasting time and effort.
Same concept for gym leaders.
WHich is, as said before, fairly reasonable.
lol, if they are spending all of their time in the gym battling and re-battling.. no one's gonna ever notice. PLus, that isnt humiliating at all. Some may even strive for "Newfag loser" status for the lulz.And some people make an effort to die, it still sucks, though. And they aren't spending all their time in the gym. They have eight hours after the battle where the gym is totally useless after the gym trainers are beat.
That is just like saying that a person who works and goes to school all through his/her life and becomes an entreprenuer to finally become a millionaire (the player defeating the Gym leader with little effort) is at the same level as a homeless drunk meth-head, that dropped out of highschool, that wins the lottery (the player that takes a little longer to get to his million dollar goal, but FINALLY gets it.)
Yea, they both have a million dollars, but seriously, are they really on the same level? Will they ever really be on the same level? seriously?>QuoteIt's not like that at all. The homeless guy just got lucky in the lottery, whereas the player who took several tries to beat the gym leader EARNED the win.
You're assuming too much...
I never said the homeless guy actually tried. Only thing the homeless drunk, meth-head actually did was rely on luck (the lottery)... no effort involved. It only took him a long time for luck to kick in... not his hard work and effort.
While the entrepreneur reaches his goal with "little effort" (as stated above, not several attempts..). The Entrepreneur completed the task because he/she was prepared, well in advance (the schooling and hard work).
Again, are they really on the same level?>
QuoteImagine someone who became a millionare at age twenty, as opposed to one that became a millionare at age twenty-seven. They're both millionares, but it took the second guy a bit longer. They're still on the same level.
What does age have to do with anything? I think that a man's effort speaks more loudly that his age/experience.
The argument could go either way.. the 20 and 27 year old's maturity, gender, financial investments, family background, criminal history, place of residency and other factors actually make your example impossible to really know what the level is and what it takes to really be on what level.
While mine is fairly simple..... homeless drunkard (Player that loses for the hell of it, or is just that bad) <<<<<<<<<<<< Hard-working individual (player that is prepared, aware of potential costs.. and is willing to take the risk) everytime.
Not even close. Never ever will be close
QuoteNever mentioned the farming of exp. Only poke'sQuoteYou did, actually. Even in that post.
Even in what post? No i didnt. I've said etc... but never EXP..... how and why would exp be taken away when you can simply take away a poke?
Quote...If they are exploiting the system by power leveling...QuoteNot a member of team rocket, but a member of the pokemon league commision (PLC).Are we touching up on your personal life here? :D
Example to help you all understand mi pointo, Try teaching the piano to a 30 year old guy wiht no sense of rhythm, timing, or talent whatsoever. Everyday, coming in just as bad as he was the day before. Are you going to quit tutoring him because he's bad? NO. because he's paying your bills. Why stop?
Will you continue to charge him (or charge him even more) even though he'll never get better? Probably.
Continuing to charge this guy, that is the toll for wasting time and effort.
Same concept for gym leaders.
WHich is, as said before, fairly reasonable.
Just a little.
QuoteAnd no, it isn't fairly reasonable. The piano teacher is charging money. He's not taking your pets as payment.
Same concept here... instead of losing money, you'd lose a poke' (the toll). Anyone's that ever played a Pokemon handheld know how insignificant money is... and anyone's that ever played a pokemon handheld knows how valuable pokemon are.
Which is a fairly reasonable trade-off.
*cough cough*
Dont want to lose a poke' dont lose.Quote...and Three in a party means that you have three more slots for fillers, to prevent you from losing anything you care about.
Im getting Sick of the BS. All the fighting is getting out of hand, Its pointless, SO STOP.
Bottom Line: Ghost has his Ideas, we have ours, thats life, suck it up.
Your wasting your time fighting an argument no one is going to win. Forget it.
Hm... what about... your pokemon losing confidence in you?
I like the idea of pokemon losing confidence in you, but i agree with ghostman that pokemon should lose confidence after losing any battle. Maybe pokemon could lose more confidence after losing to a gym leader than losing to some other trainer.Actually, the drop should be less from the gym leader. Because losing to a gym leader as opposed to a normal npc is like losing to Mike Tyson as opposed to a mediocre boxer. I would be a bit embarrassed to lose to the latter, while I wouldn't think much of getting owned by Mr. Tyson. At the same time, gym battles are far more significant, so should be a heavy hitter... so now we're gonna have to choose between system-logic and social-logic. What-evs.
I like the confidence level. I think it shouldn't be affected by pvp battles, though, because you don't really have to be bad at the game to lose in a crapstorm* of people that are looking up strategies for battles during the battle.
lol, what do you have against challenges?It's not that I have something against challenges, it's just that, as I said, you can be good at the game and still lose to several other players in a row, just like you can be good at Super Smash Bros. and still lose to one of those wavedash-y tournyfags.
First off, it'll mean more work, then, it also means you can have pokemon that once disobeyed, you put it in a box, and when you retrieve it, it still disobeys you even when you have got badges in between that period.
you can be good at the game and still lose to several other players in a row,
If you're unable to defeat your opponent, then you're obviously no good.I'm going to let the absolute nonsense of this statement slide.
Shouldn't a poke' have low confidence anyway for being stuck in the PC? It actually makes sense to link poke's confidence to the actual pokemon and not the trainer. If the trainer is stuck training his 6-10 wiht 200 other poke's (sparsely used and have low confidence from previous losses) in the PC, he/she shouldnt expect them to automatically accept (obey) the trainer.
I'm going to let the absolute nonsense of this statement slide.
Are you trying to tell me that never, EVER, in the history of mankind, has someone good at something lost to someone else at that thing? Losing to someone else at something does not mean that you're no good at it. Muhammed Ali was certainly good at what he did, but Mike Tyson could destroy him in one punch.
Even in pokemon, I'm assuming that you find yourself to be pretty good at it, right? Don't even TRY to tell me that you've never lost to an NPC, because that would just be a downright lie. And NPCs in pokemon have the worst AI ever. If someone good at the game can lose to an NPC, they can certainly lose to an actual player.
If you're unable to defeat your opponent, then you're obviously no good.I'm going to let the absolute nonsense of this statement slide.
Are you trying to tell me that never, EVER, in the history of mankind, has someone good at something lost to someone else at that thing? Losing to someone else at something does not mean that you're no good at it. Muhammed Ali was certainly good at what he did, but Mike Tyson could destroy him in one punch.
Even in pokemon, I'm assuming that you find yourself to be pretty good at it, right? Don't even TRY to tell me that you've never lost to an NPC, because that would just be a downright lie. And NPCs in pokemon have the worst AI ever. If someone good at the game can lose to an NPC, they can certainly lose to an actual player.
When I say "here and now" game.. i mean exactly how it's said. No one cares about past accomplishments (so what if you're number 1). There is no possible way to gauge a player's worth in a game until it's actually played (There is no DBZ radar gun mask eye patch thingie.) The only way to tell if someone is really good, is to see them in action.. and if the player in question happens to lose to "several players in a row"... does that really mean that he/she is any good?Mmm... More personal interference?
hmmm. In mi eyes, No.
In your passive illusory world... probably the greatest alive.
Im sure he could, he has Parkinson'sReally, dude? I'm talking about both of them in the peak of their careers. Ali was great. Tyson was better.
When I say "here and now" game.. i mean exactly how it's said. No one cares about past accomplishments (so what if you're number 1). There is no possible way to gauge a player's worth in a game until it's actually played (There is no DBZ radar gun mask eye patch thingie.) The only way to tell if someone is really good, is to see them in action.. and if the player in question happens to lose to "several players in a row"... does that really mean that he/she is any good?Mmm... More personal interference?
hmmm. In mi eyes, No.
In your passive illusory world... probably the greatest alive.
Anyway, Losing streaks happen. Nobody cares what you've done in the past in Call of Duty, either, but a good player can still have a losing streak if he goes up against BETTER players.
I don't think you're getting the detail that good and bad isn't black and white.
There's a big-ass gray area of average, okay, good, skilled, great, pimped, awesome, and godly.
If someone at the 'skilled' level battles five 'pimped' players in a row, he's liable to lose
but that doesn't mean he's any worse at the game.
Im sure he could, he has Parkinson'sReally, dude? I'm talking about both of them in the peak of their careers. Ali was great. Tyson was better.
I agree, because there is also the element of luck in pokemon battles, and by this, I'm referring mainly to critical hits, and the random number generated before each damage is calculated and applied.
Oh God, you completely missed mi point.My dictionary includes slang. I like to use slang sometimes because it makes me feel like less of a robot and more of a person.
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.
But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?Nnnnnnnnope. See, when someone is good at a game, they know they're better than almost everyone else. That means that they know that just because they beat another player, that doesn't make that player any worse at the game. Even so, when did we decide to start talking about how conceited a more experienced player is?
Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too? I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.
A player's only as good as his/her last matchOh, so if I get five hundred straight wins, but then I lose to someone, that means I suddenly suck?
and luck decides a players worth at that point in time....So then why would we make the pokemon stop trusting the player, if the fact that he lost was based entirely on luck?
To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.Oh, so it's okay for YOU to call OTHER players LOSERS, but if THEY call THEMSELVES GOOD, then they're conceited? If there's no good, then there's no bad, and you don't get to call players losers anymore.
QuoteOh God, you completely missed mi point.My dictionary includes slang. I like to use slang sometimes because it makes me feel like less of a robot and more of a person.
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.
But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?
So, the massive use of misnomers makes a person a person and not a robot (really? I could have sworn it was breathing.) Thanx for the insight.*Counts to ten while breathing heavily* You know, it isn't generally considered to be socially adept to know what someone is talking about, yet still insist on making an argument out of it because it doesn't make 100% literal sense.
Quote from: frylock contradicting himselfFirst off, I'm not frylock. I'm definitely more of a knot, or retina scanner. Second, you brought up mentality, I responded to it, then I asked why we suddenly started talking as if a player thinking someone else sucks means that that player sucks.
Im sure that we can both agree that a player that loses 15 games in a row has just experienced 15 loses.Purposely operating under a different use of the word in question is, like pretending you don't know what someone's talking about, commonly considered socially inept. And I think you just invented that fifteen right there. Yep, that was 100% you, that fifteen.
But a player can still be completely horribe.. even whilst thinking he/she's good.And a player can think they suck when they're the fifth best out of ten thousand. point being? Good is not a mentality, it's a level of skill relveant to every other participating party.
Your argument.. You can lose 5 games in a row and still be good. (okay..)*Counts to fifty*
Mi response... to others (especially the ones that dominated) the 5 game loser isnt good.
Other than the few blind optimists, it's safe to assume that the player isn't any good. Yes, he experienced 5 amazing (earth shattering) losses.. but can anyone honestly point to hard-core evidence and say he's good..... no.
Find someone that's maintained a streak of 500+ in anything legitimate and come back to me with that one.It's a hypothetical situation, ghost. Lemme tone it down. He wins twenty straight matches and loses ONE right after. Does he suddenly suck?
So what will a player that loses be called? winners?1) A player that lost a match is called a player. stop putting the hypothetical people beneath you just because your opinion is that they fail at life just because they lost a pokemon match. Mind you, a loser is someone who fails at life, unless specifically indicated otherwise. You can be the loser of a match without personally being a loser. If not, then everyone on earth is a loser, because nobody goes through life without ever losing.
especially if you think that sucessive losses can still mean that a player can be good. Which is absurd.
Sure, he may be experienced.. or even talented... but is he really any good?
Quick question, what does it take to be a bad player? From all of your responses, anyone can be good no matter how much fail is involved.
1) A player that lost a match is called a player.
You mean you haven't thrown anything?
Damn! I'm going to have to re-imagine this whole argument..
Hm?I never did get that, you Black out, then Magically appear in the EXACT One you last used.
Since I don't like short posts...
I think that when you lose to a gym leader, you lose a chunk of your money (How much I don't know) and instead of automatically being taken to the Pokemon Center, you must get back there yourself. A walk of shame, sort of.
I never did get that, you Black out, then Magically appear in the EXACT One you last used.
I still think that losing a pokemon or two, when losing to a gym leader, is plausible.
I know, for a fact, that i cant be the only person to think this. ::)