Somebody Else [Pokémon]

Sirrocco · May 4, 2019

wdango said:
to bef air i work entweraining people and getting drehm drunk so i might het a bit tipsy bmyself sonshut up okauy? 8ll be more coherent tmr.

maybw new article oost tonorrow. lovebyou guys. i miss being a Qm.

@Sirrocco yourte the ebst i love you. wouldnlove to get tonknwo you outs8de of aSV. whatsaoo or dicscord.?

I appreciate the sentiment, but I am not on discord.

Pandemonious Ivy said:
Restriction 1:

Must always have at least 2 of the 5 Pallet starters in any party formed.

Re 2:

A party member that is capable of evolution must do so at least once before any more are permitted to join.

Re 3:

No captures can be made of a type that Leaf currently has in her party.

@Sirrocco and @Magnive here's my compromise. It's a rough draft, so feel free to meet me halfway where possible.

Restriction 1 is... maybe okay? It's not particularly strong, but it might be worth something. It's right up there with "no matching elements" for "basically a non-restriction, but you'll probably get a little something". I don't hate it or anything, but it's not going to get me to change my vote.

Restriction 2 is a bit odd. I'd lodge it as "pretty weak, but might get a bit for it." The issue is that it's hugely end-weighted. In the short term it's severe, because we have a second slot right now that we won't be able to use until we manage to evo our starter, and we don't know how long that will take. It's probably still not worth a major buff though, because in the long-term it's near-meaningless. Of *course* you want to evolve all of your pokemon. I'd be *less* interested in a vote that had this restriction. I doubt it's worth it.

Restriction 3 is poorly written (no one's capturing anyone. Bonds are formed by mutual consent with fellow citizens) and also trivial. We know for a fact that "no poison" is trivial, and this is even weaker than that. Also, restrictions that reference in-the-moment facts about other people rather than features of the pokemon in question may simply not work at all.

notgreat · May 4, 2019

Sirrocco said:
We know for a fact that "no poison" is trivial, and this is even weaker than that. Also, restrictions that reference in-the-moment facts about other people rather than features of the pokemon in question may simply not work at all.

It is more restrictive than no-poison since she'll likely have pokemon with multiple types, all of which would be barred from our use. However, I definitely agree that it likely isn't an allowable restriction since she'd be able to invalidate the pact by adding a new pokemon with a type that we already have, since she's not bound by that restriction.

Anyway, I guess I should vote

[x] David the Squirtle
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.

David should be a good pair with Rydia, able to keep aggro on him while Rydia stays at range.

Not totally sure on the restriction vote, but I'm not a fan of the "only these 5" restriction so I guess I'll go with this.

wdango · May 4, 2019

Sorry I was drunk. Sobered up a bit. Headache.

Reply tomorrow or once I drive home probably. Had a few boilermakers, soju, beer...

@Sirrocco would still love to befriend you off-SV if you're available anywhere. FB, IG, Whatsapp, whatever it is.

@Magnive 1 and 2 are incompatible.
1 could be rephrased for compatibility and tbh none of them give any meaningful bonuses for how much they limit your options.

If I were still running my quests the way I used to I'd let you go in blind, but I'm gonna tell you upfront that any of those alone is bad, but combined? Way too limiting for too little bonuses that I can fairly give you.

Both David and Chloe are good options tbh.

Minmaxing the system is pretty hard when you have a QM who's dynamically assigning the Restriction bonuses.

WoQM:

If you want to do well, it's a good idea to either limit your variety or your Pact size.

Whatever you choose there will be challenges and interesting ones.

If you go with Pallet Set I'll make sure interesting and compelling potential Pactable Pokemon will show up that you have no choice but to find other ways to befriend. Which you have to do anyway if you wanted to forge a Pact with them.

If you go with a weak Restriction I'll make sure the difficulty level is challenging enough you won't get away with less than a few deaths.

Going with a Lance-level Restriction isn't always the right answer too. He can afford to do that because:
1. He has a lot of colleagues to cover his bases.
2. Dragonite has high base values to begin with.

TBH choosing Co-op Mode (travel w Leaf) means you have twice the party size, so you can afford to go harder on the Restrictions.

Be careful because whatever wins will shape Gary's personality, and all choices have their drawbacks. There are no wrong answers... But there are no right answers, too.

Meta-wise?

It's up to you.

Not super sober and typing while drunk-driving so let's see when I get home.

wdango · May 4, 2019

Magnive said:
I've missed you being a QM as well.

BE MY FRIEND PLS

Sirrocco · May 4, 2019

notgreat said:
It is more restrictive than no-poison since she'll likely have pokemon with multiple types, all of which would be barred from our use. However, I definitely agree that it likely isn't an allowable restriction since she'd be able to invalidate the pact by adding a new pokemon with a type that we already have, since she's not bound by that restriction.

Ah. I'd misread. I was thinking "type = evolution line of pokemon" rather than "type = element"

It does brign up an interesting one. We could conceivably get an interesting shared pact with Leaf.

Leaf:
- poison only
- female only
- no repeated typesets
- no types used by Gary
- number restriction?

Gary:
- No repeated types
- no types used by Leaf
- number restriction?
- ???

Those two by themselves wouldn't be enough for us, i think, but if Leaf has a restriction that forces her to take a number of types, and we have a restriction that forces us to use a number of types, and we cannot share types, then that starts to get some real bite to it, and possibly some associated buff. Add another restriction or two on our side (looking for "interesting, mild, but pertinent) and it might be worth having.

The problem, though, is that that is a pretty serious restriction, in terms of utility. Only one of us would get to have a Water type. Only one of us would get to have a Flying type. (Charizard for us or Crobat for her?) Assuming that we went with David up front, for the tanking, then no tentacool for her. Given how few typesets she has access to to begin with (only one of which she has guaranteed access to in pallet), she'd almost have to go with limited slots. assuming she's going four-slot, and we are taking David, then it's probably something like venusaur/nidoqueen/crobat and then one out of pure poison, poison/bug, or poison/ghost.

Or, heck, if we wanted to be funny about it... we could say that we're going for the above with the further restriction on Gary of "eevee-only" and "no overlapping eeveelutions".

I mean, I don't want the above, but it would be entertaining, and it seems like it might have a reasonable level of buff.

wdango said:
@Sirrocco would still love to befriend you off-SV if you're available anywhere. FB, IG, Whatsapp, whatever it is.

I do not. I'm also in general lousy at maintaining friendship ties. I've got a wife, kids, blood relatives, people I spend time with to varying degrees because it is convenient for me to be in spaces they are frequently in, and random people on the internet who I touch only shallowly. Other than that, I have exactly one friend that I put effort into maintaining ties with, and that's been ongoing for over a decade. I am not on Facebook because I am not the sort of person who has any interest at all in what Facebook has to offer. I really do wish you well, but the thing you want is not there to be had.

Wysteria · May 4, 2019

Okay, new vote for me. Structuring it so that it's an addition that both camps can add, if they want. Not super interested in the weak-restrict-lots-of-deaths storyline option. I suspect a lot of people have tuned out on the discussion, so who knows if this will work, but I thought I'd try it.

[x] Chloe the Eevee
[x] Write-in.
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Also restrict your Domain to 4 pacts at a time.

Why four? It gives us more stats than 5, but still allows us enough Type variety to have type advantages in most situations in a way I don't think 3 would.

Adhoc vote count started by Wysteria on May 4, 2019 at 9:32 PM, finished with 213 posts and 31 votes.

16 people have voted
[x] Chloe the Eevee
13 people have voted
[x] David the Squirtle
- underscore
- lobonLight63
- Sirrocco
- Yanez
- Erzherzog_Karl
- emberwing
- Anumi
- Wootius
- Hearts Nine
- Criminal
- ChildishChimera
- KidFromPallet
- Vanestus
11 people have voted
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
- Sirrocco
- Yanez
- Erzherzog_Karl
- emberwing
- Anumi
- Wootius
- Hearts Nine
- Criminal
- ChildishChimera
- KidFromPallet
- Magnive
10 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
- EternalObserver
- LordEdric
- Markala
- Neo-Chan
- catlover2011
- veekie
- wingstrike96
- SeekerofDreams
- TimEd
- underscore
2 people have voted
[x] No Restriction.
- Enthusiast#117
- Vanestus
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Female Pokemon only
- CompleteSeaOfLaw
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Restrict your Domain to Pokémon that cover multiple types with their evolution and/or forms.
- Khytaria
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict yourself to non-repeating types and two pacts at a time.
- Pandemonious Ivy
1 people have voted
[x] David the Squirtle
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
- notgreat
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Also restrict your Domain to 4 pacts at a time.
- Wysteria

Adhoc vote count started by Wysteria on May 4, 2019 at 9:33 PM, finished with 213 posts and 31 votes.

16 people have voted
[x] Chloe the Eevee
13 people have voted
[x] David the Squirtle
- underscore
- lobonLight63
- Sirrocco
- Yanez
- Erzherzog_Karl
- emberwing
- Anumi
- Wootius
- Hearts Nine
- Criminal
- ChildishChimera
- KidFromPallet
- Vanestus
11 people have voted
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
- Sirrocco
- Yanez
- Erzherzog_Karl
- emberwing
- Anumi
- Wootius
- Hearts Nine
- Criminal
- ChildishChimera
- KidFromPallet
- Magnive
10 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
- EternalObserver
- LordEdric
- Markala
- Neo-Chan
- catlover2011
- veekie
- wingstrike96
- SeekerofDreams
- TimEd
- underscore
2 people have voted
[x] No Restriction.
- Enthusiast#117
- Vanestus
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Female Pokemon only
- CompleteSeaOfLaw
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Restrict your Domain to Pokémon that cover multiple types with their evolution and/or forms.
- Khytaria
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict yourself to non-repeating types and two pacts at a time.
- Pandemonious Ivy
1 people have voted
[x] David the Squirtle
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
- notgreat
1 people have voted
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
-[X] Also restrict your Domain to 4 pacts at a time.
- Wysteria

Adhoc vote count started by Wysteria on May 4, 2019 at 9:33 PM, finished with 213 posts and 31 votes.

16 people have voted
[x] Chloe the Eevee
14 people have voted
[x] David the Squirtle
- underscore
- lobonLight63
- Sirrocco
- Yanez
- Erzherzog_Karl
- emberwing
- Anumi
- Wootius
- Hearts Nine
- Criminal
- ChildishChimera
- KidFromPallet
- Vanestus
- notgreat
14 people have voted
[X] Write In
- EternalObserver
- LordEdric
- Markala
- Neo-Chan
- catlover2011
- veekie
- wingstrike96
- SeekerofDreams
- TimEd
- underscore
- CompleteSeaOfLaw
- Khytaria
- Pandemonious Ivy
- Wysteria
14 people have voted
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
- EternalObserver
- LordEdric
- Markala
- Neo-Chan
- catlover2011
- veekie
- wingstrike96
- SeekerofDreams
- TimEd
- underscore
- CompleteSeaOfLaw
- Khytaria
- notgreat
- Wysteria
11 people have voted
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
- Sirrocco
- Yanez
- Erzherzog_Karl
- emberwing
- Anumi
- Wootius
- Hearts Nine
- Criminal
- ChildishChimera
- KidFromPallet
- Magnive
2 people have voted
[x] No Restriction.
- Enthusiast#117
- Vanestus
1 people have voted
-[X] Female Pokemon only
- CompleteSeaOfLaw
1 people have voted
-[X] Restrict your Domain to Pokémon that cover multiple types with their evolution and/or forms.
- Khytaria
1 people have voted
-[X] Restrict yourself to non-repeating types and two pacts at a time.
- Pandemonious Ivy
1 people have voted
-[X] Also restrict your Domain to 4 pacts at a time.
- Wysteria

Magnive · May 4, 2019

Unless we mass-ping early voters and convince them to shift, I fear that we won't succeed in pushing any option but either of the two leading ones.

KidFromPallet · May 4, 2019

Oh hey, I kinda thought of another argument to go with the Pallet-set five restriction. Alright, so, one of ours and Gary's medium-long term goals is to make sure that Pallet Town survives and continues to be a town, right? Well, one way to do that is to complete missions and send some of our earnings back, which I imagine both us and our Pokemon are going to end up doing. But another way to keep Pallet Town afloat is to attract more humans and Trainers to Pallet Town. And you know what'll attract pretty much any Pokemon Trainer worth the name? A chance to get strong Pokemon. By going with entire Pallet set, we're pretty much a walking advert for Pallet Town, and we'd hopefully be able to get people to visit or stay by showing off all the cool and powerful types of Pokemon that live there. I'd be Gary deciding on a restriction that both keeps Leaf and their Pokemon alive but also thinks further ahead to keeping Pallet and all their friends there alive.

Also, if Chloe happens to evolve into an Espeon, then we'd have 5/6 of the members of the original Red's team, and Snorlax is impossible to actually travel with because of the whole "eats 1 ton of food a day" thing. C'mon, you know you want to become PKMN Trainer Red!

Enthusiast#117 · May 4, 2019

What about "No Repeated Pokemon"?

Or, "Only One Pokemon From Each Evolutionary Line"?

I find One-Per-Type a little restricting.

wdango · May 4, 2019

For shame.

Magnive said:
Unless we mass-ping early voters and convince them to shift, I fear that we won't succeed in pushing any option but either of the two leading ones.

mass-ping then. you have my permission.

KidFromPallet said:
Oh hey, I kinda thought of another argument to go with the Pallet-set five restriction. Alright, so, one of ours and Gary's medium-long term goals is to make sure that Pallet Town survives and continues to be a town, right? Well, one way to do that is to complete missions and send some of our earnings back, which I imagine both us and our Pokemon are going to end up doing. But another way to keep Pallet Town afloat is to attract more humans and Trainers to Pallet Town. And you know what'll attract pretty much any Pokemon Trainer worth the name? A chance to get strong Pokemon. By going with entire Pallet set, we're pretty much a walking advert for Pallet Town, and we'd hopefully be able to get people to visit or stay by showing off all the cool and powerful types of Pokemon that live there. I'd be Gary deciding on a restriction that both keeps Leaf and their Pokemon alive but also thinks further ahead to keeping Pallet and all their friends there alive.

Also, if Chloe happens to evolve into an Espeon, then we'd have 5/6 of the members of the original Red's team, and Snorlax is impossible to actually travel with because of the whole "eats 1 ton of food a day" thing. C'mon, you know you want to become PKMN Trainer Red!

my dude, you are overestimating the number of humans still alive in this world lol.

Enthusiast#117 said:
What about "No Repeated Pokemon"?

Or, "Only One Pokemon From Each Evolutionary Line"?

I find One-Per-Type a little restricting.

umm. have you even been reading the discussion? the argument is that one-per-type is not restricting enough.

both of those give you nothing.

wdango · May 5, 2019

Votes locked.

Doesn't seem like we'll make much more progress, so I'll call these the winners.

[x] Chloe the Eevee
[x] Non-repeating types

Secondary vote!

Restrict your Domain further to limit the number of Pacts you can maintain at one time?
[x] No. 6 Pacts.
[x] 5 Pacts.
[x] 4 Pacts.
[x] 3 Pacts.
[x] 2 Pacts.
[x] 1 Pact.

Restrict your Domain to Beast-race Pokémon?
[x] No. Any race.
[x] Beast-race only.

Sirrocco · May 5, 2019

Welp. Have fun dying, then. I hope you all enjoy the ride you signed up for.

EternalObserver · May 5, 2019

So just to confirm, we're going up to Gen I-II? Or just Gen I?

Beast might be limiting as well since we may need a Flying (unless Leaf gets a Zubat, which then again can probably only carry one, that is if you count pokemon logic)

[x] 4 Pacts.
[x] No. Any race.

I AM inclined on going for 4 pact bonus, so yeah let's tone down the negativity. ^U^

veekie · May 5, 2019