Jump to content
  • 29

Event Suggestions & Feedback


Strych

Question

As you all know, we enjoy running events. We try to come up with as many new and exciting ideas for them as we can, whilst also attempting to cater to our broad player-base.

Have we run a particular event that you'd like to see again? Perhaps one that you didn't like so much?
Do you have an idea for an event that you'd like to see happen? We're interested in your feedback and ideas, so feel free to post them in this thread.


Please keep ideas within the realm of possibility. I realise "if X is implemented, Y could be a great event", but lets try to work with what we have.



Note: This thread is for the discussion of official events (like those posted in PokeMMO Official Events).

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

@JJ, It is not my goal, I have stated a few times that my goal was not to have them removed, but limited.  But since people want shiny prizes in every single tournament ever(which 4 of 5 currently listen OU tournaments have, and I am not arguing to have removed), I offered an alternative suggestion where you get a shiny untradeable pokemon, as well as items of value(money, items, whatever).   You end up with the best of both worlds.

 

 

With the safari hunt its pretty much that way now yeah(though apparently not, since everybody thinks chansey is the auto win ticket), but what about things like the team scavenger hunt, you have no idea how many hours of work went into planning for that.

the team scavenger hunt (the one eggplant hosted) had about 1 minute of preparation for the 2nd place team I'm pretty sure (albeit there were only 4 teams in the thing)

Link to comment
  • 0

the team scavenger hunt (the one eggplant hosted) had about 1 minute of preparation for the 2nd place team I'm pretty sure (albeit there were only 4 teams in the thing)

my god you people want to beat a dead horse.  They weren't first, and that is where the luck part comes in.  Planning and preparing can give you an edge, it can't ensure you a victory.  The same in pvp.

Edited by Munya
Link to comment
  • 0

I agree with munya on the shiny prize thing. Having some tournys have a shiny prize is fine but there is no reason why some tournys cant have lesser prizes.
 
One benefit i can think of that could come from this is that veteran players like kingbowser and frags might not put much effort into attending these thus giving newer players sort of a more even playing field to get some practice in. I know you can only become the best if you beat the best but it wouldn't be a bad start for newbs if we had tournys geared more towards them,

 
I can kind of agree on this, but I differ on one major thing.
I agree some tournaments don't need a shiny prize, where something lesser would suffice.
 
However, not for making them less competitive, but using Shiny prizes as a balance for time, effort and cost going into preparing for a tournament.
Example: A standard OU Tournament might have a shiny prize, whereas a small gimmick might not necessarily need one.
 

the team scavenger hunt (the one eggplant hosted) had about 1 minute of preparation for the 2nd place team I'm pretty sure (albeit there were only 4 teams in the thing)


Our team won that. 90 mins for 2 people to find a -atk Exeggcute... Eggplant must've hidden them. :L

Edited by Inarin
Link to comment
  • 0

the team scavenger hunt (the one eggplant hosted) had about 1 minute of preparation for the 2nd place team I'm pretty sure (albeit there were only 4 teams in the thing)

 

Nah, he means a Team Scavange hunt where you just had to catch pokes.....it lasted around 4 Hours, 200 RP for the winners, and, on a side note, i haven't received the prize, talked with Squirtle, but left the conversation

Link to comment
  • 0

I can kind of agree on this, but I differ on one major thing.

I agree some tournaments don't need a shiny prize, where something lesser would suffice.

 

However, not for making them less competitive, but using Shiny prizes as a balance for time, effort and cost going into preparing for a tournament.

Example: A standard OU Tournament might have a shiny prize, whereas a small gimmick might not necessarily need one.

 

Except the gimmick requires more time as teams typically aren't already prepared for them.

Link to comment
  • 0

I agree with munya on the shiny prize thing. Having some tournies have a shiny prize is fine but there is no reason why some tournies cant have lesser prizes.

One benefit i can think of that could come from this is that veteran players like kingbowser and frags might not put much effort into attending these thus giving newer players sort of a more even playing field to get some practice in. I know you can only become the best if you beat thee best but it wouldnt be a bad start for newbs if we had tournies geard more towards them,


Ok so let me get this straight. The benefit of not giving out shiny prizes for all tournaments is that it'll cause some of the most well respected and skilled players in our small community to not show up for tournaments?
Link to comment
  • 0

Except the gimmick requires more time as teams typically aren't already prepared for them.

 

There's more to balancing than just between time, effort and preparation. There's also the factor of how many participants there will be.

You could project 32-64 participants for a Standard, where you'd be lucky to have all 32 show up for some gimmicks.

Link to comment
  • 0

There's more to balancing than just between time, effort and preparation. There's also the factor of how many participants there will be.

You could project 32-64 participants for a Standard, where you'd be lucky to have all 32 show up for some gimmicks.

 

So the player that put equal or more time into a single specific tournament as opposed to the players that put time into a tier of tournaments that happen regularly should be awarded less just because less chose to participate?

Link to comment
  • 0

I agree with munya on the shiny prize thing. Having some tournies have a shiny prize is fine but there is no reason why some tournies cant have lesser prizes.
 
One benefit i can think of that could come from this is that veteran players like kingbowser and frags might not put much effort into attending these thus giving newer players sort of a more even playing field to get some practice in. I know you can only become the best if you beat thee best but it wouldnt be a bad start for newbs if we had tournies geard more towards them,


That's what unofficials are for -_-
Link to comment
  • 0

So the player that put equal or more time into a single specific tournament as opposed to the players that put time into a tier of tournaments that happen regularly should be awarded less just because less chose to participate?

If the gimmick is pretty fun, then you shouldn't need to bribe people with comically valuable pokemon in order to get them to participate in your shitty fucking gimmick. If you DO need to bribe people to get them to play, then consider that maybe you're expecting an unreasonable amount of effort from people for a one-of, or that your tournament just isn't entertaining.

 

As for why they should be awarded less, it's an easy answer; One requires significantly more skill than the other. It's easy to invest a ton of cash and hope to get an amazing prize, it's less easy to get a nice team you can constantly use, and then actually win a tournament with it. A tournament is inherently something designed for competition, and the more competitive tournaments should have better prizes. It's why something like Master's Finals had amazing prizes, they were supposed to be the pinnacle of competition. (although they were kinda poopy because everyone was RIP, but hey)

Link to comment
  • 0

If the gimmick is pretty fun, then you shouldn't need to bribe people with comically valuable pokemon in order to get them to participate in your shitty fucking gimmick. If you DO need to bribe people to get them to play, then consider that maybe you're expecting an unreasonable amount of effort from people for a one-of, or that your tournament just isn't entertaining.

 

As for why they should be awarded less, it's an easy answer; One requires significantly more skill than the other. It's easy to invest a ton of cash and hope to get an amazing prize, it's less easy to get a nice team you can constantly use, and then actually win a tournament with it. A tournament is inherently something designed for competition, and the more competitive tournaments should have better prizes. It's why something like Master's Finals had amazing prizes, they were supposed to be the pinnacle of competition. (although they were kinda poopy because everyone was RIP, but hey)

3v3 Ou gimmick? 

Link to comment
  • 0

So the player that put equal or more time into a single specific tournament as opposed to the players that put time into a tier of tournaments that happen regularly should be awarded less just because less chose to participate?

 

Not necessarily.

I'm not opposed to Shiny prizes in gimmick tournaments, I just don't think they're needed as much.

 

Competitive's goals should be Competition. The better the competition the better the prizes get.

 

The only way to solve every argument is to give every tourney a shiny prize, remove shiny prizes completely, or find a way to balance shiny prizes for tourneys that deserve them.

 

tfw writing larger paragraphs, then deleting half 'cause Senile did a tl;dr version, albeit with different wording. ;-;

Link to comment
  • 0

If the gimmick is pretty fun, then you shouldn't need to bribe people with comically valuable pokemon in order to get them to participate in your shitty fucking gimmick. If you DO need to bribe people to get them to play, then consider that maybe you're expecting an unreasonable amount of effort from people for a one-of, or that your tournament just isn't entertaining.

 

As for why they should be awarded less, it's an easy answer; One requires significantly more skill than the other. It's easy to invest a ton of cash and hope to get an amazing prize, it's less easy to get a nice team you can constantly use, and then actually win a tournament with it. A tournament is inherently something designed for competition, and the more competitive tournaments should have better prizes. It's why something like Master's Finals had amazing prizes, they were supposed to be the pinnacle of competition. (although they were kinda poopy because everyone was RIP, but hey)

Metronome tournament aside, how exactly does it require less skill, and how exactly are you going to judge it as requiring less skill? A tier people who compete are incredibly aware of and typically prepared for, vs something new.

Edited by Munya
Link to comment
  • 0

Metronome tournament aside, how exactly does it require less skill, and how exactly are you going to judge it as requiring less skill? A tier people who compete are incredibly aware of and typically prepared for, vs something new.

What exactly is it that you think the tier council does? They oversee the different "tiers" of pokemon and try to ensure that those tiers are balanced - as in, designed to reward skilled players who are innovative but don't abuse overpowered pokemon/combinations/moves etc. What are gimmicks? Usually (relatively) unbalanced metagames (Things like tier shift, monotype, speed>90). So, it's a pretty easy deduction from that information that standards are a better test of skill than gimmicks

 

Also lol at your strawman in the last part of your response.

 

I think Senile answered you better than I did

Edited by sloppyj24
Link to comment
  • 0

Metronome tournament aside, how exactly does it require less skill, and how exactly are you going to judge it as requiring less skill? A tier people who compete are incredibly aware of and typically prepared for, vs something new.

Because people ARE incredibly aware of what's happening and are prepared for it, this adds depth. The most important aspect of pokemon, which allows it to have any merit whatsoever as a competitive game, is the ability to predict your opponent. A new, undeveloped metagame lacks depth, as people aren't yet aware of any of the deeper nuances, there are less high level predictions going on due to the game being fairly simple, etc.

 

I know you're not a competitive player, but the age of a metagame is a big deal; The longer something is around, the more depth is developed, unless there is a natural cap to the depth of a game. Look at Melee; When it first came out, it was a party fighting game, but over time, the discovery and mastery of advanced techniques has proven it to be a ridiculously skill based game with absurd amounts of depth and precision. Time for people to learn the game is necessary for competition.

 

Not even counting the fact that gimmicks tend to be very unbalanced, of course.

Link to comment
  • 0

If I were anybody else I would pull the time is still money card that everybody decided to pull earlier, but since I am not, I will just stick by the fact shinies should not be the norm for all officially tiers tournaments.  People wanted more tournaments, I thought it was because they were fun and wanted to compete some more. Using your own argument, they shouldn't need to attract people to these tournaments with the prize.  No, no, again that is very low.

There should be a prize, for all of it, a significant prize, but it should not always be a shiny.

Link to comment
  • 0

If I were anybody else I would pull the time is still money card that everybody decided to pull earlier, but since I am not, I will just stick by the fact shinies should not be the norm for all officially tiers tournaments.  People wanted more tournaments, I thought it was because they were fun and wanted to compete some more. Using your own argument, they shouldn't need to attract people to these tournaments with the prize.  No, no, again that is very low.

There should be a prize, for all of it, a significant prize, but it should not always be a shiny.

I'm not talking about shiny prizes, I'm talking about gimmicks having good prizes.

Link to comment
  • 0

Wait, what? Making competitive tournaments LESS competitive seems like exactly the oppose you'd want for a competitive tournament.

How is an experienced player stomping on a newb competitive. I use to run cross country, and was bad at it. But when im coming across the last stretch and i was neck and neck with someone it didnt matter that that person and I were in last place we still were being competitive, we were just competing on a lower level than the more faster ppl. In track and field there are even tiers of runners where they put all of the fastest competitors against each other and the slower competitors against each other on purpose. So to say creating less incentive for more experienced players to not compete in SOME tournies so that less experienced players can compete with each other is stifling competition is simply not true.   

 

Ok so let me get this straight. The benefit of not giving out shiny prizes for all tournaments is that it'll cause some of the most well respected and skilled players in our small community to not show up for tournaments?

Oh sloppy, one benefit of not giving out shiny prizes in every tourny is that it it creates less incentive for more experienced players to show up at SOME tournies, not all tournies, so that less experienced players can compete against each other in an official tourny environment. Dont try and make my argument seem ridiculous by not restating the entire idea behind it. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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