Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dannnno

  1. 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
  2. fuark, thread #1 reopened. Justice lives. Now I just need thread #2 to come back

  3. Back in its rightful place   https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/37501-suspect-testing-support-forums-and-in-game/
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6.   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
  7. tfw I've never had any trouble with it
  8.   I like it, one thing though I think that the tournament signup area should also indicate how many people are in it and how many spots are full, as well as format (single elim/double elim/round robin, etc)
  9.   0/10, 2spooky5me   also, smoki's critique of it is spot on imo
  10. past halfway for 8k, celebration time

    1. TheGloriousWalrus


      Celebrate with who?

    2. Dannnno


      my fleshlight

      tfw too poor for fleshlight

    3. TheGloriousWalrus
  11. I have a pooped number of posts. srs wtf is wrong with me

  12.   ikr. I think my client is probably corrupted or something, I just can't be bothered to download a new one
  13.   EDIT:   EDIT2: Such trainer card  
  14.   Do not approve/10   EDIT: There was also one where the opening battle animation was a bunch of old men going across the screen, but I was too slow to screenshot it   Not sure what happened here     EDIT2:     EDIT3: wtf are you doing pokemmo     EDIT4: Also saw several other images during the animation, including the banhammer. weirdests evolution ever     EDIT5: nice gastly  
  15. Tiering support would likely be much easier if we had a more concrete system of creating tiers...   https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/36872-creation-of-a-pokemmo-council/
  16. Dannnno returned an unfortunate number of people who aren't me.   Seriously why would someone ever intentionally put four fucking n's in their username like this.   [spoiler]I say that because it was an accident for me and I'm running with it[/spoiler]
  17.   yeah, the trainer tower certainly doesn't sound ideal right now. However I imagine that is what they'd like to move towards, and that is why they are getting rid of masters.   Plus a year is a pretty long time, for a relatively small game with relatively high turnover.   We also have to remember that this iteration of the pvp tower is (hopefully) not the final one - I imagine that they'll eventually implement some method of tiering pokemon for one.  Also I doubt that pvp ranking will be limited to the tower only
  18.   I don't. I think that the incoming laddering implementation, with the (presumable) updates to form and function of rankings masters tournaments will be unnecessary.   I think that occasional tournaments, say once every 3-4 months that takes in the top XXX members of each ladder, would be better than a monthly series.
  19. Based Guide Tavern rework. Now they just need to do it properly (see my suggestion for details)

  20. tfw OT hasn't had a new post in almost an hour

    1. Emlee


      Because I was asleep.

    2. Dannnno


      srs I just triple posted because its so dead

    3. Emlee


      ;( well. It is Friday. People must have left their houses.

  21. User Dahicky, member since 06 December... seems legit

  • Create New...

Important Information

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