I disagree, if I don't want people to see me on the userlist of a room then I don't want them to see me with /roomauth either
-
The moderators of this forum are the Pokémon Showdown! Administrators.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Suggestions for Pokémon Showdown
- Thread starter Vacate
- Start date
- Status
A way to see a list of all the currently available groupchats would be very appreciated.
I've thought about creating a groupchat myself, perhaps one that could eventually become a "real" public room, but they are difficult to advertise without somehow annoying people (either posting it in main chat or pm-ing a ton of people). An available groupchat list would make finding and growing groupchats much easier and less bothersome to others, as well as encourage public room diversity (by making it easier to start up a to-be public room).
*To make such a thing usable, if it were to be implemented, a logical second step would be to either show the room owner (so you could contact and ask to enter), or to let users join a groupchat by clicking on it.
I've thought about creating a groupchat myself, perhaps one that could eventually become a "real" public room, but they are difficult to advertise without somehow annoying people (either posting it in main chat or pm-ing a ton of people). An available groupchat list would make finding and growing groupchats much easier and less bothersome to others, as well as encourage public room diversity (by making it easier to start up a to-be public room).
*To make such a thing usable, if it were to be implemented, a logical second step would be to either show the room owner (so you could contact and ask to enter), or to let users join a groupchat by clicking on it.
Groupchats aren't designed to attract users and don't need advertising - that's what rooms are for. They're meant to be small hangout chats for trusted users (although I think their purpose is currently flawed and I'm thinking of ways to change that). Groupchats that should be public are made as rooms.
Thank you for the (quick!) response Vacate. I understand what you're saying, but my conundrum is this:
To make a public room, you (both the submitter of the room idea, and those who evaluate room ideas) need to know that there will be enough chat activity for the room to succeed. To know there will be the activity, you generally need an appropriate userbase.
How then do you get the userbase, and therefore the public room, if groupchats are currently meant to be "small hangout chats" as you say?
My broader 'suggestion', I suppose, is to let any groupchat RO make their groupchat public if they wish.
This makes a public-room-appropriate userbase much more obtainable, and therefore encourages new and better public rooms, while allowing gropuchats meant to be private their privacy. Either public or private could be the default for groupchats where the RO does not specify.
This suggestion also seems to tie in with your thought that "their purpose is currently flawed and I'm thinking of ways to change that", and its exciting to know that you're thinking of changes!
The problem right now is groupchats don't really do much. Private, temporary chat rooms are hardly in demand. I can't confirm any changes whatsoever as I haven't even brought my ideas to staff yet, just brainstorming right now.
The general thinking for public rooms is "if it's already talked about in other rooms or there's other evidence to suggest a large userbase, we'll start it as hidden." The groupchat requirement is more for the clique-based private rooms that will naturally get members from PMs and not a public list. As almost every public room comes from an existing room's umbrella, I don't feel like the number of new rooms we'd get from allowing public groupchats would eclipse the drawbacks. For example, this allows social rooms and splinter rooms to be public. The only exception is language rooms which we might make an exception for if global staff are interested in ROing it.
The general thinking for public rooms is "if it's already talked about in other rooms or there's other evidence to suggest a large userbase, we'll start it as hidden." The groupchat requirement is more for the clique-based private rooms that will naturally get members from PMs and not a public list. As almost every public room comes from an existing room's umbrella, I don't feel like the number of new rooms we'd get from allowing public groupchats would eclipse the drawbacks. For example, this allows social rooms and splinter rooms to be public. The only exception is language rooms which we might make an exception for if global staff are interested in ROing it.
So recently I have noticed that Missigno is coded into PS!, so I thought about it for a while and I decided to suggest that Missigno, (HACKED POKEMON HIMSELF) be allowed to BH.
Yours Sincerly
007Xerus/Xerus11
boxofkangaroos
this is the day of the expanding man
If a Pokemon has no moves at all, I think its Attack IV should temporarily be displayed as 31. I've seen multiple YouTubers (as well as myself) look at a Pokemon's stats for reference before adding any moves, and they either fail to realize the Attack IV is 0 or end up manually changing it to 31. It's more of a convenience thing than anything, but I think it would be really nice.
Although it's not as convenient of a solution for everyone as radio buttons would be, you can do the command "/poll vote [option]" to make sure you won't misclick in polls.instead of making the poll options a button, make it a radio button, such as:
and add a "Submit" button. the dynamic chats make me get the wrong option all the time i swear
it's just an html fix and basically how every other poll works
It's not a major suggestion, but I'd like to suggest that staff in hidden rooms get the same groupchat privileges as public rooms. To specify, I do not mean private rooms, just hidden rooms. I could be wrong, but from what I understand hidden rooms are linked to a public room. I only know of two hidden rooms, Anything Goes and OU Theorymon, and both are inked in Other Metas and OU room intros, respectively. Because they are advertised in public rooms, their staff has to be up to a certain standard. I don't know much about OU Theorymon, but I do know that The Immortal has some say in the goings on of Anything Goes, and regularly frequents the room, I assume to keep an eye on things. The staff in these rooms seem professional, and as they are connected to public rooms, I think they deserve the same privileges as public room staff.
Well when you are going to click the "Watch Battles" button you see mostly just kinda scattered ladder rankings.Say we want to look for High ladder, Mid, Or even Low ladder it would be beneficial to have some sort of a filter or even range input to find the certain skill level.Just so say we wanted to watch a Higher skill level ladder battle it would be much easier to access/find said battle.
Last edited:
So i got some suggestions on locks: in particular autolock with banwords should be completely removed imo. It causes more complaint and issues than simply blocking the message containing the banword. This last option prevents the linking of inappropriate content, screamers etc… as well as preventing random locks and appeals for them.
The other suggestion for fixing how locks work is making the chat option available with people/Private chats that freely open their feeds to the locked user: the lock punishment is for preventing the user to break the rules in Pubblic Rooms or harrassing in PM so i don't see any problem with doing that tbh. (#NOMORECHATTINGWITHNAMECHANGE)
btw i'm really liking the new features added to the simulator. Keep it up!
:)
The other suggestion for fixing how locks work is making the chat option available with people/Private chats that freely open their feeds to the locked user: the lock punishment is for preventing the user to break the rules in Pubblic Rooms or harrassing in PM so i don't see any problem with doing that tbh. (#NOMORECHATTINGWITHNAMECHANGE)
btw i'm really liking the new features added to the simulator. Keep it up!
:)
(re)Introduce the kick command; it should work the same as /ban (then hide messages) then /unban; it's a middle step between warn and ban, and it helps moderation in my opinion. Should be "@" privilege, or even % but i'm not sure about efficiency.
Is it possible to add the minutes command for the ban? The same as mute command (with the /hban included; maybe adding /dban as 24h day ban?).
/ban username 60 -> Username was banned by Abry for 60 minutes.
Should go from 1 to 1440 (1 day); if you need to ban someone for more than 1 day, just use the actual /ban and remove it when you have to remove it; if you think about adding this, you can ignore the previous kick suggestion: a 1 minute ban can be considered as a kick.
Is it possible to add the minutes command for the ban? The same as mute command (with the /hban included; maybe adding /dban as 24h day ban?).
/ban username 60 -> Username was banned by Abry for 60 minutes.
Should go from 1 to 1440 (1 day); if you need to ban someone for more than 1 day, just use the actual /ban and remove it when you have to remove it; if you think about adding this, you can ignore the previous kick suggestion: a 1 minute ban can be considered as a kick.
Elaborate
That's already planned to happen, once we get the model animations
Already being worked on
The current one looks fine.
The Gen VI one, personally looks uglier, and would mess up a lot of things asthetically (tooltips, teambuilder)
Can we get a new OM known as FREE FOR ALLs
The rules will be simple, every player is allowed to get 3 pokemon per side, either 4 players can create a private match by inviting others to the free for all match up OR they can have 4 random players matched up together on the free for all battles.
Taking inspiration from DuncanKneeDeep and HoodlumScrafty, we can also have a randomized free for all battle in which 3 random mons ranging all the way from LC to ubers are given to the 4 players and they have to make it work.
The clauses can be(needs improvement, feel free to add more in the comments section below) :-
Evasion clause
never ending battle clause
BAN on dark void and shadow tag
However, 1HKO moves should be ALLOWED to make it a lot more fun and give the LC mons some viability.
I really hope you all like this idea, full props to DKD and HoodlumScrafty. Let's make FFA's happen on Pokemon Showdown :)
The rules will be simple, every player is allowed to get 3 pokemon per side, either 4 players can create a private match by inviting others to the free for all match up OR they can have 4 random players matched up together on the free for all battles.
Taking inspiration from DuncanKneeDeep and HoodlumScrafty, we can also have a randomized free for all battle in which 3 random mons ranging all the way from LC to ubers are given to the 4 players and they have to make it work.
The clauses can be(needs improvement, feel free to add more in the comments section below) :-
Evasion clause
never ending battle clause
BAN on dark void and shadow tag
However, 1HKO moves should be ALLOWED to make it a lot more fun and give the LC mons some viability.
I really hope you all like this idea, full props to DKD and HoodlumScrafty. Let's make FFA's happen on Pokemon Showdown :)
Sorry, this is not happening because in the small bit of research I did by looking up a video + your explanation i found out this requires 4 players to be able to battle together, which is not currently possible to do on PS.
Also, don't make new threads for suggestions, use the existing suggestion thread.
Also, don't make new threads for suggestions, use the existing suggestion thread.
This might seem like a really stupid suggestion, but still gonna suggest it..I feel like paralysis is way more disruptive in Showdown compared to on the 3DS games. On Showdown it seems like there's way more than a 25% chance you'll get fully paralyzed. It feels more like a 75% chance which is not right. Paralysis having the ability to both reduce your speed by 75% and a 75% chance to get fully paralyzed is simply not how the game mechanics are suppose to work. If I were in charge I would check to see if this increased chance to get fully paralyzed is indeed there or not. You might think I'm just having really bad luck, but it's been battle after battle after battle that I'm getting fully paralyzed turn after turn after turn. We all know what getting fully paralyzed even 2 turns in a row can really do. Against a set up sweeper it's basically gg. I urge the Pokemon Showdown team to check into this matter. Thank you.
- Status