A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

  1. #16
    pikachu in a highchair We Taste Pies...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    pikachu in a highchair
    Posts
    3,384

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Lol, I turn off redirects cos whenever I play in an FFA with them on they always hit me at a crucial moment, and so I turn them off in a petty confusing form of revenge. I'm not sure what "should" be done here, seeing as I'm not super familiar with many of the game mechanics or w/e, but since the root of the issue here is that refs are apparently having an easy time of it I'd say allow Redirects to be left off, because while the some of the moves aren't used, the FFA goes longer on the whole.

    Also, I think Gameboy Clause should be allowed, because it does encourage strategy, and it is the games. Perhaps in a compromise it could be 6 moves, or 4 moves + sub + Protect or something.
    The problem with that, is that people are often upset when they use a move and it ends up becoming useless.

    The Gameboy Clause I think is an acceptable exception to the move-limiting rule.

  2. #17

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules



    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!

  3. #18
    ._. Synthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    8,498
    Blog Entries
    227

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Also, I think Gameboy Clause should be allowed, because it does encourage strategy, and it is the games. Perhaps in a compromise it could be 6 moves, or 4 moves + sub + Protect or something.
    Having 4 moves and Sub and Protect defeats the whole strategic purpose of GBA FFAs.

  4. #19
    Not that masterful The pokemaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Transgender
    Location
    Camped by a billabong
    Posts
    974

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    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.

  5. #20
    URPG Moderator Monbrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,480

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    People don't seem to realise that this in a way is a warning. No-one is being punished for having reffed FFA's like this in the past. But it clearly tells everyone that under most circumstances they wont be acceptable in the future.

  6. #21
    The People's Champion Roulette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Holland, 1945
    Posts
    3,373

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    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.

  7. #22

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    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.

    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....
    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.

    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.
    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.

    It'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.
    See: WTP's post

    ---

    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.

  8. #23

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    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.
    // urpg moderator // my urpg stats // the ultra dex //
    / Pokémon X FC: 2148-9374-7797 /

  9. #24

    Default Re: A Courteous Discussion of the new FFA Rules

    Tl;dr

    new rules r dumb shit

    that is all

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •