Expanding the Starter Kit

@PichuBoy
I agree with you that 1v1's not paying for anyone with more than one Pokemon would solve the abuse issue. However it would then force a new player to battle 2v2's with a fully evolved Pokemon and a basic. While I have nothing against that battle, it would totally restrict them from competing in 1v1's with that second basic Pokemon. In a late-game sense (for players like us) your idea works perfectly, I just feel that it's a restriction that would be applied too early to a new player - as soon as they buy/earn a second Pokemon.

As for the ref's attitude, I know what you mean, but unfortunately there's not a lot that can be done. We can't force refs to ref any battle.

@Krummhorn
Why couldn't a three turn battle be fun? When I was new, all my battles probably lasted three turns - that's how long most evenly-matched basics take to kill each other. It was fun because I didn't have a preconceived notion about how basic battles should be. It never occurred to me that I should try and skip straight past them. Instead, what we have now is a situation where a new player jumps on AIM, asks for basics, and someone throws 10 of them so they can evo. All we're doing is teaching our new players this horrible attitude.

As for 1v1's, I'd love it if fully evolved 1v1's would pay. Two battlers each pick one Pokemon totally at random and see who can pull out the best strategy. However we still have the same abuse problem that we had previously, which is why these battles don't pay in the first place.

@We Taste Pies...
Agreed, but basic battles seems to be the reasoning behind a change to the starter kit, and so everything else regarding basics MUST BE DISCUSSED. You know how these things work.

@Buoy
If refs start lying, they'll very quickly be caught, lose their payments and probably their license. We have a great group of refs at the moment and I don't think that would be a problem anyway.



This whole issue is a "damned if we do, damned if we dont" situation. There really isn't an option that completely locks out abuse without hindering new players at all. PichuBoy is probably the closest, but it'll still feel it's a bit of a bad deal for the newbies. Every new rule we make just sends the same people who would abuse the system in the first place looking for the next loophole, while the players who wouldn't abuse it feel cheated and victimized.

 

If the concern is about gaining Pokemon, then perhaps we need to figure out better ways in which to help new members acquire Pokemon.

Are Stories too Intimidating? Do not enough people try out the Park? Should we introduce other capture methods suited to other talents?

Ultimately though, this is a system built upon the idea that you should work and train in order to achieve something. That's part of the basic tenets of Pokemon and something that's inherent to this community.

 

Well I imagine some players don't write because they either don't feel they would be good at it or it just isn't their cup of tea. Same thing goes for the Park. Some people have different interests when it comes to Pokemon but the one common one tends to be battles so perhaps we could add some way of getting Pokemon via battles. Almost like a wild pokemon encounter, but instead of writing a story for it or going to the park you do a battle like a 1v1 for it. Restrict it to only people with five or less Pokemon and they can only get one Pokemon a week from it, much like how Pickup only lets you get one item a week.

Basically you would have a list of Pokemon that comprises of decent Pokemon for new players to have and some others that at maybe common mart purchases as a second Pokemon. Then they would contact someone in charge of this and that person would be controlling the wild Pokemon, toss in a ref and have a 1v1. It would be the players goal to win the battle and thus the Pokemon and of course the person with the wild Pokemon would want to try to win as well, much like a Gym Leader doesn't hand out badges these people shouldn't hand out Pokemon. The person controlling the wild Pokemon could get maybe $500 per win and nothing per loss. Something to pay them for their time while remaining hard to be exploited. If the player wins they get the Pokemon as the prize and nothing for the loss. Refs would get $500 for reffing just like a normal 1v1. Have the player claim the Pokemon is some thread made for this and require them to link to the ref log, just like with Pickup in the Mart.

With something like this we can solve most of the issue brought up here. You end up with a system that helps new players get some starting Pokemon that is not terribly easy to exploit. Older members can't exploit it. And everyone wins. And if it is really popular then perhaps there could be two tiers of it. A Junior Tier once a week for new players and an Advanced Tier for older players that works the same way with perhaps some stronger Pokemon (maybe some with TMs already on them or DW Abilities unlocked) that is perhaps once a month much like the Underground.

Any issue with basics spam will have to be solved by the community accepting that basic battles are just as much for fun as anything else in URPG. At the moment it doesn't seem like it is to the point that it needs more regulating, but rather a reminder that that is not the point of them.

 

When I started, I was forum bound and did not have AIM. I also battled forum basics with my Houndour and did everything I can to win, even admittedly resulting to what would be considered as ultramegahax. Those battles were fun and my opponents tried to do the same. When I first got AIM, though, I did the same thing with basics, but got told off by some refs for prolonging a basic battle. Once iirc, a ref told me that "That's not how you basics" after I was struggling to win with a Nincada against a Dratini. Perhaps that's where I got the perception that basic battles should be fast paced and are only done for the sake of evolution.

 

Let's just give everyone 3 starters instead of 1!!

Seriously though, the system is fine. I've never heard anyone complain (except more experienced members ironically) about how easy or hard it is for new players to start out. If you really want an accurate consensus, ask the newer members that we have lately, I know URPG Chat has been really active lately with new people, so they're here to ask. I agree with Harry in that URPG mons should be worked for. Basics have become way more streamlined than when I joined, and I don't necessarily have an issue with it, but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to throw our perma basics at new members to beat up. Let's encourage them to battle each other so they can get a better feel for the game.

I feel like URPG battles only serve the purpose of getting more money lately, and that a lot of competitiveness has been lost in recent months. I think that this stems from giving that impression to new members when their very first battles are against old members just spamming basics to earn extra cash.

IM RAMBLING.

In short, my opinions are to keep the starter package the same (and maybe just bundle everything new members get initially at the starter thread [contest and park credits]), and also to only use our perma basics (because I've been an offender in the past too) against newer members if they can't find an opponent. But yeah, we should ask new members how they feel about the starting difficulty level of the game before we actually change anything @[email protected]

 

You know, instead of having a starter request thread, a sign up for the park, and a sign up for the contests and all that, we could just have one URPG sign up that comprises all of those things together. People might be more inclined to use the park and contests and all those other aspects of the URPG if they know right off the bat that they are available and that they get something to start off with in them.

 

Maybe not anyone with more than one, then, possibly something like 3 or 4 fully evo'd mons? 3v3s and 4v4s are usually seen as the biggest source of income, since they're the quickest while also being relatively strategy-based, so as soon as someone gets to that mark, it's hard to justify calling it limiting. I just think experienced members relying on basics to gain money is a pretty cheap move when they have the knowledge and Pokemon to make money from larger battles, and also with their professions in URPG as well.

I was gonna post something else too but I completely lost my train of thought. Derp.

 

I have said before that I think perma basics should be banned when battling other basics.​

 

Just because someone uses there perma basics too battle other Pokemon does not mean they should be banned yes some people abuse them but you can't tell a trainer how much he/she can use there Pokemon. I look at it this way if you say I can't use my perma basics after I have say 10 battles on it because now it can evo or I can't have one at all, what you are saying is me as a trainer I now can't use a Pokemon I work for once it hits a point. If that's is the case what is next are you going to tell me how to run my gym or what Pokemon I can use and can't oh how about make the rules for me before a battle, come on what is this Nazi Germany people?

 

As much as I enjoy this idea, we can't really do that =(

 

I think banning perma basics from use is a bit extreme. I don't think I would call it Nazi extreme though. Like I said, regulation isn't going to help basics get back to being fun. If anything to many regulations on basics will make it less fun for the newer members. It is going to take people just plan stopping the throwing of battles to do that. An easy way to do that that would be easy to monitor provided that the refs log like the reffing encyclopedia tells them too, is to make a battle not pay is someone obviously throws the match.

We have an honest group of refs so provided that someone is reviewing ref logs on occasion, which I assume is suppose to happen since we have a list of what must be in a log, then there will be almost no way for someone to throw a match and still get paid for it. I would even go so far as to suggest denying a pickup from a thrown match. As has been said several times, the goal is to earn what you receive. If you lose a match on purpose just to speed it along then you have earned nothing and should get nothing.

As for someone doing the opposite of throwing a battle, someone one who goes in and two-shots new players for fun and profit, that is kinda counter productive to new people finding a fun and friendly environment here. Not to mention that it creates the same basics problem above. Therefore, in this case, perhaps what should be done is if someone is found to be doing this to new players penalize them in some manner. Revoke their recent earnings and mart purchases for example. Don't allow them to battle for a week or two. Again, we have an honest set of refs here and I don't think there would be an issue paying attention to that kind of thing and keeping it under control.

Beyond all of that, there appears to be at least three different things being discussed in this thread. Whether or not the starter package should be changed and if so in what way. What to do, if anything, about what has become of basic battles. And finally, there was mention of new players in regards alternative means of obtaining Pokemon such as the Park and stories. In order to keep the ideas organized and people on a single topic, perhaps two additional threads should be made. One for the basics discussion and one for the discussion of alternative means of obtaining Pokemon. Leaving this thread solely for discussion the starter package if anyone has anything else to say about it.

 

Here's just a quick idea I thought up.

What if the refs just decide to not ref for people who are using permas to lose unless it's a last resort. Like, just ask who is partaking in said battle and if it's two newbies then fair game, let them basic to their hearts content. But if it's some new member and an older member who obviously has a perma designed for every losing scenario possible, then just have all the refs come to an agreement that they won't ref those battles.

 

So I couldn't quite bring myself to carefully read every post in this thread, but here are my thoughts:

1) Why in the Sam Hill are we discussing perma basics in the thread titled "Expanding the Starter Kit"?

2) Having a perma basic isn't really abuse. I mean, they're really handy if somebody needs to evolve a Pokemon and no one else is online who has a basic. If it's that big of a problem, can't we say something like 'You can only use your perma basic to evolve another Pokemon once a week'? I've seen a lot of people helping out newbies by letting them beat up their permas. But yeah.

3) As for the expansion kit thing, I think the money is fine. If people don't have enough money to buy a second Pokemon they can write for their next Pokemon, or perhaps win it through contests or find it in the National Park. God forbid we use the other sections. Giving out contest credits along with the money works out since they're two different currencies. Story section and National Park don't have currencies of their own. You don't really need anything to encourage people to go to those places either, since that's where people get the bulk of their Pokemon.

I think that's everything.

 

Because TANGENTS. Also basics income was somewhat related to a reason for changing the starter kit.

We've also been discussing how anyone at all letting a basic get beat up, ie throwing a battle, has completely bastardized the concept of basic battles and it does nothing but contribute to the abuse of basics. Buy basic and win 10 battles to evo it because you know someone with a perma is just going to throw them all anyway. You get 10k, they get 5k for doing fuck all. HAVING a permabasic isn't abuse, throwing battles with it is.

Any such ruling of once-a-week perma-evo battles is too complicated to enforce. Same with PichuBoy's suggestion of basics don't pay once you have more Pokemon, I think picking a relatively arbitrary number like 3-4 makes the ruling too complicated also. And leaving it to the honour system only results in exactly the same situation here. The system is flawed, but most suggestions just seem to move the flaw somewhere else.

I'm not exactly opposed to extra money, I just haven't seen one reason yet that I think merits an increase in the starter funds, and I'm still of the opinion that it's COMPLETELY unnecessary.

I don't mean to be criticizing anyone's ideas. A lot of what's been suggested would in theory fix a flaw in the system, just not completely. They would create other flaws, or over complicate things, or just not be practical. Or, they're suggestions for things which aren't flawed at all.

 

The only point I want to add about throwing battles with permas being considered abuse is that, if I have a perma and someone is trying to evolve a mon they baught/whatever, it think it's kinda rude to win and take all the money when you're the one with a perma.

 

That is a slightly more abusive situation, yes.

 

I agree. As the owner of the perma basic you are seen as the host, and the senior member in the battle, especially considering that most perma owners are relatively senior. It is only polite to let the person who needs it to evolve win the battles

 

I agree. As the owner of the perma basic you are seen as the host, and the senior member in the battle, especially considering that most perma owners are relatively senior. It is only polite to let the person who needs it to evolve win the battles

 

@Monbrey

In that case, let's look at it this way. This is a text-based forum game where there's no computer or NPC to make sure we're playing fairly. It's just us and other players. The people in charge are other players as well. There will always be flaws in our system and creating more rules and restrictions is going to make it less fun. Whatever happened to common sense? I mean, duh, you shouldn't buy 80 Pokemon from the mart and make them kill each other so that you get a profit. I guess it's sort of dumb that people are throwing basic battles but unless people are just doing it constantly there isn't a problem. I leave [URPG] on all day and I don't see that much battling of any kind going on. If there's isolated cases of people doing it constantly then tell those people to cut it out.

As for giving out more money, I don't really care either.

 

For those of you saying it isn't really a problem, take a look at this:

http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/f395/logs-have-brains-who-knew-133137/index2.html

Over two days, the user Candide was involved in 12 sets of basics, all of which were 2 turn battles. Futhermore, these are only from Brainiac's logs, he could have easily done basics under more than one ref. He made 98500 from those battles and got Pickup.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that that user was at fault for doing so, nor was anyone involved. I'm simply pointing out that this is a prevalent problem; Candide was simply one example in a long list of users who are repetitively doing basics.

For those of you who keep asking why basics are being discussed in this thread: If a rule is made to fix the basics issue, it is most likely going to need an exception for the sake of people who are just beginning.

Also Monbrey, I know you think that making 3 or 4 mons the limit is sort of clunky, but we already have a sort of clunky rule anyway with the fully evolved only if it's your only mon. So I don't think it is that much worse. Though I definitely agree that the suggestions of Alaska and Sormeki will do little to solve the problem; a fixated and firm stance on the problem is, in my opinion, the better way to approach it.