There is something like that written, we're still figuring out exactly how/if we want to implement it. Either way, it wont be given to regular users or voices, so backseat modding isn't an issue.
-
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
- Thread starter Zarel
- Start date
- Status
It's considered "backseat" modding if the voices tell specific users they're breaking rules. They have enough toys to play with, this isn't going to be one of them.
You'd think it would be that simple but most people just hit the backspace button and they're right back in the chat again. Either way a kick still serves as a warning for EVERY user that gets one, so it's their fault if they break the same rule 5 minutes later.
jrp
Banned deucer.
Antar has said multiple times that PU will not be incorporated as a tier on PS due to how disruptive it could be to the other tiers
what i think would be interesting is Pokemon Showdown! community Create-a-team. It would not use the lengthy process that a forum takes as it can be done on #showdown or #shinx at a specified time, can be done on schedule. I am absolutely willing to host this idea to give more activity within people in the Pokemon Showdown guys. I'm not really sure how i can get a go-signal for this idea though. I can submit an outline of how it's probably going to work if required.
This is a very small suggestion, but when I finish a battle, is it possible instead of just a "Leave this Battle" button, that there would also be a "next battle" button that works exactly like the find battle button? It would make laddering much smoother.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I have a suggestion for the Replay viewer.
I think the majority of people using it prefer replaying the matches without pokemon cries/background music. Therefore, i suggest exchanging the two 'start' buttons. Have a big button on top, saying: 'Play (without music)' (or just 'Play') and a smaller button below that saying Play (With Music)
I think the majority of people using it prefer replaying the matches without pokemon cries/background music. Therefore, i suggest exchanging the two 'start' buttons. Have a big button on top, saying: 'Play (without music)' (or just 'Play') and a smaller button below that saying Play (With Music)
I believe that there should be a friends list because i find it very annoying when you try to challenge your friends and you try to click on there username and the list has moved. Also I believe that there should be a rematch button when you complete a battle.
Suggestion: Chance balancing
Perhaps many people have thought about this: what if there was a mechanism in place in the sim that would even out luck events and prevent battles from being won through hax alone?
Yes, I know, hax happens, and yes, I know, it's part of the game. But we recognize that losing a game out of sheer bad luck is nothing but frustrating, and winning a game that way is not particularly gratifying either. That's why the OHKO bans and Double Team bans are in place, to prevent battles from becoming dice rolls.
My suggestion is implementing a chance system that would even out the chance rolls, to prevent all bad luck from being dished out to one player.
Technically, it would work by, instead of generating a random percentage number for chance rolls, instead create an evened stack of roll values for each player then drawing from it whenever a roll is needed. This is similar to what tetris uses: it generates the random order of the seven pieces, making sure every piece is included once, and does this every seven pieces. This preserves the random nature crucial to Tetris but removes the frustration of losing because of a bad streak.
It's important to notice that the degree of this balance can be chosen by picking the number of rolls in each stack, drawn from a pool of the numbers 0 to 100. A stack of 101 rolls means maximum balancing, for each number will be represented once. A stack size of 1 would mean zero balancing, for it would be effectively drawing one number at a time. For example, a stack size of 70 would mean that 70 numbers would be represented, and 31 not, increasing unpredictability compared to a stack of full 101, but maintaining balance.
To clarify, this does not mean:
Implementing this should be trivial. Simply replace the RNG calls to a func that pops and returns the top piece of the stack, and that generates a new stack if the current is empty. One independent stack per player.
That's my suggestion and I'd love to hear what you folks think of it.
Perhaps many people have thought about this: what if there was a mechanism in place in the sim that would even out luck events and prevent battles from being won through hax alone?
Yes, I know, hax happens, and yes, I know, it's part of the game. But we recognize that losing a game out of sheer bad luck is nothing but frustrating, and winning a game that way is not particularly gratifying either. That's why the OHKO bans and Double Team bans are in place, to prevent battles from becoming dice rolls.
My suggestion is implementing a chance system that would even out the chance rolls, to prevent all bad luck from being dished out to one player.
Technically, it would work by, instead of generating a random percentage number for chance rolls, instead create an evened stack of roll values for each player then drawing from it whenever a roll is needed. This is similar to what tetris uses: it generates the random order of the seven pieces, making sure every piece is included once, and does this every seven pieces. This preserves the random nature crucial to Tetris but removes the frustration of losing because of a bad streak.
It's important to notice that the degree of this balance can be chosen by picking the number of rolls in each stack, drawn from a pool of the numbers 0 to 100. A stack of 101 rolls means maximum balancing, for each number will be represented once. A stack size of 1 would mean zero balancing, for it would be effectively drawing one number at a time. For example, a stack size of 70 would mean that 70 numbers would be represented, and 31 not, increasing unpredictability compared to a stack of full 101, but maintaining balance.
To clarify, this does not mean:
- Rolls won't be totally evened out: for example, paralysis would not be dealt predictably every other turn.
- Your rolls will not be synced with your opponent: if you crit your opponent your opponent won't be forced to crit.
- Although it would guarantee you to have every roll represented, the order of the rolls would be still random, so you will never be able to game the system and perceive different odds for the moves. In other words, you won't be able to tell if that next stone edge is more or less likely to hit.
Implementing this should be trivial. Simply replace the RNG calls to a func that pops and returns the top piece of the stack, and that generates a new stack if the current is empty. One independent stack per player.
That's my suggestion and I'd love to hear what you folks think of it.
I've moved the above post from its own thread to the Suggestions thread, as is appropriate, so that the developers may comment on it if they wish (if). I will note that it is the intention of the developers to accurately simulate the Pokémon cartridges, and I am 99% sure it's not going to happen. In future, please post your suggestions in this thread, however~
Replacing a random number generator with a number generator that ensures specific properties is an idea that's proposed in nearly every game with a random component.
As pluff mentions, there's a very simple reason why we don't have to worry about any of that:
Pokemon Showdown is a Pokemon simulator. The Pokemon games use a real RNG, so for Pokemon Showdown to really simulate Pokemon, it must also use a real RNG.
Even if we did have the ability to make our own fake RNG, there are a lot of problems with them. There were lots of flamewars about this sort of idea in the Wesnoth forums back when I was involved with that. This is probably the best explanation I've written on the subject: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?p=423666#p423666
remeber when GEN 3 came out and when you got in to a battle there would be 2 circles:
one where your own pokemon is standing
one where your foe is standing
i would suggest you incorporate those things in showdown
im not asking for much really but for me it would be great
one where your own pokemon is standing
one where your foe is standing
i would suggest you incorporate those things in showdown
im not asking for much really but for me it would be great
Well, hi, I'm new in the forums, but I just made an account for this...
My suggestion is to add more bgm for the battles. I think there are only like 5 or less songs, so I suggest adding more (like 5 more).
thanks
(add the team plasma theme song from b/w 2 pls )
My suggestion is to add more bgm for the battles. I think there are only like 5 or less songs, so I suggest adding more (like 5 more).
thanks
(add the team plasma theme song from b/w 2 pls )
Hello! I'm Kyuzeth on PS, by the way. My suggestion is to add the cries of some alternate Forme Pokémon, since a select few Pokémon have alternate cries as well.
Here's the list:
- Tornadus, Thundurus and Landorus Therian Forme
- Shaymin Sky Forme
- Black Kyurem and White Kyurem
I don't know if I'm the only one who's annoyed by this, but this is a little something that just irks me.
Here's the list:
- Tornadus, Thundurus and Landorus Therian Forme
- Shaymin Sky Forme
- Black Kyurem and White Kyurem
I don't know if I'm the only one who's annoyed by this, but this is a little something that just irks me.
I'm not exactly sure how "leaving a battle" works. Sometimes (read: most times) people do this to me instead of forfeiting and I'm not sure if I need to wait around for a minute before the game officially ends. When I try to close the battle at this point, it says that I am forfeiting.
What I'm saying is, it would be nice if leaving a battle caused an automatic forfeit. The times in which somebody leaves and then rejoins are outweighed at least 100:1 by the times in which somebody is just ragequitting.
What I'm saying is, it would be nice if leaving a battle caused an automatic forfeit. The times in which somebody leaves and then rejoins are outweighed at least 100:1 by the times in which somebody is just ragequitting.
Definitely not. If connection drops it's an automatic loss even if you manage to re-connect in time
That's what the battle timer is for. I have technical issues with my computer and my terrible Internet access all the time. With the battle timer turned on, I have a solid couple of minutes to correct the problem and return to the battle. Yes, I know there are idiots who ragequit without properly forfeiting, but you can always start another battle while you're waiting.
As you've noticed, if you try to leave a battle, it asks if you want to forfeit.
If someone manages to leave a battle without forfeiting, that means we can't tell the difference between what they did and their internet connection having problems. So we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their internet connection is having problems.
At this point, if the timer isn't already on, you can click "claim victory" to turn the timer on (in rated games, this will start the timer at 60 seconds so you don't have to wait that long), and if they haven't reconnected by the time the timer's up, you'll automatically win.
I don't know if this has been said or not but would it be possible to implement a command to check what tier a pokemon is currently placed in. You could do /tier [pokemon] and would tell you OU or whatever tiers it's in. It might be too similar to the /tiers command where you get a list of all the tiers.
Just wanted to here from anyone in charge.
Just wanted to here from anyone in charge.
I second this. ^
My computer often doesn't have a very good internet connection, and so the animated sprites, the updated logs and the messages at the bottom of the screen are laggy. This could be resolved if there was a "vanilla" mode, in which only the bare essentials were displayed without the fancy graphics. (This would mean static sprites, no messages at the bottom of the screen, etc.)
Is there a way to disable the timer or at least make it count only after you're shown the buttons (the ones you have to press in order to switch or attack)?, I'm getting really tired by losing because of it because the animation takes an stupid amount of time to finish, I have lost many battles just because Shall Smash takes 2 minutes to finish and by the time I'm able to do something I turns I lost because of inactivity when I couldn't do anything
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain the timer doesn't start ticking again until a turn starts (that is, after the previous turn's animation ends) so this isn't an issue of animation time, it's likely due to connection issues on your end or possible during instances of extreme server lag on PS.
The timer starts ticking immediately, before any animation happens.
It's impossible to make the timer account for animation lag, because there's no way we can tell whether or not your computer's lying about how long it takes. I'll add a low resources mode one day, but for now if your computer takes two minutes to animate a turn, it's too slow for PS.
jrp
Banned deucer.
for replays, I was thinking about something like in youtube links where you can put a start point in the url, say, 3:45 into the video. Could something like that be implemented for PS replays, so they would show up like say
http://www.pokemonshowdown.com/replay/ubers13313176/turn1
It would make sharing long replays a lot easier at the very least
http://www.pokemonshowdown.com/replay/ubers13313176/turn1
It would make sharing long replays a lot easier at the very least
- Status