Games [Game Over - Town Victory] Pokemafia 2

[Jeod]

8 minutes ago, TheIrishman said:

So I have a lv 10. And yeah, I'm up for dueling if no one else wants to do it. The main reason I volunteered is because we gotta choose someone, so if others didn't want to, we'd still get a battle done.

But Retaliation completely ignored you. "Sunflower or bust" for him.

[OrangeP47]

Okay, how does everyone feel about this solution to the level problem:  When a pokemon faints, you get half its levels to distribute to other pokemon.  So for a level 10, you'd get 5, a level 20, 10, etc.  You can break up these levels however you want across pokemon too, so say you had 10 to distribute, you could send 5 one way and 5 another.  The level cap would still be 50, but you'd also still need to reach an "effective" 60 to evolve twice, for pokemon that do so.  I'll also publicly reveal that every 10 levels is what gives you a chance to learn a new level up move.  How do we feel about this?  If the change is made, Jeod would retroactively have 5 levels to distribute.

[Brigitte]

I think we should just leave things as it is and let it play out? I've spent the last 15 mins reading rule debates and stroking

11 hours ago, Sunflower said:

And I guess Shade's pokemon is level 20 and me and Retal have a level 10. 

@Brigitte @TheIrishman @Jeod @Category 5 Hurricane

Want to let us know what level your pokemon is today?

All of my pokemon are level 10 except for one, who is level 20.

re: what did i do last night: Trained a pokemon (once), Bought a TM (once) and checked my pokedex (once)

[Brigitte]

also re: rule change, if i had my level 20 as my first slot, i could sacrifice it today and redistribute 20 levels between my other Pokemon, do the same thing the next night and make all my my pokemon really strong really quickly, i don't think it really works that way and we should try and stick as close to "Gen 2" as possible?

[Brigitte]

redistribute 10 levels *

[OrangeP47]

Just now, Brigitte said:

also re: rule change, if i had my level 20 as my first slot, i could sacrifice it today and redistribute 20 levels between my other Pokemon, do the same thing the next night and make all my my pokemon really strong really quickly, i don't think it really works that way and we should try and stick as close to "Gen 2" as possible?

You'd only get 10 levels, but training would give another 10 perhaps, yes.

[Jeod]

I'm fine with that change.

[Shade939]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

Okay, how does everyone feel about this solution to the level problem:  When a pokemon faints, you get half its levels to distribute to other pokemon.  So for a level 10, you'd get 5, a level 20, 10, etc.  You can break up these levels however you want across pokemon too, so say you had 10 to distribute, you could send 5 one way and 5 another.  The level cap would still be 50, but you'd also still need to reach an "effective" 60 to evolve twice, for pokemon that do so.  I'll also publicly reveal that every 10 levels is what gives you a chance to learn a new level up move.  How do we feel about this?  If the change is made, Jeod would retroactively have 5 levels to distribute.

And what about the ability to divide the 10 levels from training a Pokemon into two groups of 5 now?

Also, another penalty for losing to balance out the fact you're getting levels back whenever you lose? I think the last thing you need is an even bigger reward for losing...

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Shade939 said:

And what about the ability to divide the 10 levels from training a Pokemon into two groups of 5 now?

Also, another penalty for losing to balance out the fact you're getting levels back whenever you lose? I think the last thing you need is an even bigger reward for losing...

It's either this or no change.

[Brigitte]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

It's either this or no change.

 

1 hour ago, Brigitte said:

I think we should just leave things as it is and let it play out

In my opinion.

[Jeod]

4 minutes ago, Shade939 said:

And what about the ability to divide the 10 levels from training a Pokemon into two groups of 5 now?

Also, another penalty for losing to balance out the fact you're getting levels back whenever you lose? I think the last thing you need is an even bigger reward for losing...

I like it. It puts more emphasis on the crucial moment--the battle--rather than which player fights.

[Jeod]

1 minute ago, Brigitte said:

 

In my opinion.

GMs typically run scenarios themselves based on the player data they have in order to determine if a change is truly needed. In this case, it sounds like what Shade pointed out does warrant a change. Although, it may not be big enough of an issue to be mandatory.

[OrangeP47]

Believe me, I'm noting everyone's opinions, and will not make a change until more people weigh in, but I'd just like to remind the interested parties that we're very limited in what we can do, due to game elements that are not public knowledge.

[Shade939]

To be fair, all this does is make it less of a penalty to lose a Pokemon you've been focused on training, and requires less time for you to be max out your level again.

It still doens't change the fact that you're going to lose to anything that has 10 more levels than your Pokemon, that's a problem with the damage formula being so level based, and how cheap it is to raise a Pokemon by 10 levels with a single night action already.

[Jeod]

1 minute ago, Shade939 said:

To be fair, all this does is make it less of a penalty to lose a Pokemon you've been focused on training, and requires less time for you to be max out your level again.

It still doens't change the fact that you're going to lose to anything that has 10 more levels than your Pokemon, that's a problem with the damage formula being so level based, and how cheap it is to raise a Pokemon by 10 levels with a single night action already.

Your complaints are giving me deja vu.

[Jeod]

And of course you're going to lose to a Pokemon that has 10 levels over you. That's kind of the point.

[Sunflower]

1 hour ago, Brigitte said:

I think we should just leave things as it is and let it play out? I've spent the last 15 mins reading rule debates and stroking

All of my pokemon are level 10 except for one, who is level 20.

re: what did i do last night: Trained a pokemon (once), Bought a TM (once) and checked my pokedex (once)

I just meant the pokemon you have available for today whether its level 10 or level 20 so we know which players could have a fair battle with Retal. So far it's just me or Irish.

[Shade939]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

Okay, how does everyone feel about this solution to the level problem:  When a pokemon faints, you get half its levels to distribute to other pokemon.  So for a level 10, you'd get 5, a level 20, 10, etc.  You can break up these levels however you want across pokemon too, so say you had 10 to distribute, you could send 5 one way and 5 another.  The level cap would still be 50, but you'd also still need to reach an "effective" 60 to evolve twice, for pokemon that do so.  I'll also publicly reveal that every 10 levels is what gives you a chance to learn a new level up move.  How do we feel about this?  If the change is made, Jeod would retroactively have 5 levels to distribute.

I guess I'll go ahead and support it then.

But I'm not convinced it actually goes far enough.

[Shade939]

Also.

##Trainer TheIrishman

[OrangeP47]

CVC

Sunflower/Irish tied for trainer

Retaliation leads rocket

Valid investigation zones:  Goldenrod Radio Tower, Goldenrod Gym, Route 30, Route 34

Current Active players

1.  TheIrishman - No votes

2.  Jeod - No votes

3.  Retaliation - Sunflower/trainer, Retaliation/rocket

4.  Shade939 - Irish/trainer, Retalation/rocket

5.  Sunflower - Retaliation/rocket

6.  Brigitte - Route 30/rocket

7.  Cat 5 - No votes

[Jeod]

The practice of altering games too drastically and asking for such alterations while the game is ongoing needs to stop. Only major balancing changes need to be brought up. Anything else is post-game feedback and needs to be discussed post-game.

[OrangeP47]

TBH I was just going to surprise Shade with a penalty if he whined too much, but I suppose warning him is fair.

[Jeod]

For the record, since my opinions are spread across 2 or 3 posts now:

I am for altering the level distribution to keep players in the game, since such a change affects all alignments.

I am not for further adjustments that change the game because a player doesn't like their odds. Such changes would only cause confusion and cause faulty scumreading.

[Sunflower]

I mean... we don't really know all the details so I dunno. You made the game the original way cause you thought it was right, so I agree with Brigitte that you should just stick with it. Unless you think the original way is awful or something.

[Shade939]

4 minutes ago, Sunflower said:

I mean... we don't really know all the details so I dunno. You made the game the original way cause you thought it was right, so I agree with Brigitte that you should just stick with it. Unless you think the original way is awful or something.

The fact that he's suggesting it int he first place means he thinks it'll work out.

It'll work as is, but then you'd be sitting out the next couple of days while you try to recover from losing a Pokemon you've invested in.

[Shade939]

Edit: It'll work as is without the change, but then you'd be sitting out the next couple of days while you try to recover from losing a Pokemon you've invested in.

[Shade939]

Basically, I support it because it'll let you actually battle more, and you're have to spend less time unable to battle because you're not ready to fight with any of your other Pokemon yet.

[OrangeP47]

Here's my thinking.  Say you have two people, who have both invested say 30 levels into one pokemon, so they're level 40.  Everyone is convinced one of them is rocket and the other is town.  (Doesn't matter if they're right or not).  Say they battle and the town-suspect wins, going to level 50 while the rocket-suspect goes to level 10.  Everyone could just vote for the same matchup again and the level 10 person would be bowled over.  At that point this isn't really a game anymore.  This is designed to at least give the person on the out a fighting chance.  One person can't just run away with the game.  There will always be someone who can compete.  It would probably balance pretty well, because conversely say we're down to 1 v 1, and the rocket wins with a lvl 50 vs a level 50.  If the remaining town has nothing, the game's pretty much over.  I think we'd all rather see actual good battles than one side just forefiting.

[Shade939]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Here's my thinking.  Say you have two people, who have both invested say 30 levels into one pokemon, so they're level 40.  Everyone is convinced one of them is rocket and the other is town.  (Doesn't matter if they're right or not).  Say they battle and the town-suspect wins, going to level 50 while the rocket-suspect goes to level 10.  Everyone could just vote for the same matchup again and the level 10 person would be bowled over.  At that point this isn't really a game anymore.  This is designed to at least give the person on the out a fighting chance.  One person can't just run away with the game.  There will always be someone who can compete.  It would probably balance pretty well, because conversely say we're down to 1 v 1, and the rocket wins with a lvl 50 vs a level 50.  If the remaining town has nothing, the game's pretty much over.  I think we'd all rather see actual good battles than one side just forefiting.

Of course, in that scenario, you're still going to lose the next day unless you can get your new primary Pokemon up to the same level as your opponent though...

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Shade939 said:

Of course, in that scenario, you're still going to lose the next day unless you can get your new primary Pokemon up to the same level as your opponent though...

You underestimate type advantage/resistance/a ton of other things.