Jump to content
  • 0

Team Overhaul


SterlingStryke

Question

Dear Gizmo: If you are reading this take the following into account. This is a fairly long post with multiple ideas within it (since it is overhauling a feature of the game). If you have time to read this, great! If not, I understand you have a busy schedule.

General Idea

What this topic is all about is improving the team function. Although I think this a great part of the MMO I (personally) see it as unfinished.

The topic will cover the following and how to implement it.

- Ban list/Open Team chats

- Allies/Enemies

- New ranks (some for vanity and felxibility)

Ideas from community:

- Add a selective guests button so guests have to be approved before joining (Provided by Giygas)

- Add Team vs Team battles which would be a multibattle involving two teams (Provied by ItzPrado)

Ban List and Team chats

My ideas for changing the team chat would work like this. There would now be a few options for who can access you team chats

1. Members only (currently only one available ingame)

2. Members and allies (pretty self-explanatory and see the next topic to learn more about Allies. Another reason is communicating with an ally would be very very hard without this function)

3. Anyone (this would mean anyone who knew your team name could do something along the lines of "/j insernamehere". It is also good to allwo guests to see what gooes on in your team)

Now for the ban list. Kicking and banning would be two seperate functions, the former to (not so politely) remove someone from your team but still allow access to the team chat (if the setting was active). A player on the ban list would not be able to join your team chat no matetr what the setting was on. This would be useful for a person on an allied team who was troublesome but the team as a whole was nice.

Allies and Enemies

Now I get what you're all thinking, why would we need allies an enemies? To be totally honest the reasons I see for them are communication and competition.

To ally another team it would be similar to inviting someone to your team. You would type the name in and invite them. The highest qualifying member on the other team (woo another permission for a rank) would receive a message to accept or decline it (if nobody is available at the time an error message would return to the sender). Once allied, allied players' names would appear in a different colour. Allied players would also be able to join eachother's chats if the option was set on.

*Note: Player's from both teams would receive a message once the teams allied (upon joining the game if they are offline)

Adding another team as an enemy works in the same fashion as adding another team as an ally except you don't need the other team's permission. Upon adding a team as an enemy the other team will have an option to add them to theirs (if they have permission). If nobody with a high enough rank is on the "enemyship" is frozen until someone of the appropriate rank comes on. Upon logging in they will receive a message whether toaccept of decline. If accepted both teams will be informed the same way people are notified of becoming allies. If they decline only the sender's team will have them listed as an enemy but both teams will be notified in the same fashion (except the message will be changed to inform people which team did not accept). Once an enemy is on the list their names will appear as a seperate colour andwhen these people batlle a more humiliating message is posted by the system and each team is notified in their chat (this is for people with system messages off).

Unallying/Unenemyfying (or whatever you want to call it) would work very simply. A person with permissions to take them off the list can do so and both teams will be notified in a similar fashion as if the teams just became allies/enemies. However if a team removes an enemy the other team would have an option to keep the other team on theirs (Works in the same way as adding them).

Allied Chat (thank you deshar)

would be a temporary chat that could be opened by a team. that team could then invite an ally to it and if the ally accepts the team will now be in the ally chat. The only restriction for adding another team from that point on would be if they were mutual allies. If your team wanted to talk to Team Iron and Team Bushido but Bushido and Iron were not allies you could invite one to the ally chat but the other would not be able to join it. The ally chat would be closed once all allies left. By an ally I mean as a collective entity solets say officers had the permission to join and leave. Once joined the entire team would be subject to the chat.

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Just going to be quick and simple with this one.

Why?

I get why you might want the Ally chat. Your team becomes more social and some people are arrogant and won't disband their team to join yours. Makes sense.

What I don't get is why you'd want to implement this big, complex system when there's nothing to fight over. It would simply be rivalries and trolls. This would be fine if there was actually something to fight over.

A good supplement to this idea would be something like Puzzle Pirates/Pirates of the Burning Sea (since this is essentially the main mechanic in both games).

It's basically territories. When the "secret base" system is implemented, we could use them, battling, the cities of Kanto, and other bits to due territory wars. Of course, we would need a lot of counter-measures based off the games (like Fame in PP) before abuse is implemented.

Until then, a complex system to make chatting easier and battling more embarrassing - that's dumb.

Link to comment
  • 0
What I don't get is why you'd want to implement this big, complex system when there's nothing to fight over. It would simply be rivalries and trolls.
I think I posted once about an idea that fleshed out "secret bases" into a cool thing that sounded simlar to this, but I don't remember where... Oh well I'll write it down again.

On a side note is there a limit to the number of players that are allowed in teams right now? and is that number subject to change in any way in the near future? Cuz my idea works well with large groups.

Link to comment
  • 0

I actually agree with Atuan. It would be awesome if we had territories to fight over. Teams commanding territories could have reduced prices from shops and the like. That would also make different areas more valuable, such as Celadon and Saffron. However, I like the idea of humiliating messages after duel outcomes.

Link to comment
  • 0

The territories would be great so I compiled a list of "facts"

1. Ownership would be channel-wise
2.owning the territory would give some bonuses like (the are pure examples) reduced prices in stores and maybe better catch rates

3. Territories could be shared by allies (2 at most)

4. A territory would be lost in a number of circumstances which could include battle and factor the number of people in

5. Territories would consist of routes and towns or routes

6. Trespassers (people on enemy list) can be battled even with decline off and cannot be refused. If the battle is lost the trespasser is taken to the nearest allied/owned pokemon center and if none are owned they go to the nearest neutral area. If the trespasser wins they get immunity foe 24 hours

7. Pallet Town belongs to nobody

Link to comment
  • 0

[quote name='SterlingStryke' timestamp='1359088559' post='172269']
The territories would be great so I compiled a list of "facts"

1. Ownership would be channel-wise
2.owning the territory would give some bonuses like (the are pure examples) reduced prices in stores and maybe better catch rates

3. Territories could be shared by allies (2 at most)

4. A territory would be lost in a number of circumstances which could include battle and factor the number of people in

5. Territories would consist of routes and towns or routes

6. Trespassers (people on enemy list) can be battled even with decline off and cannot be refused. If the battle is lost the trespasser is taken to the nearest allied/owned pokemon center and if none are owned they go to the nearest neutral area. If the trespasser wins they get immunity foe 24 hours

7. Pallet Town belongs to nobody
[/quote]

1. Absolutely not. It would ruin the current balance in the channels and the garbage from 1 & 2 would overflow into others trying to carve out their niche.

2. Store prices is a good start, but I think when Secret Bases are implemented, the real prize would be controlling the secret base of a certain town. For example, there are four general Secret Bases. All teams can open a base at one of the four locations. These are permanent and whatnot. However, when control is held by a team over a certain town e.g., Celadaon, then that team is allowed to open a secondary Secret Base there. It would have an overworld structure as a sort of trophy.

3. Shared territories? Eh. Maybe they'd gain a weaker discount, or something, but I don't see sharing being a good thing. It's a slippery slope to alliance rings and that's the main cause of stagnation in these types of games.

4. The way I've seen it done in the past is having two "ratings". One rating for PvP skill level. This is based off of percentages. This could easily be excluded. What happened in a certain game was that people would make an alt "team" and "challenge" for control of a "town". By doing this with only one character in the "team" they were able to "challenge" multiple "towns" to create confusion and leave open the possibility of taking whichever "town" was less protected. To combat this, they implemented an "activity" rating. Only when you achieved a certain level of activity were you able to "challenge" "towns". This system would work quite well in PokeMMO. It would be based off of experience gain, Pokemon captured, money earned, items bought, etc. but not based off of time spent online.

5. I think the best way to do this is basing it off of the towns alone. The towns, however, would provide a bonus to the routes they connect. For example, Saffron would give boosts to 5, 6, 7, and 8. Neighboring towns would split the benefit and could even act as an open PvP area for the two factions vying for control of the route if they are "at war". If they are allies, it would just work in both their favor. This would give towns benefits that would otherwise be ignored, like Cerulean, because you would have a bonus to 24 and 25 and have a Monopoly over it.

6. I like the idea about immunity, but I think neutral players should be able to abstain from the political intrigue of the system if they wanted to.

7. Agreed.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.