Pandemonious Ivy
Panties, Revolution. Big Drawers. Parachute.
Chloe remains a right lil beastie! Chloe for president!
Somebody Else [Pokémon]
- Thread starter wdango
- Start date
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
Your vote is still for Arthur, though. Lol.
- Location
- Denmark
A few more questions:
- Are Pokéballs a thing here? I'd assume so, but figure that it'd be prudent to ask.
- Are trainers expected to keep all of their Pokémon alive or die trying?
- In continuation of the above, what's the perception of somebody who loses a Pokémon?
- Would a Charizard be able to carry Gary and Leaf both?
QM Notes: Pokéballs, losing a Pokémon, & carrying capacity
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
1. Kinda. None that actually work, but they were a thing before the Miasma. You can still find some in ruins that may contain living Pokemon, artifacts, or ancient medicine.
Sometimes unopened Pokeballs are traded or sold like a Gacha, too.
But onced opened, they can't be used anymore. Plus, even if you find a usable one, they're only really useful for items, since civilised Pokemon look down on Pokeballs. Unless you plan on using it on unwilling captors, which... might be interesting.
So the short answer is no, lol.
2/3. Opinions vary. It's pretty complex. Just like how you're mostly expected to keep your fellow soldiers alive in the army.
But at the same time, Humans are a lot more valuable than Pokemon, so Trainers are typically expected to keep themselves alive first and foremost.
And yet... If you can't keep your Pokemon alive, or have a track record of letting your Pokemon die...
That's still a stigma that makes it more difficult for you to court new Pokemon and propose a Pact.
But it's not absolute, just a point that's not in your favour.
But yeah if you lose a Pokemon, no one will actually punish you for it, but it may make it harder to forge new Pacts.
Just like a history of bad breakups or a divorce might make it harder to find a new relationship. But obviously this is social and lying or socialmancing your way through it is still possible.
4. Charizard is Medium-sized. Without any additional equipment, they can only take 1 Medium-sized passenger (Humans are Medium) or 2 Small-sized passengers.
Weight matters, of course, but Charizard has a base Power of 16 without Domain bonuses, so they can carry the equivalent of 4 Humans (Weightclass 2) in Weight, or 2 other Charizards (Weightclass 4).
You can add a harness or a carriage to increase carrying capacity, but carriages have Weight too, as well as Speed penalties.
- Location
- Denmark
This seems like the best option. The increased boost from not being able to replace slain Pokémon would be nice, but... well, I don't think that this quest is going to be easy, so hoping that we'll never lose a member of our team seems naive to me. At the same time, EX Skill boosts seem pretty damn useful, so I'm definitely on board with restricting ourselves to the Pallet Set. The non-repeating types restriction isn't too much of a sacrifice from there, as Eevee would be the only potential overlap, and we'd probably want to evolve Eevee into an Espeon or Umbreon due to the increased utility anyways. Teleportation ftw.
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
@wdango would that vote be interpreted as "only one of each at any time" or "only one each FOREVER"?
And another question: is POW/MAG equivalent to Attack/Special Attack?
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
i'll interpret it as at any time, since i know that's what you guys mean. unless someone raises an objection.
yeah POW/MAG is basically ATK/SATK.
- Location
- bed
- Pronouns
- He/They
I'd almost say this is the best compromise for usimg the pallet set out the gate. It doesn't have the attribute amps, but that boost to EX skill is just too great to let go of, at least to me .And with the lower restriction we can have a full team with different eeveelutions .
- Location
- Denmark
The issue with that option is that we wouldn't get any benefits from having chosen this one until we hit S-rank in Domain, which... could probably take a long, long while. I'd rather hurt our late-game a bit (and even then, it'd be a sixth and thus presumably weakest Pokémon we'd be skipping out on so it shouldn't be a huge loss) in exchange for the boost now.
[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
Yea, I think having a tank would be good in the early game. We can pick up an Eevee and the others later, but only if we can survive long enough to get strong.
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
Yea, I think having a tank would be good in the early game. We can pick up an Eevee and the others later, but only if we can survive long enough to get strong.
Last edited:
- Location
- Denmark
Depends on which Eeveelutions are available. If we assume that it's just Gen 1 and 2, then we could have Espeon or Umbreon.
Pandemonious Ivy
Panties, Revolution. Big Drawers. Parachute.
The fabled Glaceon run, slayer of dragons, lies before us.
Time to pick your hill to die on, I suppose
Time to pick your hill to die on, I suppose
Pandemonious Ivy
Panties, Revolution. Big Drawers. Parachute.
[X] Chloe the Eevee
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
Okay yeah, back on my bullshit here.
Solid in most ways we need from her, great potential and versatility, plus Glaceon (and the others, I guess) exists.
We can deal with Restrictions, but we can't ignore style.
E: I'm 100% okay with Eevee and Squirtle as the first two pacts.
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.
Okay yeah, back on my bullshit here.
Solid in most ways we need from her, great potential and versatility, plus Glaceon (and the others, I guess) exists.
We can deal with Restrictions, but we can't ignore style.
E: I'm 100% okay with Eevee and Squirtle as the first two pacts.
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
Yes, we can.
Restriction is permanent unless you get all of your Pokemon killed, though.
And then you start over, with one Rank-Down in Domain.
Well. Yeah. But you don't have that many Dragon enemies?The fabled Glaceon run, slayer of dragons, lies before us.
Time to pick your hill to die on, I suppose
Don't forget you actually have to convince your Eevee (in this case, Chloe) to evolve into a Glaceon... Every Eevee has an evolution they actually want and you can't force them.
You're their Trainer, not their owner. They're people, not pets nor slaves.
Last edited:
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
Remember that you can also add temporary Pokemon to your party without making a Pact.
They're called mercenaries.
It's also a good way to convince a Pokemon to Pact with you. Start by hiring them as a mercenary, slowly bond over time, and then pop the big question.
They're called mercenaries.
It's also a good way to convince a Pokemon to Pact with you. Start by hiring them as a mercenary, slowly bond over time, and then pop the big question.
- Location
- Denmark
For those who are voting to only restrict ourselves to non-repeating types, might I ask why? It seems like a rather weak restriction, and it seems like having a good leg-up over ordinary Pokémon would really benefit us in this game.
Do we know which Eevolution Chloe wants?
- Location
- USA
Simply put, I don't really want any restriction, but think taking at least something is IC for Gary, who wants to live. This is a compromise vote, while still allowing flexibility. Eevee, too, is the flexible option - not the dedicated tank or damage dealer, just a solid all-around.
I'd be open for voting for a more restrictive option, but the only other winning one doesn't appeal to me.
If Chloe wins, asking Chloe what she wants to evolve into is definitely step 1 - if she wants to be a water type, I'd be more hesitant about David.
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
Gary:
I did ask her during the interview.
She's undecided yet, since it's still so far off, but she's thinking probably Umbreon. Espeon or Jolteon aren't bad picks, though.
Somehow, she also seemed confident she could evolve without a Trainer. I wonder...
Pandemonious Ivy
Panties, Revolution. Big Drawers. Parachute.
All of this + we can get an Eevee with lasers!
More... well, not "seriously" bc that's cool af, but more relevantly going No Repeats and Most Versatile Evolution synergizes neatly without cutting off most options that people care about, since we are allowed to attempt double dipping from the fab 5.
In short, some meta concerns have arisen and this is the compromise. Few are excited about it, but until a better alternative is conceptualized...
wdango
Storyteller
- Location
- Bali, Indonesia
Why not try to come up with one?
I'm not closing the vote until all discussion seems settled.
- Location
- USA
Okay, closing discussion... the obvious compromise between Chloe and David is 'both.' They'd work well together and compliment the bulbasaur. I see no reason not to strongly support that option.
I see no obvious compromise between the 'pile as many restrictions as possible' camp and the 'less restrictions means we have more options for problem solving' camp. Knives at dawn?
Can I get a QM ruling on what these would give us?
-Restrict to 2 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 3 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 4 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 5 pacts at a time
I see no obvious compromise between the 'pile as many restrictions as possible' camp and the 'less restrictions means we have more options for problem solving' camp. Knives at dawn?
Can I get a QM ruling on what these would give us?
-Restrict to 2 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 3 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 4 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 5 pacts at a time
- Location
- Denmark
Eeh, we could restrict things far further than the "only 1 from each of the Pallet lines with no repeating elements". More limits to how many Pokémon we could have, restrictions on how closely we keep traits, restrictions on how far Pokémon are from each other, and so on.
In my eyes, the one I mentioned is a compromise between many and fewer restrictions. It still narrows our Domain enough to give powerful bonuses, but we've still got access to several different elements.
- Location
- USA
Good clarification, thank you. The one per element restriction is also, I think a compromise, between no restrictions and some restrictions.
So the question is, is there a compromise between those two compromises that would make more people happier? Both groups seem to want a good element spread, not just one element.