tl;dr: I agree with all of this for the most part, just wish it didn't have to be quite so regulated. A warning seems like it'd be more suitable, since most of these refs haven't even been told that they're doing things improperly and would probably stop with any outrageous rules after just being given a list of guidelines rather than a list of restrictions.
But I guess it gets the job done.
Another rule that shouldn't be allowed is something that makes any one Pokémon too much of a target over the others, but I guess this falls under the chance rule.
Rules that give stat gains for KOing a certain Pokémon for example.
This is unfair for certain players that get stuck with this effect.
Challenge the Snowpoint Gym and get iced!
So I haven't voiced an opinion about this yet so I'll say something quick. I don't really have a problem with any if these bans, except for the multiple 'mons one. Chris did this awesome FFA once in which you had a team of 3 'mons, one out at a time, you weren't allowed to switch out yourself, and entry hazards were allowed. It was only a small one, but it was fun. IDK, I think FFAs like this could be a little more common.
I think everything has been said, and it'll come down to a vote by the officials in the end, but here's my two cents. It's not like these rules are gone forever. We can ask permission to hold FFAs using these special rules, it just has to be approved first. I don't really think the idea is to get these all removed permanently, just to regulate them some and to keep people from abusing the system. There are good and bad ideas being thrown around, but in the end it's just another change we'll have to deal with. I highly doubt that the mods and officials are going to pick something the majority of the URPG disagrees with. I trust Harry and Pidge and the others to make a good decision.
Thats all we needed, some clarification. The way it was just put in the original post, as per my understanding read: "NEVER USE THIS RULE ANYMORE"
Now, I'm happy to know there is some leeway
It's not my fault you didn't read. It's in the original rule thread.
Having to KO a Pokemon just to get a Substitute is quite limiting. It's a very important move that also lengthens FFAs in a way that makes refs earn the money they get for reffing. I don't see why you're so caught up on not being allowed to limit that single move.Protect and Detect are already limtited with their 50% chance to fail so w/e. Substitute like was mentioned could be earned. And we don't always ban it. Why that would be completely stupid if we did....
I hope you know just because two refs think it's okay doesn't mean it will be okay by staff. Tread cautiously, or you may find out a week later you're not going to be paid for that FFA you reffed where KO-ing a Pokemon gave you +6 everything.Thanks for allowing us to use our own judgement. Obviously when an FFA takes place there has to be at least one other ref present (there may be a rare occasion where there aren't :P) And surely two brains are better than one. Its not rocket science figuring out whats cheap and what isn't.
See: WTP's postIt's not that it's made easier to ref. Its just made faster. Obviously there are matches that are long, but easy to ref. Then there are short hard ones to ref. (For example the junk they throw at you in the ref tests) But those rarely ever happen in real battles. Anyways, everyone seems to agree that capping is wrong. I'm not on the same boat....to a certain extent. If you we do cap stats, we should be required to add some sort of reward that allows the players to go beyond the cap given. Also, if you do set a cap, let it be at the +4 mark. That seems fairly reasonable to me WITH the requirement to boost for completing some objective. Otherwise, capping by itself and stupid and cheap. Thats really all I have to say regarding this.
All I have to say about Gameboy Clause is that you people are being ridiculous. Choosing what 4 moves to take with you is strategic in an FFA? It's more strategic to know when to use the right moves from a large list then to pick one out of four. Even if it was strategic, it's not even that interesting of a rule. Lastly, it's strategic value that you suggest would no way outweigh how considerably easier it would be to ref. Gorebyss can't use Amnesia, Iron Defense, Shell Smash, Aqua Ring, Substitute, Surf, Ice Beam, and Protect multiple times all in the same FFA. You wouldn't have to deal with Pokemon using Protect every other turn, since I imagine it would be quite an unpopular choice out of your 4 moves. Some may even forgo Substitute in favor of a different move. What about the popular Reflect, Light Screen, Psych Up strategy? I doubt you would see that in a Gameboy FFA. The freedom to actually do these kind of things actually make the pay FFAs give money equal to the effort put in it. It's kind of like the stat boosting cap; you're capping the amount of moves a battler can use and making it easier to ref. That's why these FFAs should not be able to be reffed so frequently.
Last edited by Pidge; 5th July 2011 at 10:38 PM.
A good way to go about the rule would be to plan in advance is to ask for approval a few days before the FFA, f you want to make a really special rule and you're not sure if it is allowed.
new rules r dumb shit
that is all