This is topic Rad new idea, not lying this time in forum Omanyte Historical Foundation at The Azure Heights Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.math.miami.edu/~jam/azure/forum/buzz/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=004474

Posted by raticata (Member # 1994) on 09-18-2001, 01:40 PM:
 
Hey everyone

You all will know by how how I often praise underused. Yet, underused do not in any means guarantee victory, thus I have thought about a new system of team selection.

Basically, each poke has a certain cost. This is mainly applicable by using gsbot, as you are actually hiring them.

This is in first stages, but you could for example have $2000, and a popular poke like tyranitar costs $600, while someone like farfetch'd is $200.

Anyway, let me know, I think it will make teams fairer as if they choose a popular powerful one, they will need to balance with a slightly less popular one.

-Raticata
 


Posted by JolteonG3 (Member # 2146) on 09-18-2001, 01:59 PM:
 
I think it sounds like a very good idea, as it adds yet another level of stratedgy to the game. It also encourages creative use Pokemon that no one would consider using before. It could really level the playing field of the game!

The problem I see with it is if people will accept it. Therefore, I don't think you'll ever see all or even most of the online Pokemon community playing it. It will, however, definiely find its niche, espacially among those who want to win with underused teams.

Another problem is how to implement it, as there is really is no single way to determine if a Pokemon is "good" or "underrated." A system would have to be made to give monetary values. to stats, moves (more specifically, move combinations), type, and, possibly, originality. This could be an extremely difficult effort, but not impossible if you recruited help.

Great idea! It would be very intersting to actually see it implemented.
 


Posted by StealthNinjaScyther (Member # 1833) on 09-19-2001, 01:13 AM:
 
You often praise the underused, eh? I'd say that you praise the sucky cup critters. The simple fact is that not all Pokemon have potential in real battles. As for your idea, it's actually a pretty good idea. There are, however, some big problems. The biggest problem is that the superior Pokemon will always be superior to some Pokemon. It's quite conceivable that a team of 3 stronger Pokemon could take out six of the weaker Pokemon because some Pokemon are just that weak. A better idea would to make a sucky cup competition where only the Pokemon that aren't very good qualify. The biggest problem with that is actually determining which Pokemon qualify, but I'll leave that to you to figure out.
 
Posted by Tghost (Member # 1418) on 09-19-2001, 05:07 AM:
 
Actaully, the biggest problem of Sucky Cup is that you get the same dominance...just crappier Pokemon dominate over the even crappier.

The money / points thing wouldn't really work well, it would end up stifling most common team creation ideals, and leave strategies to be squeezed in on Pokemon not up to using them for the sacrifice of actually being able to use certian things together. That, and who can really put a value on a Pokemon, with movesets and items? You can't just measure it on stats, that would be extremely stupid. It'd be like putting a cap on the amount of HP your team could have, not particularly useful in forcing an opponent to use suckier Pokemon.
 


Posted by raticata (Member # 1994) on 09-19-2001, 01:37 PM:
 
It wasn't meant to be complicated, just a base limit, in no regard to movesets.

For example, each poke has a value with no relation to moveset/item.

Yet, there could be a certain value of each item, with common itmes like mint and mira berries being cheaper than the rarer king's rock.

Anyway, it was only an idea, and there is too much competiveness on winning for it to work. Ah well

Plus, every team would HAVE to have 6. So no Missy/Tyran/Miltank combo.
 


Posted by White Cat (Member # 42) on 09-20-2001, 03:56 AM:
 
King's Rock is rarer than Miracle Berry?
 
Posted by Heracross20 (Member # 2133) on 09-20-2001, 07:36 AM:
 
*laughs* now, it'd never work because people are not going to change their teams. If you are really having that many problems with regular teams to begin with, then ur having major problems, and need to reconstruct ur team. You shouldn't be so obsessed with winning. Two words: Talon's Pidgeot
 
Posted by raticata (Member # 1994) on 09-20-2001, 01:19 PM:
 
Me obsessed with winning?

Ha.
 


Posted by Heracross20 (Member # 2133) on 09-20-2001, 04:18 PM:
 
don't take it personally, that's what I'm getting from this topic of yours. "let's even the playing field." all u have to do is play a random bot battle and be happy.... *sighs*
 
Posted by raticata (Member # 1994) on 09-21-2001, 02:26 PM:
 
Don't worry about it!

I was just a bit cranky, A levels and all that.

Plus, I'm 17 and my whole school knows I like pokemon , so i lost any sense of pride ages ago!

Sorry again if I was handbagging
 


Posted by Biffster (Member # 269) on 09-21-2001, 09:58 PM:
 

 
Posted by ThumbsOfSteel (Member # 1922) on 09-23-2001, 06:21 PM:
 
I suggest figuring out a way to make this into a tourney, since it is a good idea, but outside of a tourney, I doubt people would use it. I would, however, suggest that certain pokemon (Snorlax, Missy) should have a cheaper cost without a certain set (perish-trap, curse/belly drum) as they are drastically weaker without them. Don't get too carried away with this part though, like T-bolt on Jolteon, since that's just stupid. This would make a good tourney though, and I definately recommend it.
 


Karpe Diem