Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dannnno

  1.   That is literally 100% irrelevant.  If they decide to do it they'll do it, regardless of the time.
  2. iirc somewhere Kyu posted the reason they are that size is because they haven't found a good ratio yet - ie when they make it bigger or scale it it looks funny.
  3. 8000 get

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. OdinAllFather


      Then whats the point of existing here if not for the game and not for the community ?

    3. Dannnno


      I've long since given up on the game, and there is a very small portion of the community I like. I stay here out of boredom, and to interact with that small portion

    4. Dannnno


      I like it when you talk dirty to me os

    5. Show next comments  3 more
  4. grats on being staffed... when did that happen?

    1. Rache


      Thank you~ It happened a few days ago.

  5. 13 away... get hypeeeeeed

  6.   fine.  I want the masters invites again   [spoiler]not serious[spoiler]in all seriousness, I liked the events where we had to find/breed a pokemon as similar to a random pokemon as possible, or the best/worst one possible, etc. I also like battle of the tiers style tournaments.  Moar GUI events too pls, and another music one could be interesting[/spoiler][/spoiler]
  7. I want to see the kanto cup again.  With shiny starter prizes   And the fire type tournament   And the starter tournament
  8. I didn't say it would be easier as an unofficial - the whole concept is just somewhat absurd/impossible in general
  9. that sounds literally impossible to run as an official event
  10. I went to a store looking for something to buy, but they only sold paintings of the same sad guy. No wait! This store sells mirrors!

    1. Dannnno


      Bo Burnham >>

  11. well, yes he would be excluded from voting - I think it is neither unreasonable or unfair for someone who doesn't play a game to not be allowed to make a decision that will have lasting and (potentially) permanent effects on the game's meta. However no one is excluded from voicing an opinion - he would be perfectly welcome to make his rants/arguments the in game support is minimal - it just requires additional code for the creation of 'suspect testing' mode, and then the actual changes to the banlists. The additional code I was considering 'work for desu' not 'mods doing shit' and changes to the banlist are essentially what they do now when they run a tournament based on an updated tierlist. I didn't say it isn't outside their comfort zone - I'm just saying it shouldn't be because it really doesn't take that much more from them All the mods would have to do once this is implemented would be: 1. in the GM menu click 'suspect testing', 'tier XXX', 'Pokemon XXX' (or something more complex if complex bans become supported) 2. Wait a month 3. Unclick 'suspect testing' 4. Wait a week 5. Edit the banlists if necessary While it is something new, it is not (imo) complex enough to be 'zomg new things avoid at all costs' [spoiler]and it sounds like something you'd say[/spoiler]
  12.   Are you meaning exclusion from voting or exclusion from voicing their opinion?     Because it requires in game support.  To borrow a phrase from you, "Can you even fucking read?"
  13.   People who have intelligent input aren't being excluded.  People who are unable to translate their intelligent input to in game competitive success shouldn't have the right to vote, although they are still certainly welcome to voice their opinions.   I appreciate the mod point.  I was just approaching it from a perspective where community members will likely never be allowed to do anything to adjust banlists in game, and I figured that comp alley mods might as well be the ones who take care of it.  I will go back and edit the suggestion sometime later so I'm clear that mods aren't doing anything except moderate and then act on the official decision
  14.   Please give more feedback! I want to know what other people think about this.   I also would really appreciate staff feedback - is this something that would even be considered or do you think our current method works fine?
  15. WOOO 2/2!!! EXX DEE

  16. https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/37393-randomly-spawning-items/?p=660644   Better ways to handle it than making it purchasable.  For the same reason it is bad gameplay to just throw things in the game corner until there is a better way to get things, it is bad gameplay to just let people buy things if we want them to be easier to get
  17. fuark, thread #1 reopened. Justice lives. Now I just need thread #2 to come back

  18. Back in its rightful place   https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/37501-suspect-testing-support-forums-and-in-game/
  19. The overarching theme of this suggestion is that we need better in-game tiering support - the way we will get this is through multiple features being implemented.  Please do not lock this for 'multiple suggestions', the only way this suggestion works is if all of these are considered as a unit.   I think we can safely acknowledge that there are several issues with the way tiering currently happens: Some people feel as though their voices don't matter in tiering discussions The way tiering decisions are made is somewhat obscure The people ultimately responsible for making the final decisions in tiering have not been selected by either the community or staff - they are largely self-appointed and self-regulating The tier lists are 'official' but aren't.  As long as the staff refuses to recognize a list as the 'official' list then there will be disagreement Probably more that aren't coming to me off the top of my head Now a couple of points to address. I don't believe that everyone has the right to vote in a tiering decision - that would be moronic.  In competitive games some people are objectively better than others, and people who are not at a certain level of skill should not be allowed to make deciding votes.  While they can certainly voice their opinion/arguments, they do not have the qualifications to make the decision I personally agree with the vast majority of tiering decisions that have been made under the current system.  This is not an attack at anyone who currently or has ever ran one of these lists.  However I think it is important that the methods of choosing our tiering leaders, as well as the methods of the decision making process, are clearly understood by the competitive community.  I don't care if everyone agrees with the decisions made, or if the decisions made are 'good' ones.  I care that they were made for a specific reason, and that everyone is able to identify the reason So how do we address these issues?   For the first one - we need to clearly define how people can give input on tiering decisions, what sort of input is acceptable, and who can give input.    For the second one - we need to clearly define what makes a pokemon 'broken' or 'overpowered' in a certain meta, and we need to clearly define who judges these criteria.   For the third one - we need to have a system where the competitive community is able to select their leaders.  More on this in a bit.   For the fourth one - it is fine and dandy that the staff won't make tiering decisions - in fact I think it is a great call by them.  That being said I think they do need to be more involved with the decision making process.  An official list(s) needs to be created, and official 'caretakers' of the list(s) need to be selected (see number 3).   So how can we do this?   In game support for suspect testing.   This requires a couple of steps.   1. Deciding what to suspect test: [spoiler]Just like right now, members will suggest pokemon that should be moved from tier A to tier B for X reasons.  Other members may post their arguments for or against, as we currently do.  After X amount of time (would likely vary case by case) certain members (see problem 3) of the community, in conjunction with Competition Alley moderators, would decide if the suggested pokemon should be: quickbanned suspect tested left alone   One of these individuals will post a thread explaining their decision, as well as what comes next.   If something is deemed so incredibly OP that it must be quickbanned then they will give their justification, as well as the vote for/against the decision (ie if X number of people were for, and Y number were against).  This thread should then be locked to avoid flaming/shitposting/crying/etc.   If something is to be suspect tested a similar thread will be made outlining the characteristics of the pokemon that merit its suspect testing.  This thread should also indicate the dates (probably a month, although it'll depend on how much community involvement there is) for which suspect testing can occur.  This thread should remind players of the major points to consider: Was the object of the suspect testing (ie curselax) hard to counter?  And if so, why? In order to counter it did you have to structure a majority of your team around it?  IE, if the thing being suspected (ie curselax) were banned, would your team look substantially different (in moveset/EVs/IVs/Nature/pokemon choice)? Was this pokemon ubiquitous in the tier?  Meaning do you see it everywhere? If you used this pokemon, why?  While using it did you notice that this pokemon could consistently perform in the suspect manner? Did you notice that most people had a hard time countering and dealing with this pokemon? Did you notice that several pokemon were almost always used for (seemingly) the purpose of dealing with this pokemon? More that I haven't thought of. This thread should remain open in order for players to post their valid feedback (ie feedback that covers the points above).   If something is not to be suspect tested, a different thread will be made explaining why, as well as the vote.  This thread should be locked to avoid flaming/shitposting/crying/etc.[/spoiler]   2. The actual testing: [spoiler]Once something has been selected for suspect testing we should probably, you know, test it.  In game ranked battles in the suspected tier will be reset so that everyone starts fresh.  All battles conducted in the time frame of the suspect testing will be a competition for the right to be heard on the subject.  All members who have a rank above XXX (I'd say top 20% or something, depending on how many people participated) earn the right to participate in the final vote.  Other members may still give their valid feedback (see above) but will not be allowed to vote.   All tournament battles in the suspected tier should count towards their ranking for suspect testing purposes.   There should also be an explanation in game for suspect testing.  The ranked battle interface should have a tooltip explaining what suspect testing is (perhaps linking to a thread on the forums explaining it all) as well as what is being suspect tested and for what reason.[/spoiler]   3. Voting: [spoiler]Once the suspect testing period has been completed, a new thread for this pokemon will be opened.  For some time (I'd say 1 week) members will have their last chance to voice their valid arguments for or against the ban.  At any point in this period members who have earned the right to vote may cast their vote, yes/no.  They have the right to change this at any time.  This could be in game or on the forums, I'm not sure which would be easier either logistically or programming wise.    If at the end of the time period there is a tie, members of the tier council (see below) will discuss and vote among themselves, with their final verdict being announced within some amount of time (lets say 24 or 48 hours).[/spoiler]   4. The ban and aftermath: [spoiler] Once the ban has been decided it should come into effect immediately - CA moderators should have the in game ability to edit ban lists for various tiers.   Afterwards rankings will have to be adjusted - I'm not positive on how.  There are a few options: If the ban was successful, reset the ladder to reflect the new meta If the ban was successful, use the previous rankings and suspect test rankings to decide new rankings.  Exact methods would have to be discussed. If the ban was unsuccessful, use some combination of the original rankings and suspect test rankings to determine new rankings.  Exact methods would have to be discussed Of course, anything that has been banned may be suspect tested again - however there should be a time period of at least 1 month from its banishment before it can be brought up again[/spoiler]   Other points: There should never be suspect testing in more than one tier at a time, and there should never be more than one thing suspected at a time There should always be a time period (say 1 month) after a ban before a new pokemon can be suspect tested - the meta should be allowed to settle first The ruling council should not be static - if someone becomes inactive or no longer meets certain qualifications they should be removed. Ruling Council: They should be selected from an elite tier of players - for arguments sake lets say the top 100 players.  From there either a ranking tournament is held among those interested, with the top X (where X is odd) players becoming members of the council, or a vote amongst competitive players of a certain rank (lets say top 20%) for some odd number of council members.  This selection should not be for life - I'd say every 6 months or more frequently as needed.   There should also be some method by which the players or the council can remove members of the council if they are found to suck at tiering.   Final comments: I don't care if you feel that most PokeMMO players are unqualified to make tiering decisions.  In fact I agree that most probably have no idea what they are doing with that regard.  However I feel that it is very important that the PokeMMO community makes its own tiering decisions, as shitty as they may be.   If you do not participate in the PokeMMO competitive meta, you don't get to vote.  Sorry Senile.  "However I feel that it is very important that the PokeMMO community makes its own tiering decisions, as shitty as they may be."  We make our own bed, so we can sleep in it.     Please leave your feedback below   EDIT: This would also be greatly helped by the creation of a 'Competitive Discussion' subforum in CA.
  20. A much better way to approach 'randomly spawning items' is dungeons.  Everyone knows they're coming, and every good dungeon should also have opportunities for loot, with better loot being rarer and only available in harder dungeons.   A system where they just appear on the map is sort of pointless - there isn't that much of a challenge in getting them besides the tedious job of checking everywhere.
  21.   So parents will let their children play the game.  Also, the primary language support is English.  All other stuff is just filler/convenience stuff they added.  I wouldn't be surprised if this comes, but I wouldn't hold your breath.     Except lots/most foreign players don't find out about different language chats for a long time/ever
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.