Jump to content

XelaKebert

Members
  • Content Count

    6945
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XelaKebert

  • Birthday 08/08/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Inside?

Recent Profile Visitors

24995 profile views
  1. This is the funny part because there isn't even a post requirement anymore so there isn't any need for someone to get their post count up to post in this section. In either case, necros really aren't a huge problem around here since the majority of topics that are no longer relevant have already been trashed anyway. Those seem to come in cycles, there will be periods where there are a bunch of posts asking those questions and then a few months will pass before they get asked again. By that point the old topics are either buried or have been trashed (maybe). Most users don't understand how to use the search functions either so it's one of those things you have to just kind of roll with.
  2. Once upon a time the mod team used to go through General Discussion and prune out threads that were no longer relevant or where the conversation had clearly ended. I don't believe it went over very well at all, but I don't recall since it's been ages. Necros aren't anywhere near being an actual problem and I'm more interested in why you would think this is a problem. Going through the sections here's what I see. General Discussion: Not including the pinned threads, the first 3 pages of threads are all topics from within the past 30 days except for 2. In each case the post that bumped it up was on topic and the topic itself can still be considered relevant. Suggestion Box: There is no such thing as a Necro here. There are older suggestions that might still be relevant now that could easily be bumped, if someone were to search them up. Even then, if you want to make a case about the threads being bumped with no content, that is a situation where it is better to report it and move on. The current iteration of rules for the section doesn't allow for bumps of that nature, but if the moderation team has made a decision to allow posts to be bumped in that manner it is on them to update the rules accordingly. In any case, necros really don't exist in the section regardless. Trade Corner: No such thing as necros as active shops will be getting bumped by the maker or players posting to make purchases from that shop. Competition Alley: This is a very focused section and a lot of discussion takes place here. The threads generally go away in quick order once the discussion is finished. The sub-sections don't really see necros either. Guide Tavern: This could be cleaned up to remove outdated guides, which I believe is still a work in progress, but generally there are no necros here either. Official Events: No necros, events that are finished are locked and archived. Introductions: There really aren't any necros here either. Client Customization: Cleanup in this section still appears to be a work in progress. Older threads still linger about, but the posts that bump them up are 99% asking why a broken theme doesn't work. Creative Media: There are a lot of older threads here that are still active with the respective poster. Multimedia: If you've got something to add to the discussion on an older thread here, may as well post it in that thread. I don't understand where the argument that we need this rule as a means of being "user friendly". If anything the forums are being used exactly how they are intended. Active threads are still on topic, and if something is off topic then it should be reported and you should move on from there. There isn't any sense in piling on to off topic posting.
  3. For the GBA regions you need both GBA roms. As far as base required it's just Unova. Everything else is optional.
  4. Funny you should say that because right above your response to me is a dev saying exactly what everyone else was saying with more detail.
  5. Movepools in PokeMMO are based on Gen 8 moves so long as a given move existed in Gen 5. On top of that we have some Pokemon that have abilities that weren't available in Gen 4-5, Cursed Body Gengar as a notable example. Put simply, you'd be going into a Gen 4-5 battle with moves or abilities that may not be accessible for a given species in that generation. To another end, adding this ability doesn't bring anything to the table for PokeMMO, which should be focused on adding features and content that drives it more towards a fully fledged MMO rather than just a cool way of playing in the same overworld as other players at the same time.
  6. If it has the same rate as the standard Pokeball there is no reason for them to be in the marts at all anyway. Honestly when I learned that the Premier Ball was basically a recolored Pokeball in game getting them at a 10:1 ratio felt underwhelming. Giving out necessary tools for free in an MMO does not make sense at all. Even at a 10:1 ratio Pokeball to Premier Ball you are still giving away something that is always needed and run the risk of undercutting a money sink. Putting Great or Ultra Balls in event prize bags is pretty underwhelming since they already exist in the stores as is. Giving away Master Balls in an event is pretty well out of the question with the guaranteed rate. So if you are going to put any kind of Pokeball in a prize bag the only sensible options would be Premier Ball or Cherish Ball. Since the event Goody Bags, which refers to events like Halloween or Christmas, are essentially special Mystery Boxes having them in there isn't really a bad thing. They can't put a ton of good stuff in them, especially since they can contain vanity items exclusive to that particular event. Really explain how there is no point in having Pokeballs after beating the storyline. Last time I checked you still need them if you want to complete the Pokedex. Everything being at a low level is a non-issue since you can always use Smeargle with False Swipe and Spore or you can have lower level teams for certain areas just for farming. It's an MMO, things will invariably be different. They can't give you everything you want because they have to take the multiplayer aspect into account. The original games did not.
  7. The better alternative is that you learn from mistakes instead of asking for new things to be added to reduce your chances of making that mistake again. There are instances where this won't help, such as unclear wording, but making the mistake of not paying attention and missing a shiny as a result is an easily fixable mistake on your part.
  8. My morning brain is honestly weird. What I meant to ask was why, if you are playing on Android, would you not be paying attention?
  9. Why would you have the game closed on Android in the first place?
  10. Seems to be a misunderstanding of what qualifies as Uber and what doesn't in here. First Point: The existence of a few counters does not negate something being classified as Uber. Just about everything has a counter if you dig enough. The crux of this comes on being able to /reliably/, and I cannot stress that enough, counter a given threat. Second Point: The existences of a few /reliable/, or even "reliable", counters to a given threat does not negate something being classified as Uber either. Part of the Smogon, I know hahaha, definition of Uber is as follows, "A Pokemon is considered Uber if it is too powerful to be reasonably handled within the bounds of the standard metagame. Uber status is determined by this factor alone; it does not matter if a Pokemon is worthless in the Ubers tier, or if it is outclassed by anything already in Ubers." The operative word in that quote is /reasonably/. This means that if you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to handle a very specific threat, it /might/ be considered to be Uber. Operative word being /might/ as that classification comes after discussion on the matter and through the availability of usage data. In general, a Pokemon that is Uber is something that /requires/ a very specific builds to counter. At a deeper level, an Uber Pokemon is capable of walling or sweeping a good chunk of the meta with very little resistance. That last part is the big problem. When a specific Pokemon is OP to the point that you either have to run it or one of the few reliable counters/checks to be viable in comp, that is a large problem. An Uber Pokemon is one that is problematic enough that you have to build around it in some manner, which is also read as over-centralizing. This is something that should be avoided as much as possible. Once upon a time Snorlax was Uber along with Gengar and Salamence. The circumstances for something to be placed into Uber tier will vary depending on the state of the meta at a given point in time. An Uber classification is something that is not necessarily permanent and the devs are working to try and avoid having anything classified as Uber period. Unfortunately, until they find a means of accomplishing that without nerfing a Pokemon into the ground, there will be instances where something might be classed as Uber. On that note: The existence of an Uber tier, or lack thereof, does seem to be a big point of contention. Honestly, I do get why. On the one hand the devs want to allow you as a player to be able to use the comps you make since they are costly and they feel it is a poor design to lock away a few for being OP if they can make them not OP. On the other hand, I do agree that pruning off the OP pieces of a given Pokemon, if it would otherwise be classed to Uber, is shortsighted and does harm the meta when it cannot be removed easily if it is a large problem. Personally, I do think there is some middle ground to be had between the two sides wherein a Uber tier can still exist for the sake of containing Pokemon that either require too many nerfs to make them not OP or ones that, despite having certain aspects removed, are still somehow too OP for OU. Unfortunately, this would also require discussion as to whether or not failed changes to Pokemon in an effort to make them not OP should be reverted if they are going to be Uber anyway. This is what I see from my limited comp knowledge. Feel free to scream at me if I messed something up or have something wrong somewhere.
  11. I am inclined to agree that the game has changed a lot in the last few years, but I disagree that now is a good time for one. Since Sinnoh was just recently added and may not be fully complete it'd be better to get Sinnoh more completed before making a trailer contest, let alone even putting out a new trailer.
  12. So a 6.25% base chance for a critical hit outweighs skill? That's without any buffs like a Scope Lens, using a move that has an increased chance, or using Focus Energy. Status ailments also factor in, with poison being the most reliable. As I pointed out, ranked Poker uses and ELO rating as well. Players in Poker don't get any modifiers on their luck at all. https://poker.rheiagames.com/en/psr#:~:text=Poker ELO %2F Poker Skill Rating&text=New players start with a,reach up to 1%2C250 points. Literally no ELO system works that way. Just because you both have the same ELO, that doesn't take anything else into account. FIDE chess ratings take a development coefficient into account. So even if two players with a 1200 ELO face each other, they could both have different coefficients, which would also change how many points you would gain from a win and how many points you lose following a loss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Performance_rating https://ratings.fide.com/calculator_rtd.phtml
  13. Returning to the old system would have to be a blanket action. Splitting the tournament structure so that you have two different types of tournament pairings running at the same time is bound to cause unintentional issues. The objective better solution is to determine if this new system is still viable long term or if reverting to the old system is more viable.
  14. Honestly, here's how I see this issue. On the one hand, I definitely agree that making a change that could result in a tournament lasting longer is definitely a problem and should be avoided as much as possible. On the other hand, if the system is not reliable enough to randomize pairings all of the time, then it should be tweaked so that the reliability is higher. That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of tweaking the system now. There should honestly be an analysis of duel data from past tournaments since the system has been introduced. If there are a large number of instances where the system makes the early pairings predictable, then tweaking the system is the way to go. If it turns out that this is merely an edge case and not the norm, the system is fine. As far as how a tweak could be made to the system so that pairings are less predictable early on, up the required number of completed duels from the previous round before pairing. The increase doesn't need to be anything drastic either. For example, if the current threshold is 8 duels, then it could be bumped to 12 duels. In any case, there will always be a tradeoff as far as time it takes for a tourny to complete and making the pairings less predictable. So only increasing by a small number would yield the best results simply because that extra time means more duels get closer to completion which could make it so when pairings are started more players are being thrown into the shuffle.
  15. I know it's a bit hard to see, but they feature the monthly changes so they are easily accessed without having to filter through the Competition Alley section. Placing them in the announcement section means obscuring changelogs that are likely to contain major changes that need to be more easily accessible.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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