Thread: Expanding the Starter Kit

I really odn't think you learn more about battling by doing basics with someone who has been around longer. I mean I know the logic is that basic battles are bad and all that, but is there really a point of Pichu versus Pupitar and Pichu trying to win when Pupitar ohkos? Like I mean, a Pichu with no moves just isn't going to win against a Pokemon that has better stats than it.

But then refs could just stop posting the battle descriptions in the log if they wanted. Also that last suggestion would just be too much work. It would mean you'd have to only do one basic at a time and suddenly it would become a tedious process.

Also Mubz the problem with your idea is it would lead to a lot of messiness. For example, first of all what if one person has a Pokemon that needs 10 battles and the opponent's only needs seven. Or what if a battler needs to stop in the middle after say four battles. These are thing that would need to be awkwardly kept track of. Like, would it be abuse if I battled six battles with someone with my Ledyba, and then went and did 10 battles with someone else with my Ledyba since it never finished previously.

Perhaps 1v1s could be banned altogether. I know it sounds extreme, but I mean even a 2v2 would expand the different possibilities of the battle exponentially. There's no rule against battling one basic and one Fully Evolved versus one basic and one Fully evolved, or even two fully evolved versus one basic and one fully evolved. And as far as the first couple battles, I would prefer that members be given a coupon for a cheapened Mart mon, but possibly an exception could be made or something.

Originally Posted by Mubz

I think the problem lies with Perma-basics. Im not saying that having a basic that you want as a pet is wrong, thats perfectly acceptable. But what happens when someone asks for basics, and that person continually is the one raising their hand for it, and then deliberately not trying? After all, they dont need to. They already have enough battles on that pokemon to evolve it, and any extra money they raise from basics is just a bonus. And thats if they try to lose. What if they have one of the many Eevees with TM Return, which pretty much allows a 2HKO on every basics that isnt either resistant or can 2HKO faster? Then thats double what they would have gained if they had tried to throw the battles.

Mubz, I think I love you.

The problem lies with the battlers, not the size or the style of the battle. Basics and 1v1's have equal potential to be just as much fun as a 6v6. The unfortunate problem we have is that they make it very easy to abuse the system. The 2HKO Return Eevee is a perfect example of this. Hell, even my own Scyther is pretty easy to abuse basics with.

I totally disagree with any statement saying 1v1 battles are bad. It's the way they are used that is bad.

Originally Posted by Monbrey

The problem lies with the battlers, not the size or the style of the battle. Basics and 1v1's have equal potential to be just as much fun as a 6v6. I totally disagree with any statement saying 1v1 battles are bad. It's the way they are used that is bad.

This is pretty much true. I reffed a 1v1 last night where it was a Growlithe against a Flaaffy. It was three turns, which is normal, but both of them had fun with the battle, and treated like a real one.

Getting rid of 1v1s would be pointless. When I joined it was a hell of a lot of fun doing them with my Nidoran, and in turn my Nidorino. Yeah I lost most of them, but so? 1v1s can be fun, if you actually try to make them be, not just spam Return with an Eevee for a quick win, or use Curse with a Dusclops for a quick loss. Or by letting a Nincada be beaten to death, which I'm guilty of.

I'm not sure if anyone already suggested this, since I didn't see it, but I only skimmed:

If people having perma-basics just for the money it'll earn them from newbies is a problem, how about any user with more than one Pokemon is ineligible to earn money from 1v1s, full stop? Make it so the newbie can still earn money (since otherwise we WOULD need a boost to the starting fund), and the ref still gets paid for the effort, but older members are forced to do it from the goodness of their hearts. I know I personally don't do basics for the money - I do it to evolve other people's Pokemon. After all, no-one said we HAVE to pay both battlers.

This'll also fully prevent the "buy Geodude, win battles, repeat indefinitely" abuse that was brought up a while back, should it ever arise again.

Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't just the battler's attitude towards 1v1s - it's the refs' attitudes as well. Any basic battle that isn't "spam the 2HKO move" is generally met with a "2hko or I'm not reffing" response. I've seen it way too many times :s

Originally Posted by PichuBoy

I'm not sure if anyone already suggested this, since I didn't see it, but I only skimmed:

If people having perma-basics just for the money it'll earn them from newbies is a problem, how about any user with more than one Pokemon is ineligible to earn money from 1v1s, full stop? Make it so the newbie can still earn money (since otherwise we WOULD need a boost to the starting fund), and the ref still gets paid for the effort, but older members are forced to do it from the goodness of their hearts. I know I personally don't do basics for the money - I do it to evolve other people's Pokemon. After all, no-one said we HAVE to pay both battlers.

This'll also fully prevent the "buy Geodude, win battles, repeat indefinitely" abuse that was brought up a while back, should it ever arise again.

Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't just the battler's attitude towards 1v1s - it's the refs' attitudes as well. Any basic battle that isn't "spam the 2HKO move" is generally met with a "2hko or I'm not reffing" response. I've seen it way too many times :s

sorry this is what I meant to suggest in my last post. I guess banning was sort of unclear ^^; Also Ebail, I'm sorry I can't take seriously that a three turn battle was fun. Honestly? Also, if you guys are arguing that 1v1 battles aren't bad they why shouldn't fully evolved 1v1 battles pay? Why do the Pokemon need to be basic in order for a battle to be fun and rewarding? And you're right changing battles from 1v1 to 2v2 doesn't solve every problem, people will probably try to make the battles as quick as possible. But at least there is a chance for the person evolving their basic to win. There isn't a Pokemon like Eevee with return or Pikachu with Light Ball that just wins every battle without fail. I think it at least makes it more difficult for people to be abusive.

Why are we pretending basics are a game-breaking issue? This is about the starter kit, which I personally think, needs no amendment. No complaints, nothing to fix.

I don't see why there's a push for a change. Everyone has been happy with what they've got, and they've all found ways to make it work. There's been no issues with people wanting to repeat due to a lack of money, and anyone who wants money is always resourceful enough to get it. Every player in the URPG so far has started in the exact same way, and anyone who could actually be bothered to play URPG properly can get what they want. If we'd actually had some of the hypothetical issues occur before, then it probably might have been given some thought, but outside of all the 'what ifs' that seem to pop up in this thread, I can see no proper reason to change what we give starting players.

There's also the problem of supposed 'inequality' if a new starter kit is brought in. Sooner or later, someone is going to be like, "Well, this person got this, and why don't I?!" That'll start a whole other argument, to be honest, which would probably result in the reversion to what would be 'the old way' if such a change had been brought in.

As for the abuse of basics, which I don't think is directly relevant to the actual suggestion of this thread (not sure how it was brought up, seeing as I just scanned through...), I'm not sure how exactly that could be changed. I mean, if we introduce a whole judgement-type thing on 'is this person throwing the battle or not?', then some refs are just going to start lying. I know that the whole 1v1 situation does not bring in any more 'fun', but it is a little more convenient and gets you your money a little faster, which is what some people are concerned about. I'm neutral on the basics thing, but I haven't done properly fun basics since I started. I feel -- and I'm sure others do, too -- that it would just take up a lot of time. Sure, you feel accomplished and all that jazz, but it just depends on who you are. If people want to have fun, they will. There's nothing stopping them from doing that. I don't feel that making them do it the other way will help them have fun, though -- the option should be open, in my opinion.

Basics can absolutely be fun. Whether or not you are battling to evolve, for cash, or just to pit you are your friends strongest Pokemon against each other. We are all here in the first place because we want to have fun. Anyone that comes here with the idea of "No fun! Just mechanics!" Will probably get bored and leave.

Also, a few times it has been mentioned that refs don't or will stop putting in their logs what happens in a battle. And I've seen a couple times it having been said that refs would start lying or playing favorites. First off, that last part is not only against the rules of being a ref, but shows a real lack of respect for our current refs. I haven't known any of them to lie about a battle or bend the rules for player they like better. So why would they suddenly start? Beyond that, I would like to quote the Reffing Encyclopedia in regards to the idea of not putting a description of the battle. A few key points will be bolded.

Logging Battles

When a battle is completed, it needs to be logged in the Referee's respective reffing thread (log). If the Referee cannot post it, he/she will tell one of the Trainers to post it for him/her. This should only happen if the referee is really unable to log himself/herself.

You can create your own format or whatsoever, but it should be relatively simple to read. The following important information must be stated:

• battle rules
• who used what Pokémon
• short description of what happened
• winning and losing trainers
• any money or item prizes
• how much the referee should receive for that match

Please note that it is extremely important for a referee to log the actual username of the battler. For example, if the battler is Harry, you have to log it as HKim, and not any other names.

If a ref leaves what happens in the battle out of their logs they are not logging properly. So I see no reason to believe if someone tried to say that someone threw a battle when they didn't that it would go uncaught.

Originally Posted by Sormeki

Basics can absolutely be fun. Whether or not you are battling to evolve, for cash, or just to pit you are your friends strongest Pokemon against each other. We are all here in the first place because we want to have fun. Anyone that comes here with the idea of "No fun! Just mechanics!" Will probably get bored and leave.

Also, a few times it has been mentioned that refs don't or will stop putting in their logs what happens in a battle. And I've seen a couple times it having been said that refs would start lying or playing favorites. First off, that last part is not only against the rules of being a ref, but shows a real lack of respect for our current refs. I haven't known any of them to lie about a battle or bend the rules for player they like better. So why would they suddenly start? Beyond that, I would like to quote the Reffing Encyclopedia in regards to the idea of not putting a description of the battle. A few key points will be bolded.

Logging Battles

When a battle is completed, it needs to be logged in the Referee's respective reffing thread (log). If the Referee cannot post it, he/she will tell one of the Trainers to post it for him/her. This should only happen if the referee is really unable to log himself/herself.

You can create your own format or whatsoever, but it should be relatively simple to read. The following important information must be stated:

• battle rules
• who used what Pokémon
• short description of what happened
• winning and losing trainers
• any money or item prizes
• how much the referee should receive for that match

Please note that it is extremely important for a referee to log the actual username of the battler. For example, if the battler is Harry, you have to log it as HKim, and not any other names.

If a ref leaves what happens in the battle out of their logs they are not logging properly. So I see no reason to believe if someone tried to say that someone threw a battle when they didn't that it would go uncaught.

It also says that usernames should be logged, and most refs don't even bother. It's one thing to say "There's this rule here", but if it's not actually bothered to be enforced, then it's kind of a moot point.

@PichuBoy
I agree with you that 1v1's not paying for anyone with more than one Pokemon would solve the abuse issue. However it would then force a new player to battle 2v2's with a fully evolved Pokemon and a basic. While I have nothing against that battle, it would totally restrict them from competing in 1v1's with that second basic Pokemon. In a late-game sense (for players like us) your idea works perfectly, I just feel that it's a restriction that would be applied too early to a new player - as soon as they buy/earn a second Pokemon.

As for the ref's attitude, I know what you mean, but unfortunately there's not a lot that can be done. We can't force refs to ref any battle.

@Krummhorn
Why couldn't a three turn battle be fun? When I was new, all my battles probably lasted three turns - that's how long most evenly-matched basics take to kill each other. It was fun because I didn't have a preconceived notion about how basic battles should be. It never occurred to me that I should try and skip straight past them. Instead, what we have now is a situation where a new player jumps on AIM, asks for basics, and someone throws 10 of them so they can evo. All we're doing is teaching our new players this horrible attitude.

As for 1v1's, I'd love it if fully evolved 1v1's would pay. Two battlers each pick one Pokemon totally at random and see who can pull out the best strategy. However we still have the same abuse problem that we had previously, which is why these battles don't pay in the first place.

@We Taste Pies...
Agreed, but basic battles seems to be the reasoning behind a change to the starter kit, and so everything else regarding basics MUST BE DISCUSSED. You know how these things work.

@Buoy
If refs start lying, they'll very quickly be caught, lose their payments and probably their license. We have a great group of refs at the moment and I don't think that would be a problem anyway.



This whole issue is a "damned if we do, damned if we dont" situation. There really isn't an option that completely locks out abuse without hindering new players at all. PichuBoy is probably the closest, but it'll still feel it's a bit of a bad deal for the newbies. Every new rule we make just sends the same people who would abuse the system in the first place looking for the next loophole, while the players who wouldn't abuse it feel cheated and victimized.

If the concern is about gaining Pokemon, then perhaps we need to figure out better ways in which to help new members acquire Pokemon.

Are Stories too Intimidating? Do not enough people try out the Park? Should we introduce other capture methods suited to other talents?

Ultimately though, this is a system built upon the idea that you should work and train in order to achieve something. That's part of the basic tenets of Pokemon and something that's inherent to this community.

Well I imagine some players don't write because they either don't feel they would be good at it or it just isn't their cup of tea. Same thing goes for the Park. Some people have different interests when it comes to Pokemon but the one common one tends to be battles so perhaps we could add some way of getting Pokemon via battles. Almost like a wild pokemon encounter, but instead of writing a story for it or going to the park you do a battle like a 1v1 for it. Restrict it to only people with five or less Pokemon and they can only get one Pokemon a week from it, much like how Pickup only lets you get one item a week.

Basically you would have a list of Pokemon that comprises of decent Pokemon for new players to have and some others that at maybe common mart purchases as a second Pokemon. Then they would contact someone in charge of this and that person would be controlling the wild Pokemon, toss in a ref and have a 1v1. It would be the players goal to win the battle and thus the Pokemon and of course the person with the wild Pokemon would want to try to win as well, much like a Gym Leader doesn't hand out badges these people shouldn't hand out Pokemon. The person controlling the wild Pokemon could get maybe $500 per win and nothing per loss. Something to pay them for their time while remaining hard to be exploited. If the player wins they get the Pokemon as the prize and nothing for the loss. Refs would get $500 for reffing just like a normal 1v1. Have the player claim the Pokemon is some thread made for this and require them to link to the ref log, just like with Pickup in the Mart.

With something like this we can solve most of the issue brought up here. You end up with a system that helps new players get some starting Pokemon that is not terribly easy to exploit. Older members can't exploit it. And everyone wins. And if it is really popular then perhaps there could be two tiers of it. A Junior Tier once a week for new players and an Advanced Tier for older players that works the same way with perhaps some stronger Pokemon (maybe some with TMs already on them or DW Abilities unlocked) that is perhaps once a month much like the Underground.

Any issue with basics spam will have to be solved by the community accepting that basic battles are just as much for fun as anything else in URPG. At the moment it doesn't seem like it is to the point that it needs more regulating, but rather a reminder that that is not the point of them.

When I started, I was forum bound and did not have AIM. I also battled forum basics with my Houndour and did everything I can to win, even admittedly resulting to what would be considered as ultramegahax. Those battles were fun and my opponents tried to do the same. When I first got AIM, though, I did the same thing with basics, but got told off by some refs for prolonging a basic battle. Once iirc, a ref told me that "That's not how you basics" after I was struggling to win with a Nincada against a Dratini. Perhaps that's where I got the perception that basic battles should be fast paced and are only done for the sake of evolution.

Let's just give everyone 3 starters instead of 1!!

Seriously though, the system is fine. I've never heard anyone complain (except more experienced members ironically) about how easy or hard it is for new players to start out. If you really want an accurate consensus, ask the newer members that we have lately, I know URPG Chat has been really active lately with new people, so they're here to ask. I agree with Harry in that URPG mons should be worked for. Basics have become way more streamlined than when I joined, and I don't necessarily have an issue with it, but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to throw our perma basics at new members to beat up. Let's encourage them to battle each other so they can get a better feel for the game.

I feel like URPG battles only serve the purpose of getting more money lately, and that a lot of competitiveness has been lost in recent months. I think that this stems from giving that impression to new members when their very first battles are against old members just spamming basics to earn extra cash.

IM RAMBLING.

In short, my opinions are to keep the starter package the same (and maybe just bundle everything new members get initially at the starter thread [contest and park credits]), and also to only use our perma basics (because I've been an offender in the past too) against newer members if they can't find an opponent. But yeah, we should ask new members how they feel about the starting difficulty level of the game before we actually change anything @_@