I hope he's being sarcastic guys.
Sorry, didn't mean it to seem that way.
The point I was trying to make was just because something "isn't broken" doesn't mean it can't be made better. Dialup became broadband which in turn became fibre optics.
But it's not making it better. xD
In my opinion, by increasing the number people will complain that there aren't any more good pokemon of the type they need and will start whining over being able to have more options. So eventually raising the number of wild card pokemon and making the gyms easier to defend.
As a gym leader, you have a duty to defend your gym using a specific type of pokemon. Now, considering most gym leaders only use 5-7 of the pokemon in their line-up. What would increasing the line up accomplish really besides the WC thing I stated above.
It's fine as it is, don't worry about it. If you don't like it, drop LO and your gym (if you have a gym) and just battle normally with whatever pokemon you want.
There are some types that don't even have 15 fully-evolved Pokémon in it...
I am going to have to say stick as it is here. This is because it would be a bit weird to have that many Gym Pokemon. Most people use there favourite Gym Pokemon mostly anyways, and therefore does not need an increase. Also it would be hard to decipher the differences between Gym Leader Applications. Sure you could easily tell by who they are, but sometimes it is tricky to decide that you have to go by there Pokemon application. (Well in the Past I did as Kanto Organizer) It was my idea in the past to make the Gym Limit to 10 and then when I came here it became 12.
I agree with @LS the Door Mat about Dragonite in Water Gyms being silly.
OMG NO WILDCARD DEBATES I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THESE OVER THE FEW YEARS OF URPG.
WinterVines 3:53 pm
im sorry women are difficult
i understand why some should stay in the kitchen
I fail to see how 'tell the Gym leader to get better, that's their job' is a real solid argument, but opinion is an opinion.
I think it'd be interesting to implement additional mons on the lineup to allow for those times when they'd be useful. Usually, even if a leader uses the best few mons of their type, it doesn't mean that those mons can all defend against common threats. But, if those leaders don't have their mons on their lineup (like applying for), they're seen as idiots and sometimes not chosen. Since we're in the fifth generation of Pokemon, I don't think fifteen is too many mons, as that's only three per generation, and each generation has added a large pool of new mechanics, moves, and mons to it.
It might even make gym battles more fun and encourage people to do them, if they can try out some new things without having to take out their standard gym mons to do it. Since we have a lower battles count as of late (tho I think that battle activity is rising, cos I've reffed a lot this pay period and watched quite a few battles as well).
I'm not going to really argue about it, because I know WTP will just say no anyway, cos he's in charge, but that's my two cents. It would help leaders, but maybe not all. That's why it would just be an option.
I'm against it pretty much completely.
Also, you have no idea which Gyms are hardest to defend, anyway. I don't think Ground, Fighting or Ghost are any worse than any other Types. Seriously, all Types have enough options to check pretty much any Pokemon that proves problematic. I hate the victim shit when it's without merit ._.
If you use your Pokemon properly, eight is more than enough. Twelve is even a stretch, imo. It should not be tailored to one person's needs when what we have is plenty.
I'm not extremely for this, or opposed to it. I think it would be cool to have the ability to add on those few extra niche options that lose out when compared to general practicality. At the same time, I don't think those niche pokemon should even matter, seeing as how gym leaders learn quickly what they need to defend against and how they should go about doing it.
Now I'm sure my case is different from most when it comes to niche gym pokemon. Virtually every pokemon I don't have on my lineup has a X4 weakness that really hampers their viability. If I could get three extra pokemon, I might actually find a use for Magnezone, Pawniard, and Klinklang. If not, I'll still just approach things how I used to.
So, as I can see how helpful it might be, I also think that it really isn't necessary. One thing it might take away is the individuality of each gym of the same type. Different gyms run different lineups under the same typing, so with more options we might lose those different factors. Also, certain gyms might start seeing duplicate pokemon showing up. Whether it be Jolteons, Dragonites, Blazikens, etc.
On the pro side, this allows for gym leaders to get more creative and embrace their typing on a greater level. It makes the gym system muh more challenging, while also giving it a greater sense of reward. This system rewards those who have invested in their gym and who have opened up the option to greater diversity.
Anyways, I had a thought about this. What if we made it so this was a tradeoff of sorts. Some gym leaders seem to feel robbed for not having a particularly useful Wildcard, while others wouldn't particularly need a wildcard if they had more options of their own typing. So what if we put in place a system that gave you the option to pick either having a wildcard, or getting 2 or 3 extra spots? That way you are rewarded for having more of your own type and not having a wildcard, but you also have the option to have a wildcard instead if you feel it is the best way for you to stay competitive. This would make people not feel slighted for others getting good wildcards, and it would stop any expansion of gym numbers from hurting types with fewer options (Dragon).
Oh, @ChainReaction01 you could probably post that potential wild card list somewhere for all of the types as well, just so others can see.
We already have the problem of people mass-adding mons to their applications so it "looks better", so that's a null point. However, I can only see this suggestion benefiting people who run D/P or B/W. For a Revolution or B/W Revolution user, such as myself, situational mons are risky to use. At least with D/P, you can adapt your lineup to current situations (which was one of the points for the 'private-but-not-decided-beforehand' battle style suggested), so situational mons become less risky.
So, yeah. I can't see it breaking anything, and no-one's saying 12 mons isn't enough to cover most counters. It's just making some room for mons who could be the difference between a win or a lose in certain circumstances. If people wanna risk them being Roared out, then that's their own decision, and shouldn't be used as an argument against this.
Lastly, on Wildcards: No, don't remove them. However, don't add more WCs. I still stand by the viewpoint I've always had of a standardised list of WCs, which gets rid of any 'WTFs' like LS was saying. Seriously, Lapras in a Dragon gym is pretty stupid.
~The Artist Formerly Known As PichuBoy~
With the issue on wildcards, could Monbrey and WTP please elaborate on why Salamence is not a Fire Wild Card?