Jump to content

[GAME OVER] PokeMafia Generation I


Jeod

Recommended Posts

d1battle.thumb.png.bef5112b2a42dc4de5c730704ca5c034.png

RULES OF THE MATCH:

This match is a 1-on-1. Spectators may comment, but try not to spam. I will resolve a turn as soon as I see both moves have been taken. If either battle participant does not make a move within 3 hours of their last move, they will forfeit the match. Good luck!

FRAYDO sent out Gastly (30 HP)! 092.png

Sunflower sent out Dratini (41 HP)! 147.png

Battle participants may now post their moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shade939 said:

To be fair, it'd probably be better to randomly select what move he uses rather than outright costing him the match and his Pokemon.

I could, but that would still give him the chance to win without having to participate. That's not fair to Sunflower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternatively, I could give him a 2 hour window (from hammer), and if he doesn't show, I penalize him by cutting his Pokemon's HP in half and swap the challenger to the runner-up--Shade, in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeod said:

Alternatively, I could give him a 2 hour window (from hammer), and if he doesn't show, I penalize him by cutting his Pokemon's HP in half and swap the challenger to the runner-up--Shade, in this case.

That might be a bit too much meddaling.

I think the 3 hour rule would be fair, IF it was disclosed beforehand instead of being a surprise for him.  Also in the future the ability to say "If I'm picked, I won't be home until X o'clock", as some people are like never here at hammer (for good reasons) and they'd never be able to participate if it was always 3 hours from hammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

That might be a bit too much meddaling.

I think the 3 hour rule would be fair, IF it was disclosed beforehand instead of being a surprise for him.  Also in the future the ability to say "If I'm picked, I won't be home until X o'clock", as some people are like never here at hammer (for good reasons) and they'd never be able to participate if it was always 3 hours from hammer.

 

Just now, Shade939 said:

Yep, the biggest problem is not everyone can post within that time frame, so they effectively couldn't play this game then.

Which is precisely why I think the alternative is fair. One of his roster is revealed and loses half its HP, and his opponent doesn't get a free victory because I move to the runner-up challenger. Everyone here knew when they signed up that they would need to be around for the battle phase. There isn't an overwhelming excuse for those that can't make it and didn't say so beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeod said:

 

Which is precisely why I think the alternative is fair. One of his roster is revealed and loses half its HP, and his opponent doesn't get a free victory because I move to the runner-up challenger. Everyone here knew when they signed up that they would need to be around for the battle phase. There isn't an overwhelming excuse for those that can't make it and didn't say so beforehand.

If you move it to the runner up you're basically playing the game by yourself, because our votes don't matter.  Indeed, if we try and save someone, all the 1st place voter has to do is afk and all our effort is for not.  That's a major loophole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I guess the ideal thing would be to just let them take as long as they take, with the expectation people will be getting to them when they can.  It would take the game off a fixed-schedule of 2 days day 1 day night, but for battles it might need to be done.  If that screws up time for GMing later I think the least we can do is grant you a vacation for that, or have an extra long day.

The best alternative I think would be a thing like losing 1 HP per hour not posted after a certain threshold (for example).  It kind of balances things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the fairest thing you can do is have the non-present player play very badly by letting RNG determine their moves, or forcing them to use a preset move like Struggle.

Otherwise we open up the possibility of being capable of heavily abusing the votes based on when a Player can actually be on to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shade939 said:

Honestly, the fairest thing you can do is have the non-present player play very badly by letting RNG determine their moves, or forcing them to use a preset move like Struggle.

Otherwise we open up the possibility of being capable of heavily abusing the votes based on when a Player can actually be on to post.

Yeah, RNG determined moves would be a viable choice as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah, RNG determined moves would be a viable choice as well.

I think this is the best course of action. I will not, however, grant FRAYDO a victory point if rng gives him a win. I don't want players "feeling lucky" and going afk when they should be battling.

FRAYDO still has an hour and 15 minutes to show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jeod said:

I think this is the best course of action. I will not, however, grant FRAYDO a victory point if rng gives him a win. I don't want players "feeling lucky" and going afk when they should be battling.

FRAYDO still has an hour and 15 minutes to show up.

I'd find that acceptable.  I'd still give FRAYDO *a bit* more time, seeing as it was a surprise he was under a time limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sunflower said:

I mean I'd like to think we wouldn't have to worry about people on this forum pulling cheap tricks like what you guys are describing. >.> I don't mind whatever Jeod decides but just wanted to throw that out there.

I was thinking the same. Just because a loophole does exist doesn't mean we should assume it would be exploited. I like to think the players we have here are beyond such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sunflower said:

I mean I'd like to think we wouldn't have to worry about people on this forum pulling cheap tricks like what you guys are describing. >.> I don't mind whatever Jeod decides but just wanted to throw that out there.

Well like, it's not exactly fair to the person "saved" from the vote as well, or what if the vote was unanimous.  It just has a lot of problems doing a substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sunflower said:

I mean I'd like to think we wouldn't have to worry about people on this forum pulling cheap tricks like what you guys are describing. >.> I don't mind whatever Jeod decides but just wanted to throw that out there.

It's also a problem of you don't want to vote for a player, since you know they won't be on in order to post during the battle phase though...

So, suddenly, it becomes beneficial to not be on during the battle phase, and that's not even something you can always control or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...