Expanding the Starter Kit

Sorry I think maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the fear isn't illogical, but I'm saying that it isn't that common of a problem. Also we currently have nothing to fix that problem in the first place. People right now could easily battle a kajillion battles to get infinite money. I don't see how giving them an extra 2000 or 3000 is going to contribute to that sum at all based on your logic.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have to battle to get money. I'm saying people shouldn't have to do idiotic 1v1s with fully evolved mons to get money at the beginning because the URPG discourages those battles. Giving them an extra 2k or 3k will make those battles less of a necessity, since most people buy a second Pokemon as soon as possible.

Honestly from what you're saying, it would make most sense to just give them no money, give them a coupon for a free Mart mon, and give no money to fully evolved 1v1s without exception.

 

Eh, imo 3k + the minimum 3.5k you get from evolving your basic is enough. In fact, its 6.5k which is the amount Smores proposed. So no, I wouldn't add anything to it.

 

I don't see why people buying TMs for their starters instead of buying a new mon is even an issue here. When I started I used $2,000 of my $3,000 to buy a Spirit Stone, which at the time evolved Eevee into Espeon or Umbreon. Then after my basics and I think an FFA or two, I had enough to not only purchase a Poochyena, but also Grass Knot for my Espeon. So really there is no reason why people can't stick with $3,000 as the starting cash. We all had it and have all turned out fine.

If a new player gets into a situation where they evolved their first Pokemon and don't have enough for a second Pokemon then it is kinda the fault of that player, not a flaw in how the URPG is run. Besides, as mentioned, if you only have the one mon you still get paid for a 1v1 so you can still make enough to get whatever new mon you want. Abuse of that is pretty easy to monitor. If someone has one mon with all kinds of TMs/BMs/SMs and all sorts of items and cash, clearly they are abusing the system. In order to know if they should award money for a 1v1 that involves a fully evolved mon it is kinda the refs job to check the players stats to make sure that is their only mon. At which point it would be easy to see if they have been abusing the system.

So issue solved in that clearly this issue was solved long ago by leaders of the past. It has worked this long so who are we to break it in the name of fixing it.

 

See no. I was suggesting 6.5k assuming that you would get the 3.5k from evolving your basics.

 

Double-edged sword. If people can easily battle a kajillion battles to get infinite money, what's the point of the extra 2000 or 3000? There's an argument to both sides with that.

The URPG doesn't discourage those battles, it discourages ABUSE of those battles. Like with everything. If anything the URPG "discourages" anything below a 3v3 (since 2v2s aren't that much more strategy-filled than 1v1s), so should we give them enough money to buy 2 other mons?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the money given out by 1v1 battles for people with one Pokemon is fine enough when coupled with the fact they get a reasonable $3000 to start them off. Trying to gain massive amounts of money through keeping only 1 Pokemon and battling with it is self-penalising, as you eventually just end up getting bored of the URPG, and end up having to buy new Pokemon anyway. The staff also aren't stupid - if someone's getting high amounts of money by not buying another mon, they're going to play the abuse card, because that's what it is.

The URPG's attitude on loopholes is "use common sense". If it gives you an unfair advantage over others, then it's abuse. You'll be warned first (since, admittedly, abuse is subjective), then if you refuse to stop, you're punished accordingly.

Anyway, like I said before, you're basically asking to start them off with a minimum of 10k (6.5k starting money, minimum of 3.5k from battling). In essence, you're guaranteeing them a psuedo for free.

 

Sorry if I insulted you. I didn't mean to say your idea would always be pointless. My point was that basics have developed a bad reputation because of how people use them - to either quickly evolve a Pokemon, which is generally considered acceptable, or to make quick cash, which is considered abuse. All through your posts you've mentioned "$3.5k - $10k" for basics, and this is exactly my point. You've clearly expressed them as nothing more than revenue raising, and its this attitude towards basics that has caused them to become so closely scrutinized in the first place. If basics weren't only seen as cash raising, then I think giving a little bit extra at the start would be a more positive prospect.

1v1's could be just as much fun as a 6v6. Personally, I prefer the smaller battles anyway. In a 6v6 when I have a counter for every type, and so does my opponent, its a boring switch/stat fest. In a 3v3 however, I have to make do with a limited type coverage and pull out some much more interesting strategies. For a newbie, if battling with their one and only Pokemon that they hand-selected, so we can assume its either their favourite or a strategically selected good Pokemon, I don't see how having to do a few extra battles with it is a chore. Like I mentioned before, I loved battling with my Charmander. It never occurred to me that I was only battling to buy something, the mentality was "Gotta win these battles so I have lots of money!". It was exciting, not tedious, because I was a player and not an economist. The deterring factor is how the rest of the community would respond to a player with only one fully evolved Pokemon, which is likely to be throw a battle so they get quick money, or completely counter it in the 1v1 and dominate the battle.

tl;dr A new player should be enjoying their first battles, not just spamming through to get as much cash as possible. Honestly, I don't know if extra starting cash would make a difference to this or not.

 

I want more money for new people starting out but I think Monbrey is right it wont help do anything for them. If you want to do something to help them cut 50% off for there first Pokemon they buy, that would would help more then the money because now they don't have to use that much and they have some left over just saying.

 

I approved adding the Contest starting credits to the thread awhile back. Someone was going to add them.


In regards to money, I feel the need to provide the obligatory history lesson. Though I can't speak for what we did in the Yahoo days, when the URPG came to Pe2K in 2003, the activity was at an extremely low point (one battle a day total). As such, no one really abused Basic battles because, if you were lucky, that was your battle for the day! Trainers fought using whatever strategy they could, even when the odds weren't in your favor. That was part of the fun.

As a result, your average winnings over five battles was not $2,500 but rather $3,750 (assuming you won 2 battles, lost 2 battles and tied once) or $5,250 with 7 battles. That resulted in a total account of $8,250 assuming one didn't spend it. Of course this varied, and no one really stopped at five/seven battles. That was the fun! So what if you pit your Larvitar against an Alakazam? Unbalanced, sure, but definitely thrilling beyond belief!

I don't know when the game changed to the point where we raced to evolve our Pokemon. I don't know when we started spamming basics. It's tragic that this has become more commonplace.

 

I think the problem lies with Perma-basics. Im not saying that having a basic that you want as a pet is wrong, thats perfectly acceptable. But what happens when someone asks for basics, and that person continually is the one raising their hand for it, and then deliberately not trying? After all, they dont need to. They already have enough battles on that pokemon to evolve it, and any extra money they raise from basics is just a bonus. And thats if they try to lose. What if they have one of the many Eevees with TM Return, which pretty much allows a 2HKO on every basics that isnt either resistant or can 2HKO faster? Then thats double what they would have gained if they had tried to throw the battles.

I remember someone once claiming in the URPG Chat that they had earned a total of 200K just out of basics with their Eevee. What effort went into earning that 200K, apart from simply saying 'OK Ill basics with you' then pasting Return into the chat after every turn? Furthermore, how is that any better than 1v1 Fully Evolved battles, which are banned because they were abused? Now if both of you had just bought your Pokemon, then you would definitely be trying to win, as you would want to earn back the money you had spent on it or to buy the evolution item you need for it.

As for a way to stop this im not entirely sure. One way could be to ban unevolved 'mons that have the neccessary number of battles to evolve to do basics.

TL;DR: We need a safeguard against Permabasics abusing the basics system.

 

Personally I don't think the problem is with permabasics. Some Pokemon are better as basics with Eviolite and there is no real harm in keeping a basic around to help out a newbie by giving them a change to learn some more about battling by having a basics battle with someone that has been around longer. The issue is in letting the other person win that basic, or in not giving them a chance to win. The easiest way I can think of fixing that is, as I said earlier, don't pay someone that sits there and defense curls until they lose.

A lot of refs do put something about what happens in a battle. So, if they were to decide that a battle doesn't pay because the battle was thrown, you would see that in the log. If they were to pay someone that threw a battle, you would see that in the log. At that point there is no excuse for it getting past someone. Not that there is in the first place. Forum battles are easy to watch and if someone throws the match and still gets paid, it is up for everyone to see not just in the logs but in the battle itself. AIM battles have a tendency to take place in the Battle chat, which has plenty of spectators as it is. Someone would catch it either in the chat or in the logs.

A simple way to cut back on the spamming of 1v1s would be to not allow the same ref to ref two basics in a row for the same Pokemon. For example, if they ref a basics between a Growlithe and an Eevee, then the refs next reffed battle can't involve that Growlithe or that Eevee. This would require the battlers to find a new ref almost every battle as well as help spread out the battles so there is no hurry to get them done.

 

I really odn't think you learn more about battling by doing basics with someone who has been around longer. I mean I know the logic is that basic battles are bad and all that, but is there really a point of Pichu versus Pupitar and Pichu trying to win when Pupitar ohkos? Like I mean, a Pichu with no moves just isn't going to win against a Pokemon that has better stats than it.

But then refs could just stop posting the battle descriptions in the log if they wanted. Also that last suggestion would just be too much work. It would mean you'd have to only do one basic at a time and suddenly it would become a tedious process.

Also Mubz the problem with your idea is it would lead to a lot of messiness. For example, first of all what if one person has a Pokemon that needs 10 battles and the opponent's only needs seven. Or what if a battler needs to stop in the middle after say four battles. These are thing that would need to be awkwardly kept track of. Like, would it be abuse if I battled six battles with someone with my Ledyba, and then went and did 10 battles with someone else with my Ledyba since it never finished previously.

Perhaps 1v1s could be banned altogether. I know it sounds extreme, but I mean even a 2v2 would expand the different possibilities of the battle exponentially. There's no rule against battling one basic and one Fully Evolved versus one basic and one Fully evolved, or even two fully evolved versus one basic and one fully evolved. And as far as the first couple battles, I would prefer that members be given a coupon for a cheapened Mart mon, but possibly an exception could be made or something.

 

Mubz, I think I love you.

 

The problem lies with the battlers, not the size or the style of the battle. Basics and 1v1's have equal potential to be just as much fun as a 6v6. The unfortunate problem we have is that they make it very easy to abuse the system. The 2HKO Return Eevee is a perfect example of this. Hell, even my own Scyther is pretty easy to abuse basics with.

I totally disagree with any statement saying 1v1 battles are bad. It's the way they are used that is bad.

 

This is pretty much true. I reffed a 1v1 last night where it was a Growlithe against a Flaaffy. It was three turns, which is normal, but both of them had fun with the battle, and treated like a real one.

Getting rid of 1v1s would be pointless. When I joined it was a hell of a lot of fun doing them with my Nidoran, and in turn my Nidorino. Yeah I lost most of them, but so? 1v1s can be fun, if you actually try to make them be, not just spam Return with an Eevee for a quick win, or use Curse with a Dusclops for a quick loss. Or by letting a Nincada be beaten to death, which I'm guilty of.

 

I'm not sure if anyone already suggested this, since I didn't see it, but I only skimmed:

If people having perma-basics just for the money it'll earn them from newbies is a problem, how about any user with more than one Pokemon is ineligible to earn money from 1v1s, full stop? Make it so the newbie can still earn money (since otherwise we WOULD need a boost to the starting fund), and the ref still gets paid for the effort, but older members are forced to do it from the goodness of their hearts. I know I personally don't do basics for the money - I do it to evolve other people's Pokemon. After all, no-one said we HAVE to pay both battlers.

This'll also fully prevent the "buy Geodude, win battles, repeat indefinitely" abuse that was brought up a while back, should it ever arise again.

Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't just the battler's attitude towards 1v1s - it's the refs' attitudes as well. Any basic battle that isn't "spam the 2HKO move" is generally met with a "2hko or I'm not reffing" response. I've seen it way too many times :s

 

sorry this is what I meant to suggest in my last post. I guess banning was sort of unclear ^^; Also Ebail, I'm sorry I can't take seriously that a three turn battle was fun. Honestly? Also, if you guys are arguing that 1v1 battles aren't bad they why shouldn't fully evolved 1v1 battles pay? Why do the Pokemon need to be basic in order for a battle to be fun and rewarding? And you're right changing battles from 1v1 to 2v2 doesn't solve every problem, people will probably try to make the battles as quick as possible. But at least there is a chance for the person evolving their basic to win. There isn't a Pokemon like Eevee with return or Pikachu with Light Ball that just wins every battle without fail. I think it at least makes it more difficult for people to be abusive.

 

Why are we pretending basics are a game-breaking issue? This is about the starter kit, which I personally think, needs no amendment. No complaints, nothing to fix.

 

I don't see why there's a push for a change. Everyone has been happy with what they've got, and they've all found ways to make it work. There's been no issues with people wanting to repeat due to a lack of money, and anyone who wants money is always resourceful enough to get it. Every player in the URPG so far has started in the exact same way, and anyone who could actually be bothered to play URPG properly can get what they want. If we'd actually had some of the hypothetical issues occur before, then it probably might have been given some thought, but outside of all the 'what ifs' that seem to pop up in this thread, I can see no proper reason to change what we give starting players.

There's also the problem of supposed 'inequality' if a new starter kit is brought in. Sooner or later, someone is going to be like, "Well, this person got this, and why don't I?!" That'll start a whole other argument, to be honest, which would probably result in the reversion to what would be 'the old way' if such a change had been brought in.

As for the abuse of basics, which I don't think is directly relevant to the actual suggestion of this thread (not sure how it was brought up, seeing as I just scanned through...), I'm not sure how exactly that could be changed. I mean, if we introduce a whole judgement-type thing on 'is this person throwing the battle or not?', then some refs are just going to start lying. I know that the whole 1v1 situation does not bring in any more 'fun', but it is a little more convenient and gets you your money a little faster, which is what some people are concerned about. I'm neutral on the basics thing, but I haven't done properly fun basics since I started. I feel -- and I'm sure others do, too -- that it would just take up a lot of time. Sure, you feel accomplished and all that jazz, but it just depends on who you are. If people want to have fun, they will. There's nothing stopping them from doing that. I don't feel that making them do it the other way will help them have fun, though -- the option should be open, in my opinion.

 

Basics can absolutely be fun. Whether or not you are battling to evolve, for cash, or just to pit you are your friends strongest Pokemon against each other. We are all here in the first place because we want to have fun. Anyone that comes here with the idea of "No fun! Just mechanics!" Will probably get bored and leave.

Also, a few times it has been mentioned that refs don't or will stop putting in their logs what happens in a battle. And I've seen a couple times it having been said that refs would start lying or playing favorites. First off, that last part is not only against the rules of being a ref, but shows a real lack of respect for our current refs. I haven't known any of them to lie about a battle or bend the rules for player they like better. So why would they suddenly start? Beyond that, I would like to quote the Reffing Encyclopedia in regards to the idea of not putting a description of the battle. A few key points will be bolded.

If a ref leaves what happens in the battle out of their logs they are not logging properly. So I see no reason to believe if someone tried to say that someone threw a battle when they didn't that it would go uncaught.

 

It also says that usernames should be logged, and most refs don't even bother. It's one thing to say "There's this rule here", but if it's not actually bothered to be enforced, then it's kind of a moot point.