Trainercole

[spoiler=Prologue Cover] [spoiler=Prologue] Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

Yeah... super weird. I actually did miss earlier where you spoke about transparency and how the committee would be put together. That sort of thing is important, and while I don't agree with not having defined limits on how long you can be on the committee, any answer at all is better than not having an idea. Honestly though, when you look at this objectively, a group like this would be nothing more than a committee that oversees and play-tests bans and then sends that playtest data up the ladder? Why not just write out actual criteria that awards a pokemon a ban? If you do that then people can go and look up the playtests for the pokemon and see where they exceed that criteria to know why it's banned. You wouldn't even really need to take votes. You'd just need volunteers with some PvP skill to run the playtests. I mean, unless you had dreams of tiering out PvP a la smogon. Which a lot of people would have mixed feelings about. (Staff probably wouldn't go for that since it'd mean changes to the PvP UI, and this whole council thing has been tried before, so you're fighting an uphill battle already.). If you did, it would be meta-healthy in that less mechanically efficient pokemon would see play, but there'd be some immersion loss. I'd recommend against trying to make an official list of OU-type, but not banned pokemon. There's really no reason to write players a connect the dots to the most meta-efficient teams. Another big difference with PRO is the seasonal competition. The committee would have to always be performing their tests in anticipation of the next season, since 1 month isn't a very long time and you'll want to have more complete test data kicking off the season, rather than having to try and push emergency patches mid-season which is where you'll get more flak from your player base. I was never a "-1" vote on this (calling it a council is super cheesy though), but if you're going to do it, you have to come loaded with an idea of how you're going to do the job and do it fairly or staff isn't even going to give this a second thought.

Yeah, if doing this isn't a lot of work, it's really only a quality of life increase for people who like to do Daycare Services and things. Now they can do their thing without anyone worrying that they might be out there to scam on them.

I don't trust anybody or group that gets to create the rules that they play by. Like I said, if members of this council weren't eligible for PvP then it would be a different story, but nobody should get to make their own rules. It's a recipe for corruption, especially if you're picking from the people who are already at the top. It just makes them literally the ruling class of PvP. Example: If two thirds of the council played Garchomp (since you mentioned Garchomp), but most of the members wanted Garchomp banned, there's nothing compelling those people who play Garchomp to vote to ban. I don't know how Smogon tests or ratifies changes in their community, but if you really want to found a group that tests what's too strong, you should just form a group that records matches with the suspect pokemon, uploads the evidence of that pokemon or team being oppressively strong over so many matches, and then submit that for the game's population and for the staff to see. Transparent evidence is impossible to refute from players or staff. A council of elites isn't necessary to enact change, if you do due diligence in collecting evidence.

Yes, PvP in PRO isn't really something you can avoid. After so long, you've done everything there is to do and so battling other players is kind of the end of the line. But that also means that nobody will be able to avoid the decisions that will be made by this council forever. It's not like Smogon where you can just choose not to take part in it. All of the players of this game will be beholden to the decisions made in some way. It's not about PvP knowledge. It's about setting up a proper system of governance and not just going "This is wonderful idea!" without there being a concrete idea. Staff will have to back this council for any of their rules to go through anyway. What should really happen is that some people with a really comprehensive understanding of the competitive pokemon scene and how their meta's shift should be given a role on staff to moderate the PvP circles of the game. But in becoming staff, they become ineligible to actually play competitively in PRO. Without staff consent this is just five guys setting up tournaments with house rules, and that happens all the time already.

Is the game's staff willing to support a council of PvP elite making decisions that affect their own welfare and standings within the game? In a normal game, competitive rules are laid out by a staff who aren't eligible for competitive play. Their interest is strictly in making a good and non-toxic gaming experience. In this proposal, the rule-making body is composed of players who have a vested interest in being or remaining the best. As stated, they would be picked from among the best PvP players. If those players are eligible for competitive play, we have to assume that they will make decisions with their own best interests in mind. Who will elect these councilors? How long will a councilor be allowed to remain in the position before a new one must be cycled in? Will who's in the council at any time be public knowledge? There's a lot of decisions that have to go into governance of any body that if made incorrectly could screw things up more than help. And these are things to consider just on setting up the group, not even on making decisions.

I'm down. PRO: TrainerCole Showdown: drawingblank2013

In-Game Name: trainercole Server: Red