EXTERMINATING Basics

You probably think this is a joke thread and there's a new ref/judge/something. Well joke's on you, this one's real.

We all know basics are the biggest mess in URPG and have been a few years. Evolution appeals to people for several reasons (for instance, enjoying the journey or simply wanting it over and done with) and basics fail at all of them. There is no "journey" to saying the same move 20 times. Asking around for days on some occasions is not just getting it over and done with. It's also a very abusable system that can even discourage people who have no interest in abusing it (for instance, when Bee didn't want to buy things so he could get the evolution in his Pokédex and then gift it). As far as I can tell, basics are only "liked" for free money or being the only way to evolve Pokémon. The system has been in need of change for a few years and every knew it, but with a lack of alternatives.

So how about an alternative idea?

Of course, as this is such a big change, it can be implemented in a few different ways. We could implement it at any point in its entirety. We could phase it in slowly, such as implementing the new system options and giving a certain period of time before the old system is removed entirely. Or perhaps it needs more work before being implemented and we need to take it back to the drawing board.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that there would potentially be a chance for all current members to claim a few Rare Candies when this first happened. Also, Siless suggested changing the evolution requirement numbers (preliminary numbers were 5 for single evolutions and 4-3 for double evolutions).

EDIT2: Sou Cleife suggested allowing a 1v1 or two for new members starting out to make it easier to get the hang of it and less intimidating. HKim suggested naming the three most common rule types to allow new members to not need to memorize them from the beginning, current name suggestions are "Standard" for XY Public Open, "Competitive" for XY Private Preview, and "Secret" for XY Private Full (or "Standard" for XY Public Open, "Modern" for XY Private Preview, and "Legacy" for XY Private Full)).

 

Overall, I fully support this idea, I just have a few question about the logistics of some options and then another question about this idea in general:

1) Is Park evolution instantaneous or does it happen after the run?
2) Do all evolution requirements still need to be met for Rare Candy and Park based evolutions? (i.e. stones, soothe bell, trade, whatever you do for Pancham etc.)
3) There are some requirements (such as Inkay's) that can't be met in a URPG Battle. Would these have to be met in Park?
4) Do any of these methods stack with one another or cross over? Like, if I have used 3 Rare Candies, would I still have to do the same amount of 2v2s or Park encounters? If so, then what would the conversion be like between methods?

Inquiring minds want to know! :O

EDIT: @WinterVines; would probably be the best one to answer some of these.

 

Maybe Winter can add more, but that's my knowledge of these topics.

 

We Magic now.

Some of these ideas seem cool; I'm particularly a fan of the Park methods, though I have two notes about that. First, it would require a lot of Ranger activity. Since I haven't paid much attention to that section, I don't know if this is a problem or not. Secondly, it's not clear from your post what "earning experience" means. Does that mean that a single Park run with your Pokemon counts as one "battle" out of seven for evolving? Or that three Park battles count as 1/7 ? Again, since I haven't used the Park much, I'm wondering exactly how long that would take. It seems like the Park as a method of evolution is the coolest option, but also the longest by far. A person could evolve a Pokemon using any other method long before they've earned their first bit of experience from the Park.

My main worry is that people are always going to default to the quickest option. If you say they have to use the Pokemon in an actual battle, 2v2+, they're going to default to Doubles 2HKOs. Bump it up to three and they'll do Triples. Or they'll do singles "basics" with the implicit understanding that the point is to get it over with as quickly as possible.

Essentially, basics would still be a chore if you want to complete them as quickly as possible, except even more of a soul-sucking time-killer for everyone involved. Even if you agree beforehand that you're going to do a 4v4 with one basic each, someone's going to be the guy stuck with a Magikarp in a real battle. The way things work in URPG, only a select number of basics are actually useful. This isn't like the games, where you can bring an only-slightly-overlevelled Pikachu up against Misty and beat her Starmie with your supereffective attacks. In URPG, Starmie gets a 2HKO with Surf, every time (barring hax).

I like the idea of using Contests here, because in that setting, a basic Pokemon and a fully-evolved one are essentially on the same level. If this change went through, I see Contests becoming the main evolution method--which, flavor-wise, is a little silly. I think the benefits outweigh that, however. At the very least, people would still be able to have fun with it since everyone's got the same chance of doing well (except, perhaps, that poor guy who's still standing over there with his Magikarp). Downside is it may not always be possible to find a contest that fits a trait your Pokemon is strong in, since we're talking about Pokemon that generally have smaller movepools.

My main concern is that if we're going to "fix" basics, we need to make sure that whatever methods are leftover are actually fun. If not, then we're still left with a chore, just one that takes even longer to complete and doesn't even pay. Contests and the Park seem like a good start.


EDIT: This may be a good place to call attention to the people in the other "Honest Chat and Feedback" thread who are saying that they feel reaching their goals is an insurmountable pipe dream. I would argue that one point in favor of the current basics system is that it at least shortens one tedious part of getting a Pokemon into a battle-worthy state--and that extra $3500-$10000 is usually enough to buy the one or two really essential EMs a Pokemon needs to be usable. Just food for thought.

 

@the edit: This I 100% agree with. The new system would probably deter members (new and old) and slow the game overall. This is the part that tears me because as much as I like the idea of getting rid of the current basics system, I really loathe the idea of making things that much slower in terms of progression. I do think this could be balanced by changing the pace in other areas of URPG (such as buying EMs/items/berries/Pokemon).

 

What if we simultaneously implemented pay improvements elsewhere as was suggested?

 

@Ash K.

While I agree it needs to change, I want to assert that the current system of basic battles is emphatically not abuse. There's no GameSharking or item-multiplying (or, in URPG terms, no OHKO and then copy-paste the stats ten times) going on here, people are battling in an at least nominally two-sided way. It's exactly the same as grinding in any other RPG, and grinding sucks sometimes, but you earn "free" experience and money because that's just how the game works. I won't say "that's just how URPG works" because I do agree that we can make it a lot better, but I feel it's disingenuous to refer to our current system as abusive. If we look at it with that attitude, then we're going to end up only restricting things and create a system that's equally as "abusive" and unfun, but takes longer to slog through. This is why I applaud your suggestions for more evolution methods. Still, I rankle at the thought that the only way to fix basic battles is to force people to throw their basics into standard battles, and that "people who don't enjoy these would go another route to evolve." We also need to come up with a way to evolve through battles that isn't just more of the same, but worse.

We need to create a system where basic Pokemon are valued in a competitive setting. I'd like to advocate for the creation of an Eternal Little Cup format, where people can use either basic Pokemon or the basic forms of the fully-evolved Pokemon they own, so that it's not restricted to only those people who own basics. I know Little Cup has been done in the past, but I think we should turn it into an evergreen rule set. There would still be one problem, which is that brand-new basics would be at a disadvantage against, say, a fully-EMed Clefairy. For this reason, I'd like to suggest something that accomplishes a similar goal as the proposed pay improvements: Discounted EMs for basic Pokemon. If we halved the prices of EMs for basic Pokemon, we'd have a much stronger case for encouraging people to have fun, competitive basic battles because they'd be able to easily supplement their limited movepools.

Yes, there's a potential abuse case here: Someone saves up a ton of money, gets a new Pokemon, buys as many EMs as they can, and then evolves it so they can immediately use it in Standard battles. I'm okay with this for 3 reasons:

1. That player would have had to do a lot of planning and have a lot of patience to take advantage of it. They still would have had to put in the effort to earn a reasonable amount of money.

2. That player is going to have a more fun time when they do decide to start evolving their Pokemon, because they'll be able to enjoy Little Cup battles instead of just letting someone 2HKO them a bunch of times because they didn't have any tools to fight back with anyway.

3. If that player wants to EM their new Pokemon for competitive immediately, the discount will be limited to whatever they can afford right away. Once the Pokemon is evolved, they'll have to pay full price for any EMs they want down the line.

We simply can't recreate the feel of the quintessential Pokemon journey in a system where every Pokemon starts at LVL 100, with full EVs and as many extra moves as the trainer can afford. But we can create an environment where all but the worst basic Pokemon can battle competitively, and I think that an eternal Little Cup, combined with incentives to keep your Pokemon un-evolved, will go a long way.

I want to point out that I'm also in favor of pay increases--this is one potential way to take on that goal. I like it because it's specifically geared toward an aspect of URPG that has been marginalized in the past.

 

@Elrond 2.0;

Thinking about it, maybe you are right about viewpoints on this. Maybe my viewpoints are overcompensating a bit, but I'm also worried some people are simply looking a it through the lens of the old system (which pretty much everyone agrees has a lot of flaws).

I definitely agree with making Devolution rules a permanent addition (in fact I would have supported that even without this change, it's a great style and often a nice change from the norm). It is a great way to make evolution battles balanced (also, it would be a Cleffa, not Clefairy).

EM part I'm a bit less in favor of. Perhaps if we limited the discount to (2?) moves per Pokémon. It's not really fair to let people spend 200k as if it were 400k just because they saved up until they got a new Pokémon. Also, that would make Murkrow and other competitive basic Pokémon consistently buy EMs at half price. [Even though I'd benefit from that more than probably anyone else, it's still not fair]

As for pay increases, any suggestions how to do it? The "consistent activity" style Swift described in the other thread, directly increasing payments in many areas, giving some sort of multiplier to things under certain conditions/which varies with certain conditions, etc.?

 

Re: Cleffa vs. Clefairy. Is that how Little Cup works? I was under the impression that Clefairy was still considered the basic form, and baby Pokemon were considered to be a level under that. Oh, Bulbapedia says I'm wrong. I think if we were to make it an eternal format, we would have to inform our decisions by what's defined on places like Smogon that have already played with it quite a bit. While I'm not totally on board with the idea of adding tier lists/ban lists to URPG, this may be one place where it has some value. We'd have to take a good, hard look at Pokemon like Murkrow. One solution would be to ban a certain list of Pokemon from Little Cup and restrict the discount to only those Pokemon that are allowed in Little Cup.

I agree with the idea of restricting the number of moves that can be bought at discount, though I'd argue it could be a fair bit larger than two. I do want people to be able to buy the essentials to make a Pokemon competitive--a Gastly might want Sludge Wave plus four or five coverage moves, for example. This is a place where we've got plenty of levers to pull, but I think the basic idea is solid and beneficial to reaching our goal, making basic Pokemon valuable.

I had shied away from mentioning pay increases in general because I thought there might be a better place to talk about it, but also because I hadn't thought much about it until now. While I realize I have a tendency to come up with ideas that have money attached to them, you may be surprised to know I actually think that the current pay scale + EM pricing structure is exactly right. There are, of course, a few obvious exceptions, like multi-battles paying less than they should. Other than that, I think a consistently-active person already makes a fair bit of money, so I'm not sure consistent activity is the right metric to go by. The people who make the most are the people with occupations, and I think they make the right amount more than the average player (again, taking into account certain exceptions). And yet, a lot of the time it feels like it takes forever for the average Joe to buff up their Pokemon. In general, I'm highly in favor of rewards, often larger than others are comfortable with, in areas that improve URPG as a whole, even if they look like they don't require a lot of extra effort. So while battles probably pay the right amount, a new incentive that encourages basic battles could be very beneficial.

I have more thoughts on the pricing structure, but I think I'll go post in the other thread.

 

I have always advocated for allowing trainers to battle with the de-evolved versions of their Pokemon in they should desire to. I'm a firm believer in allowing this method of gameplay, though I had been shot down every time I brought it up.

Basic Battles weren't a problem (at all) when I joined the URPG. They were valued as much as anything else. It's only recently (recently being the last half decade or so) that people have begun complaining.

 

Even in my very early days, with such a massive influx at one time from the BMG expansion, basic battles were often very serious battles (though much moreso among the . Unfortunately, that's no longer the case and is unlikely to ever be again.

We've already done Devolution rules no less than three times. There's a small ban list (in the last appearance: Scyther, Sneasel, Murkrow, Lickitung, Munchlax, Tangela, Cottonee, Porygon, Cranidos, Gligar, as well as Eviolite). Most of those would likely be viable in more serious battles (especially Scyther and Murkrow), maybe the others can be examined to see if they are needed on the list or can be removed.

Two was just a number I threw out, I'm not dead set on that particular number. Perhaps it's a good thing to examine when the majority of other things are figured out. It could also be done as a maximum discount as opposed to a maximum number of moves (for example, if the maximum discount was 5k, Protect + Substitute would only get 5k off the 12k total, while Swords Dance + Roar + Drain Punch could get 5k off the 10k total), otherwise it might just be a lot of buying Protects and Substitutes for maximum discount.

I agree, the current pay scale and pricing is pretty good overall. The question is if this change needs offsetting with other modifications. (I'm hoping it doesn't encourage people treating 2v2 basics the way they treat 1v1 basics now instead of using options that more fit their actual desires)

 

Okay, woah, I do just want to say that I am a bit confused. If this is all about evolution, the little cup really doesn't apply. I mean, how am I supposed to evolve my non-basic Clefairy or my overly-competitive Cranidos when they're banned? Additionally, I really do not want to look to Smogon for anything other than slight inspiration. It's a slippery slope that we don't need to fall down. I sympathize with the idea, though, just confused about the logistics of how it would affect evolution (no qualms with it becoming a battle-style in general).

I agree with Ash on limiting any kind of discounts for basics. Don't forget it doesn't just encourage people to EM basics, it also discourages people from EMing fully evolved Pokemon in the future, or even having evolving Pokemon in the first place which isn't really fair considering that's where the main sources of battling lie.

Finally, I truly think pay increases should be based on activity. I think having an occupation (while a massive help) is a bit overrated when it comes to pay. Okay, actually, let me limit this to just refs for now because I really can't speak for others. Refs work hard. Arguably, they work just as hard if not in some cases harder than the battlers and they are held to a higher degree of responsibility as well. I worked really hard as a consistently active ref (and battler) for 2 years straight before my activity started dwindling (and, yes, this includes a year of college). Yet I still am nowhere near confident in the amount of EMs I have. Obtaining Pokemon is one thing, and it's usually not very difficult. But EMing them all is massively tedious. It's even worse for those who don't have occupations, especially with the current state of activity. I am of the opinion that if you are active and stick to the grind, you should be rewarded. General pay increases are nice, but they don't give incentive to keep going. Also, there is some misconception about URPG money. I haven't exactly done any math, but even people who earn roughly 100k every 2 weeks only have enough to buy ~20 EMs for a Pokemon or two and then still have a bunch missing. And, take it from me, 100K is NOT easy to get to in times of low activity and even when there is decent activity it takes a lot of multitasking and a whole lot more time and patience to get to that amount. Not only that, but if we consider how changing basics will affect things, getting to those "high" wage marks will be even more difficult. Just my 2 cents based on experience. You can call me greedy or ungrateful or lazy, but I really think I worked hard in that time.

 

This is why I'm not putting too much stock in how Little Cup is typically defined by Smogon; we'd have to come up with our own standards for what is and is not allowed. I'd certainly be in favor of allowing Pokemon like Clefairy and Pikachu which wouldn't be allowed in Smogon Little Cup, but fit what we're trying to do with it. I would err on the side of extreme prejudice when it comes to banning things. Just like we don't ban Greninja, Garchomp, et al. from our Standard battles, I wouldn't expect to ban too many things from our Little Cup. I think "slight inspiration" is exactly the way we should look at Smogon.

I agree that it's worthwhile to consider limits if we were to offer a discount for basics' EMs. I'm a little less worried about the other points you brought up. It creates a decision point for players. Either you keep your Pokemon un-evolved and get a discount or evolve them and it becomes harder to buy EMs. Actually, that's a pretty good parallel for the games, where it takes longer to learn moves after you evolve your Pokemon. Still, I'm not against limiting it.

Finally, I definitely think we should look into pay increases. I especially agree that if we slow down basics significantly, there will need to be a proportional increase in ref wages.

 

I just want to double check something with all this. This is all to just add onto the current system, right? Like, if I still want to just do my 1v1 basics with someone, is that still allowed? Because honestly, I am completely against having to pay to evolve a Pokemon (not counting actually items that need to evolve) which seems like what I would have to do for Park and Rare Candies. Unless Park is something like basics get in free for evolution or something, then ok not as bad, but then that's still having to do a run.

 

It would replace the current system as I understand it, but you could still do 2v2s (or Contests lol) if you wanted to get paid instead of paying. Idk about Park logistics that's still Winter and Chainy's call.

 

Yes, it replaces the current system. Yes, it's very different. You probably do still have to pay for the Park, but you can also still catch Pokémon normally while there. But imagine for a minute the old system never existed. If this new one was the first system you'd ever heard of, what would you think? It's not like the old system is short on flaws...

 

I would honestly think it's a garbage system and wonder why we have to pay to even evolve a Pokemon. Like, I can understand paying for majority of stuff (items, EMs, entrance fees), but paying for just the right to evolve a Pokemon, I doubt I would've started URPG in the first place. I'm not even talking about being paid vs having to paid. Even if it was like 1v1 basics have no pay or something, that's fine with me. It's once I have to actually pay, that's where it doesn't seem like a good system anymore. Contests for evolution, I'm eh about, but that's because I don't just contest with any mon. Like, I pick a Pokemon I feel could hopefully win me a ribbon because it has some decent looking combo in it. I wouldn't necessarily get that with a basic. Sure some might have the gnarly moves I would contest with, but some mons would be just thrown in it just for the evolution and basically throwing the contest.

 

I mean paying is still just an option, though. You can still 2v2 and get paid. If it were the only option I'd be on the same boat as you @CommBA; . I still think that it would be a good idea to increase pay or something elsewhere to offset the lack of influx of basics money, though.

 

Sorry I'm late. Semester from hell.

 

Since I was not made aware of this thread til Elrond pointed me in this direction, I'll bring over my idea from PWN or PXR, wherever it was I posted.

I speak from the battling perspective because I honestly dont know how the rest of the URPG deals with basics, especially the park.

I say that at least from this side, we honestly don't have to change much. I'm good with a "basics clause" that allows for de-evolution of whats in your stats. So new players can actually find opponents.

In addition to that implement a "no TMs/HMs" clause to those basics. Allow BMs because, well basics that can hatch knowing moves as BMs just seems more in tune with the whole basics things.

Or allow the other EMs but here is where the ref has to be extra careful in allowing them to be used so as to not allow a move that a basic cant learn until it evolves.

Also, if you're worried about the ban list, simply have OP basics battle each other... no big deal there.
AKA: Let Scyther and Sneasel have a go at each other.



"Omg but I only have a Taillow and a Scyther and 1v1's take too long"

Well, sorry... we don't always get what we want in life. 1v1's is all you get in that scenario. Unless you find an opponent that wants to do a 2v2 and both of you agree to terms of how it will be done.


I disagree with providing discounts for basics because that is just asking to be abused. And to prevent that would require some record keeping that is constantly up to date. And let's be real, that's simply not gonna happen. It'll definitely be more upkeep than the HP Log and more difficult to navigate than the ref logs, so lets scrap that discounts idea.


In summary
1. De-evolution clause: Allows for anyone to participate. Need to evo your Dratini? No problem here's my Charmander. Oh it evolved to Dragonair? Let it face my Charmeleon then.

2. BAN-Listed Mons: Have them face each other. No big deal...
or just make sure you and you opponent wont complain that someone used an OP Pkmn.

3. EMs Clause: BMs okay for sure. SMs/TMs/HMs if allowed would have to be supervised and the ref has to know is and what isnt allowed.