|
|
Post by kaera on Oct 4, 2011 9:05:08 GMT -5
Yo everyone,
This is something I sort of ranted to Tyler about a couple of weeks ago but after reading Adrieil's thread on the Happiness Evolution I figure i"ll throw up my idea about how Evolution could be made more realistic.
I look at this site and think: Pokemon Academy. Academy means we're students. Students means we're learning.
I look at the students and see full teams, with pokemon in the PC, and evolution happening all over the place.
I look at the pokemon world and see that it takes far more than five, seven, or eight battles for a pokemon to evolve. Even in the gameboy games which this site is becoming more and more like.
What would be more realistic?
-Catch threads allowed twice per month per trainer
-Evolution allowed once per month per trainer
-Eggs produced once per month per trainer
Pros: Realistic and fair in every sense of the word. No one can be a better catcher, better battler and no one can spam the evo point system nor can eggs be abused.
Cons: It takes time. To me, this is a pro since it encourages people to focus on things OTHER than battles and catching. To people who 'gotta catche'm all' despite being under twenty years old, however, I can see this being a con.
Rant below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yumiko Tokugawa on Oct 4, 2011 9:49:39 GMT -5
Interesting. I like the realism thingy. However if you want to be realistic you gotta take into account that what is to say that a Pokemon can't breed more than once per month. Of course the breeding limit might only apply to female Pokemons as we do not truly know how long it takes for a Pokemon to fully develop the egg.
And who is to say a trainer can't go into the wilds more than twice per month to catch stuff? Or same trainer could train more. The way I have seen evolution (maybe that has just been me) Is that the Pokemon doesn't necessarily need to evolve from fighting experience. It Evolves when time is right for it. Of course that is going to be a problem in this kind of setting, so I see battle as the fairest way to decide when a Pokemon is ready for evolution. Maybe raise the amount of battle threads needed to evolve a Pokemon? Or something like that.
|
|
Kasia Stark
Junior Member
[M:0:3:]
Kitty says "Meow!"
Posts: 70
|
Post by Kasia Stark on Oct 4, 2011 9:55:45 GMT -5
Before, I would not have agreed with this. I did not see any reason to have to take this into account. Recently, however, I have noticed more people catching and evolving their pokemon at a ridiculous speed.
However, there is still the question of how are (new) people supposed to compete with those who have already built up their team with no such limits?
On a side note, this is very similar to the new rule regarding maximum fuel emissions allowed by countries. How are the developing countries supposed to develope and catch up to those of us who are already well-developed? Well-developed countries have to cut back more, but it won't inhibit their developement (since they've already done so...)
Back on topic, overall I agree with a need for some inhibitor like this.
-Catch threads twice a month sounds reasonable, or maybe three times...
-Eggs produced once a month sounds good to me.
-As for evolution, I think it should be more than just once. Two or three times seems better. Maybe four...?
I still think there should be a way to allow newer people to catch up and compete... But I don't think it's as important. I, for one, am willing to just suck it up. (And I don't think I have more than two capture threads per month anyways... and have only had one pokemon evolve throughout my entire time of being here (Alacer, Zubat->Golbat)
|
|
|
|
Post by Adriel Sorano on Oct 4, 2011 14:20:57 GMT -5
While I don't really object to this, for sites like this, I always just assume that there's a lot of off-screen training/battling being done between RP threads. At least, this is a personal way of semi-justifying how easy it is to level up and evolve the Pokemon here. I mean...this is just me, but I highly doubt that the school is so small that the RPs themselves are the only things going on, or that there are only 50 or so students (granted, this is just a very rough guess on how many active characters there are...I could be way off)
Also, I do agree with Kasia. Suddenly introducing a system like this will make it insanely hard for newer members to have any hope of catching up. I mean...Laz and Van are bad enough (no offense guys), but there are those of us who have at least one evolved (if not fully evolved) Pokemon...several of us have more than one.
And, frankly, I see no problem with people catching a lot of Pokemon. I mean...hell. For the most part, in the actual games, it's possible to have a full team as early as the second or third route. Might not be the ideal team you had in mind, but it's still possible. So I honestly see no need to put a restriction on that.
But anyways...yeah. Those are my personal thoughts. I like the idea itself, but I don't think it should be quite as strict as Kaera is initially proposing. As far as evolution is concerned, I think two per month seems more fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaera on Oct 4, 2011 18:20:55 GMT -5
...what is to say that a Pokemon can't breed more than once per month? Of course the breeding limit might only apply to female Pokemons as we do not truly know how long it takes for a Pokemon to fully develop the egg. In nature there are VERY few species that can handle rapid-fire pregnancies. For dogs, for example, it is recommended that the female skip a heat between litters. For Humans we have the nine month period plus, for medical reasons, a short while after birth before another pregnancy should/would occur. Also it is my assumption that pokemon, like animals, have certain periods where they are more likely to get pregnant, and times when they are unlikely to get pregnant. While I don't really object to this, for sites like this, I always just assume that there's a lot of off-screen training/battling being done between RP threads. At least, this is a personal way of semi-justifying how easy it is to level up and evolve the Pokemon here. I mean...this is just me, but I highly doubt that the school is so small that the RPs themselves are the only things going on, or that there are only 50 or so students (granted, this is just a very rough guess on how many active characters there are...I could be way off) By placing a time limit on the players of the site and assuming that mating and eggs are still made for NPCs off-panel, things can both be realistic and controlled AND fair for everyone. And who is to say a trainer can't go into the wilds more than twice per month to catch stuff? Or same trainer could train more. Phyiscal limits to their ability to travel, schoolwork (this is an academy afterall, so homework, stuyding, tests, etc), social life, the phisical limits of their pokemon, pokemon being healed (I like to think that a real pokemon center takes more than a five second jingle to heal pokemon). Pokeballs also cost money and none of the students I have seen are getting allowances from the teachers or from the parents they do not live with. Very few have 'come from a lot of money' in their histories, and none of them have jobs. I also doubt the school will just give out pokeballs all willy-nilly. If the teachers are worth a damn they will say "Get to know your current team and train them up some before catching something else" And, frankly, I see no problem with people catching a lot of Pokemon. I mean...hell. For the most part, in the actual games, it's possible to have a full team as early as the second or third route. Might not be the ideal team you had in mind, but it's still possible. So I honestly see no need to put a restriction on that. My time concerns on this island compared to the video game bring this point to light: Look at the width of an average building in the game...about three or four 'people' withs. Look at your room. I am almost sure that the room you are in is larger than three or four of your own body widths. Walk across a building in the pokemon games. Wlak across your own room. I bet it takes you longer. Walk across a town in the game. Walk across your home town. I bet you cross the video game town before you get outside of your house. Think of how long it takes for you to drive to the nearest town to where you live. Think about along long it takes yoru character to walk to the nearest town. The point I am trying to make is that in the game there is a highly unrealistic time/distance dymanic that allows for you (the player) to have your character catch adn evolve pokemon in a few hours our time, but if you take the time and distance being covered into account, you are taking days, weeks, and months even in the video game. The way I have seen evolution (maybe that has just been me) Is that the Pokemon doesn't necessarily need to evolve from fighting experience. It Evolves when time is right for it. Of course that is going to be a problem in this kind of setting, so I see battle as the fairest way to decide when a Pokemon is ready for evolution. Maybe raise the amount of battle threads needed to evolve a Pokemon? Or something like that. The battle system is actually unfair in that only people who can get a plethora of battles against people can get the edge. There are also a good many questions in the current system ("Does this count?" "How many points if I do this?" "I have exp All" "I have a lucky egg") etc etc. I don't think a week has gone by with out one of the evo mods getting asked some question about the system. If its a flat time based system, then its easy. "When can pokemon x evolve?" "When did you catch it?" "Last month on the 15th" "Then it can evolve on the 15th" That is the absolute fairest system possible. It caters to nobody in particular and makes the overall drive to have battle after battle lower. Lower the number of battle threads mean battle mods can have a better chance looking into everything. Lower the number of battle threads and members can then handle more of other types of threads. However, there is still the question of how are (new) people supposed to compete with those who have already built up their team with no such limits? I still think there should be a way to allow newer people to catch up and compete... But I don't think it's as important. I, for one, am willing to just suck it up. (And I don't think I have more than two capture threads per month anyways... and have only had one pokemon evolve throughout my entire time of being here (Alacer, Zubat->Golbat) Also, I do agree with Kasia. Suddenly introducing a system like this will make it insanely hard for newer members to have any hope of catching up. I mean...Laz and Van are bad enough (no offense guys), but there are those of us who have at least one evolved (if not fully evolved) Pokemon...several of us have more than one. There is no real way to even out. Whether this system is in place or not, in any form of any system a member who has been active longer will have the edge. Its a simple factor of time. Laz and Van are among the oldest members and among other reasons so they have the largest team of the most evolved pokemon. It is unlikely that a new member could possibly catch up to them even if given a full team and a month of free evolution points. Laz and Van simply have more experience. (Using them as an example). If the system I suggest is implemented, however, the gap is slowed down so it stops increasing exponentially. As older members have their teams maxed out, newer members can still catch pokemon and evolve. Its a convex exponential curve; early on members can grow quite quickly but as their pokemon reache their full evolution level they stop getting stronger, letting people behind them catch up over time. -Catch threads twice a month sounds reasonable, or maybe three times... I would say that an absoulte maximum logical amount wouldbe once a week. This takes into acount the time it takes to find a pokemon youa re able to catch, your own pokemon resting and healing, your classwork and homework, having an active social life, and obtaining enough supplies to go hunting. However, I am still a fan of reducing the frequency to once or twice a month simply to slow down the people that have a ton of pokemon already. Regulation is key; if you go to a candy store and eat your fill every day, you'll get sick of candy. If you can only grab three or four pieces a day, you'll keep going back for a long long time. -As for evolution, I think it should be more than just once. Two or three times seems better. Maybe four...? The way the forum is currently set up, an evolved pokemon is exponentially stronger than a lower evolved form. With that in mind, limiting evolution not only forces the player to put some more damn thought into the process, choosing which pokemon should be evolved first, but it also helps keep people who battle a ton and people who develop their characters and people who attend classes on an even keel. But anyways...yeah. Those are my personal thoughts. I like the idea itself, but I don't think it should be quite as strict as Kaera is initially proposing. As far as evolution is concerned, I think two per month seems more fair. This is a very benign version of my original idea. I would love for a one evolotion OR capture per month because that would make people seriously think about the game instead of just going off all half-cocked, but that is unrealistic on this forum so I toned things down some to make it more pallettable. I'm a big hard-ass in RPs. |
|
|
|
Post by Rixie Pakuna on Oct 5, 2011 0:26:38 GMT -5
But then won't people be more likely to just sit on their arses and do nothing? If there's no need to battle for evolution, then why bother posting any threads with said pokemon?
Also, I don't mind the idea of only having one full team of pokemon, maybe a few extras (but not multiple teams)... but how would these regulations help allow people get to that number and then level off?
I guess overall I'd rather us just leave things how they are right now, at least for evolution. It works, and I don't see too many issues with it. Then again I've never had a real pokemon game. Got to play FireRed up to the third gym... but not much anything else.
I'm not here to be overly concerned about how "real" this is, etc. Yes, I'd like to keep things balanced... still...
I think I speak not only for myself, but the majority of the people here when I say that honestly I'm more concerned with hanging around with people I like and having fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yumiko Tokugawa on Oct 5, 2011 1:06:01 GMT -5
I agree with Above poster. Sure Balance is important, however having fun is so much more important, simply because having fun with the people here is what will keep people around.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaera on Oct 5, 2011 6:21:56 GMT -5
So in essence removing the incentive to do battle threads and catch threads as much as possible, there by increasing the time players have to do personal threads and social threads, isn't fun?
Okay, sorry for wasting y'alls time. I withdraw my proposal since I figured that the constant battle-catch-evolve pattern was rather boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raize Phoenix on Oct 8, 2011 14:59:12 GMT -5
I actually like kae's idea now that I think of it... Limiting the threads would give the mods a break. 3 times a week isnt really too well at all seeing as how it seems to take a week to finish one. The only reason why mods dont get to everyone at once, is because everyone is trying to capture at once. People and these back to back captures, not to mention that we seem to drag out our captures, are hard for mods to keep up with. 2-3 Mod theads a month is perfect to me.
|
|
