[Denied]de-evolution stone

[fredrichnietze]

i searched through the suggestions box and could find anything like this. basically it'd be a item that un-evolves your pokemon. uses of this would include learning a move that a pre evolution would learn before 50 but evolved form doesn't or in case of eevee or other pokemon that have multiple evolved forms, would allow you to fix mistakes. this could be sold at the celadon store for a high amount of money (what was that you said? money sink are needed to balance the economy?). or added to the gift shop to promote donations. most people who play pokemon long have seen houndooms with no crunch and exeggutors running hypnosis. this will help fix that.

discus 

[spoiler]八(＾□＾*)

[spoiler]"me begging the adm's"[/spoiler]

[/spoiler]

[SirGaryOak]

+1 this would be great as a money sink! :D

[flavajabari]

think you ment couldn't in your first sentence,

 

its been discussed here, https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/31611-item-late-stone-evolve-at-level-100/?hl=evolve

 

the guy removed it from the op, because it was so bad received, but it gets discussed in the comments,

however your theory adds forgetting certain moves so i guess this could work.

[fredrichnietze]

think you ment couldn't in your first sentence,

 

its been discussed here, https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/31611-item-late-stone-evolve-at-level-100/?hl=evolve

 

the guy removed it from the op, because it was so bad received, but it gets discussed in the comments,

however your theory adds forgetting certain moves so i guess this could work.

thats a bit different. i'm saying just un-evolve and keep the same ev's and iv's and moves but your stats would go back to pre evolved version. im NOT suggesting giving people stayu's with starmie stats. just a tool to fix mistakes similar to ev reducing berries.

[Dannnno]

What about if you devolve a pokemon and give it moves it could normally never have? Thats gonna fuck up the meta game.

[flavajabari]

what about shinies, should they work on them? could make a pretty big difference on some shinies values

[Emlee]

This is a poor idea for a few of the same reasons a "de leveling" item is a poor idea.

 

• Gives the ability for a Pokemon to obtain something it should not have (moves). (Not always a negative thing, but always requires a cautious approach) 
• Is 100% avoidable through other means (Everstone, paying attention to your client, not levelling when evolving could occur)
• Implementing things based on mistake(s) players can make in game is a poor use of developing time and effort when work should be focused on things that can help the majority of the game's population at any given time
• For lack of a better phrase this can "screw" with the PokeMMO Meta. Although the meta is not perfect nothing like this should be implemented, or considered without a catalogue of all the affects it can have, for every single Pokemon, and every single move for those Pokemon

 

Along with the above statements to ponder I also want to call attention to the fact that stamping the notion of a money sink on suggestions needs to be thought out a bit more. Ask yourself questions such as "Will this apply to most, or all players in game?" (It's not a sink if only a small percent of people will need the feature a small percent of the time). Keep in mind that implementing a feature that costs PokeYen in game that screws with the meta enough that all players must attempt to afford the cost is not a money sink, it is a mistake (this could occur in a situation where something/somethings OP is/are implemented as a result of this and players will find themselves all needing this specific thing/things. I understand that is a very worst case scenario statement but when proposing ideas you should always consider the worst case scenario.

 

I do understand where the desire for this comes from, but the implementation is unnecessary from a "I made a mistake and I want to fix it" view, and also very dangerous in a "Let's add some stuff to the meta" sense (specifically without any research on what this could induce in the current meta). So overall I do not believe this is a good idea and has the possibility of having a very detrimental affect in game. 

[SirGaryOak]

what about shinies, should they work on them? could make a pretty big difference on some shinies values

They don't care about fucking up values so this wouldn't be an actual problem, maybe it would be healthy to change the shiny market a bit. 

 

What about if you devolve a pokemon and give it moves it could normally never have? Thats gonna fuck up the meta game.

 

• For lack of a better phrase this can "screw" with the PokeMMO Meta. Although the meta is not perfect nothing like this should be implemented, or considered without a catalogue of all the affects it can have, for every single Pokemon, and every single move for those Pokemon

 

I do understand where the desire for this comes from, but the implementation is unnecessary from a "I made a mistake and I want to fix it" view, and also very dangerous in a "Let's add some stuff to the meta" sense (specifically without any research on what this could induce in the current meta). So overall I do not believe this is a good idea and has the possibility of having a very detrimental affect in game. 

Please explain how you think it would "screw" with the PokeMMO Meta! 

As I see it some Pokemon who didn't get their full moveset because of a too early evolution, if this happens most comp players just get a new one and be more careful. Why not help them by being able to grind for PokeYen instead of grinding a new one?

 

 

• Gives the ability for a Pokemon to obtain something it should not have (moves). (Not always a negative thing, but always requires a cautious approach) 

The Pokemon could already get the moves, but didn't due to a "mistake"(maybe) by the trainer, the Pokemon does not get NEW MOVES.

 

• Is 100% avoidable through other means (Everstone, paying attention to your client, not levelling when evolving could occur)

Yes? (let them grind if they want, having a Pokemon with a wrong name is 100% avoidable, name it the right name the first time that's it.)

 

• Implementing things based on mistake(s) players can make in game is a poor use of developing time and effort when work should be focused on things that can help the majority of the game's population at any given time

I know a lot of people in which case this would be really helpful, and NO they don't need to make something that effects all the players in the game. If so, then the implementation of re-naming was the biggest bunch of bs, it had no use at ALL besides the fact of a few players who could get a new name which is not important. And if they think it is then go get a new Pokemon like people who overlevelled their Pokemon to early.

 

• For lack of a better phrase this can "screw" with the PokeMMO Meta. Although the meta is not perfect nothing like this should be implemented, or considered without a catalogue of all the affects it can have, for every single Pokemon, and every single move for those Pokemon

Asked about this above^^

Added some comments^^

 

I do agree that this might need a bit fixing but it's not a bad idea at all(imo). :P

[Asakano]

Step 1: Evolve Eevee to Vaporeon

Step 2: Teach it Surf and Ice Beam

Step 3: Devolve it

Step 4: Evolve it into Jolteon

Step 5: ???

Step 6: Profit

[Ishimaru]

Bad execution of a good concept.

[SirGaryOak]

Step 1: Evolve Eevee to Vaporeon

Step 2: Teach it Surf and Ice Beam

Step 3: Devolve it

Step 4: Evolve it into Jolteon

Step 5: ???

Step 6: Profit

And here we got a good point, but the idea of de-evolving could work, it just need a little fixing. 

Maybe just a move-relearner which can also learn you the moves of the previous evolution(s)?

[Dannnno]

They don't care about fucking up values so this wouldn't be an actual problem, maybe it would be healthy to change the shiny market a bit. 

 

Please explain how you think it would "screw" with the PokeMMO Meta! 

As I see it some Pokemon who didn't get their full moveset because of a too early evolution, if this happens most comp players just get a new one and be more careful. Why not help them by being able to grind for PokeYen instead of grinding a new one?

 

Added some comments^^

 

I do agree that this might need a bit fixing but it's not a bad idea at all(imo). :P

 

 

Step 1: Evolve Eevee to Vaporeon

Step 2: Teach it Surf and Ice Beam

Step 3: Devolve it

Step 4: Evolve it into Jolteon

Step 5: ???

Step 6: Profit

This is a pretty good example. We could also make, just for fun, a Fly Charmander.  Or an earthquake Bagon. Or any of a variety of pokemon that would normally be impossible

 

And here we got a good point, but the idea of de-evolving could work, it just need a little fixing. 

Maybe just a move-relearner which can also learn you the moves of the previous evolution(s)?

imo a 'little fixing' is going to be 'a lot of fixing' and wouldn't be worth the effort put into it.  Like Emlee said this isn't going to be benefiting all the players all the time, but a much smaller segment of the population.  

 

The problem with the move-relearner is that we're still giving into the mentality of - some players made an oops, and we're going to enable them to go back and reverse their oops.  We're rewarding people who don't pay attention or aren't careful enough with their Pokemon.

[TheSpiritsBlithe]

I really want to support this, because I think it would honestly be great for the shiny market, not to fix mistakes, but simply to make them more tradable (like if I were to buy someone's shiny dnite but wanted dragonaire, for example).

 

But then I saw this:

 

Step 1: Evolve Eevee to Vaporeon

Step 2: Teach it Surf and Ice Beam

Step 3: Devolve it

Step 4: Evolve it into Jolteon

Step 5: ???

Step 6: Profit

There is no way this could be implemented without making certain moves be lost. Jolteon would become the most OP pokemon ever with a Starmie moveset, higher stats, and volt absorb. Also, coding it to delete moves like those upon de-volution sounds like a stupidly ridiculous amount of code. It sounds like a good plan on the surface, but I don't want to live in a world where eevee=uber.

[fredrichnietze]

so the problem you all have is pre evolved forms having later evolution moves right?. what if the stone wouldn't work if they had them? you could move tutor them away, un-evolve and do whatever. and move tutor/tm/hm back if you ever evolve it again. is this feasible? is there another solution to keep pre evolved forms from getting moves they shouldn't have? cause you guys are right thats a problem.

[Dannnno]

Thats one problem, but there is still the issue that there is no good reason to have this, except that players can fix a mistake they made due to carelessness.  I don't think developer time is best spent making something work just so people can be less careful.  Be careful with your Pokemon and it won't be an issue, and if you mess up then you mess up.

 

Also I'm not even convinced it would work - including all the bits of code and stuff to avoid creating exploits would take a lot of time and would be bound to have some bugs, possibly very significant ones.  

 

All in all I don't think its worth the time spent on it and the developers shouldn't have to create something to fix our carelessness.

[fredrichnietze]

well it's not just carelessness. often noobs who don't know any better get a hold a good pokemon and think it's worth more evolved or whatever. not everyone knows what we know. i once saw a kid trying to trade a modest jolteon, every iv except att was 27+ and it would have made a great espeon but he made it a jolt because he didn't know nature or iv's. i saw a timid 31 speed 25+ spa att umbreon with no def ect,,,,,,, i once had my pc freeze at the end of a fight and when it it finally stopped freezing one of my pokemon had evolved. stuff happens. thats why we have ev reducing berries. that's why we have the isle 2 tutor. this wouldn't be that different. it's would have to be done right to prevent surf/flamethrower/tbolt/psychic jolteon ect.... but if done right it would be good.

[XelaKebert]

This has been brought up before and rejected.

 

There are no intentions to ever implement de-evolution methods.

Edited October 31, 2013 by XelaKebert