Pokemon Universe MMORPG
Pokémon Universe => Ideas & Suggestions => Game Features => Topic started by: Kalika_Had`ke on May 28, 2011, 04:41:36 AM
-
Fell free to lock and ignore if this has been touched on, really you'd think people would label their threads better. >.>
One complaint I've always had about the games is that it's just far too static, things never change. Sure you have swarms (a topic for another night), but they're entirely random.
An interesting mechanical thing that could be done to help with this is to have certain pokémon become more or less rare depending on what pokémon are caught in a specific area. An example would make more sense than me trying to explain it.
Ignoring Ground shaking spots (yet another topic for another night), the encounter rates on route 2 in Black and White are..
40% Patrat
40% Lilipup
20% Purloin
..but by that point everyone who wants a Patrat or Lilipup has one, so they don't get caught here that often if at all, most however catch at least one purloin to vary their team while they're here.
But this is an MMO, things should change. So lets say for every 50 (or some other large number based on server population, the popularity of the area, other factors) pokémon of a species caught on a route within a week (or some other time period..see above note), the encounter rate for them goes down by 1%, that 1% then goes into the first thing on the second part of the table. The route 2 table doesn't have something else, so let's add some stuff to it, making the route 2 table look like..
40% Patrat
40% Lilipup
20% Purloin
---
0% Pidove
0% Emolga
..so for each percent of reduction on Purloin, it would go into Pidove, and after a certain amount of time or a large number of Pidove are caught that percent would go back into the highest thing on the lower part of the table, or back to Purloin
Of course some pokémon are common enough that they should always be on a route, and of course rare pokémon shouldn't become easy to find, so a simple system of minimum and maximum caps would be needed, adding caps to the table would make it look like..
40% Patrat (Minimum 25%)
40% Lilipup (Minimum 25%)
20% Purloin (Minimum 10%)
---
0% Pidove (Maximum 25%)
0% Emolga (Maximum 15%)
..With the minimums and maximums balanced like that the route could eventually have a high population of Pidove and more Emolga than purloin. Also note that very rare pokémon can be put near the bottom of the list to make them very hard to get indeed.
This is just a basic example, but I'm wondering what people think of such a mechanic.
I don't even want to think about the code involved, I know just enough about programming to know I don't have the focus for it. At least it wasn't my original idea of a migration mechanic, although I guess this could emulate such without having to have the areas interact with each other. <.<
-
No offense , in my opinion , this is somewhat stupid. So in different times the rating will be different ?
-
The basic point behind it is to make a simple dynamic population mechanic. By removing individuals from the ecosystem (ie. capturing pokémon) their rarity increases because other individuals of the same species get wise to it being an area in which they are being hunted. This leaves territory and resources unclaimed allowing other pokémon not normally part of that areas ecosystem to move in.
The mechanical reason for doing this is to add a dynamic element to what pokémon are in an area to prevent the various areas from getting stagnant. Using the original example, even though normally there would be no Emolga on route 2, if the balance tilts far enough they could move in and now you have a rare pokémon in an area they previously weren't, and at a level they were previously uncatchable at. Encouraging people to go back through areas they've already been to in case there's something new there.
Of course it may get too complex to easily implement if combined with the time of day mechanic introduced in GSC, or something even more esoteric like a dynamic weather system...(an idea for another time...)
-
In theory, this seems like a great idea. It gives a more realistic feel. However, I feel that the time period a week is too large, one day I believe would be better. The only thing is, assuming we have day and night (altering the encounter rates) The change over time would now be reduced to 12 hours. Added to this, there was talk going round of a 'PU' day lasting 6 hours. This would result in such a short time, that the encounter rates would be hardly effected. All in all, while a good idea, it may be more trouble than it is worth.
-
I like it too, it's more 'realistic' in some way. Like if some predators gets less in an area, more of the ones being preyed are there, or a similar scenario for competition for territory. Okay, that aside,
- The only problem I can see is at the level of programming that. I mean, how do you determine which pokemon should be made less rare when one pokemon is caught?
But that is for Dark and Urmel to work on if ever that is implemented, unless you find it before then :P
-
Good idea but it sounds like too much work just leave it the way it is in my opinion.
-
I'm curious as to how it is 'too much work" ???
-
In theory, this seems like a great idea. It gives a more realistic feel. However, I feel that the time period a week is too large, one day I believe would be better. The only thing is, assuming we have day and night (altering the encounter rates) The change over time would now be reduced to 12 hours. Added to this, there was talk going round of a 'PU' day lasting 6 hours. This would result in such a short time, that the encounter rates would be hardly effected. All in all, while a good idea, it may be more trouble than it is worth.
Declan, since a "PU Day" is 6 hours, why not slide the rarity levels over several of those days?
Night and Day of course would change anyways..
So, example...
Let's take the area between New Bark, and Cherrygrove, as GSC was the first to include night-day...
During the day-"Day" 1
40% Rattata
30% Spearow
10% Hoppip
Into the Night- Day 1
30% Rattata
50% Hoothoot
20% Spearow
Day 2-
45% Rattata
15% Hoppip
40% Spearow
Night- Day 2
45% Hoothoot
25% Spearow
30% Rattata
then so on...
Do you think that would work?
-
Let's take the area between New Bark, and Cherrygrove, as GSC was the first to include night-day...
During the day-"Day" 1
40% Rattata
30% Spearow
10% Hoppip
Into the Night- Day 1
30% Rattata
50% Hoothoot
20% Spearow
Day 2-
45% Rattata
15% Hoppip
40% Spearow
Night- Day 2
45% Hoothoot
25% Spearow
30% Rattata
then so on...
Do you think that would work?
Sounds implentable, but in day 1 you only have 80% (40+30+10=80) :P
-
Maybe the game shoudl be fully finished before we start making up ideas that will effect the game in a big way. well thats what i think anyways.
-
Of course, there are plenty of things which are not on the priority list, though they are very interesting. Saying it now or later won't change the fact that it's an interesting idea, if that can be implement somehow or another.
-
Let's take the area between New Bark, and Cherrygrove, as GSC was the first to include night-day...
During the day-"Day" 1
40% Rattata
30% Spearow
10% Hoppip
Into the Night- Day 1
30% Rattata
50% Hoothoot
20% Spearow
Day 2-
45% Rattata
15% Hoppip
40% Spearow
Night- Day 2
45% Hoothoot
25% Spearow
30% Rattata
then so on...
Do you think that would work?
Sounds implentable, but in day 1 you only have 80% (40+30+10=80) :P
Technicalities....
I still proved a valid point =P
-
I like the idea. Won't go into too much detail on my opinion of why, but I will say that I think this could compliment the topic about Day/Night and Seasons ( http://pokemon-universe.com/index.php/topic,2609.0.html )
Cheers, Genbor
-
I actually rather like the idea. It does make it seem more realistic. It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to program. The hardest parts would be deciding a time frame for the sliding scale and choosing which pokemon to exchange with. Otherwise, it seems like a really cool aspect that would add to the game.
-
I actually rather like the idea. It does make it seem more realistic. It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to program. The hardest parts would be deciding a time frame for the sliding scale and choosing which pokemon to exchange with. Otherwise, it seems like a really cool aspect that would add to the game.
+1
-
The time frame for the sliding scale and just how big that percent should be is probably going to be the hardest part, and likely very hard to get right until the game is live and some data is collected on server population and other factors like how much time is spent in the individual areas, how many pokémon are caught in a day/week/month, how long areas are at their max 'rarity', and potentially other things.
Adding time of day and seasons would certainly make things even more realistic, but would make the tables needed for each area quite large and complex. Determining how those percents move across time-frames would be important as well. And if the change from say day to night were computationally intensive then it could also incur server stress/lag every time that changes, which if there were three time types and four PU days per RL day would be every two hours.
Deciding which pokémon to exchange for which isn't so much hard, as it is complex, and time consuming from a design standpoint. Each area would need an ecology that makes sense both from a lore and world standpoint and is sane from a mechanics standpoint so as not to put too many powerful pokémon in the same area (though being evil to the trainers that have to go through there is another matter entirely, go-go status effects).
Thinking a bit more about the initial timescale...if each PU day is 6 hours, making 4 PU days/1 RL day...then increasing or decreasing the rates every 2 RL days should provide a balance between rapid swinging changes, and irrelevantly slow change. Each RL day seems like a good idea on the surface, and it does allow for rapid growth in rarity levels, however it also makes for an equally rapid decline in those levels as well. Making the chance of finding 'hidden' pokémon, especially those two or three deep in the list ridiculously small, especially if you're away for a couple days.
-
The time frame for the sliding scale and just how big that percent should be is probably going to be the hardest part, and likely very hard to get right until the game is live and some data is collected on server population and other factors like how much time is spent in the individual areas, how many pokémon are caught in a day/week/month, how long areas are at their max 'rarity', and potentially other things.
Adding time of day and seasons would certainly make things even more realistic, but would make the tables needed for each area quite large and complex. Determining how those percents move across time-frames would be important as well. And if the change from say day to night were computationally intensive then it could also incur server stress/lag every time that changes, which if there were three time types and four PU days per RL day would be every two hours.
Deciding which pokémon to exchange for which isn't so much hard, as it is complex, and time consuming from a design standpoint. Each area would need an ecology that makes sense both from a lore and world standpoint and is sane from a mechanics standpoint so as not to put too many powerful pokémon in the same area (though being evil to the trainers that have to go through there is another matter entirely, go-go status effects).
Thinking a bit more about the initial timescale...if each PU day is 6 hours, making 4 PU days/1 RL day...then increasing or decreasing the rates every 2 RL days should provide a balance between rapid swinging changes, and irrelevantly slow change. Each RL day seems like a good idea on the surface, and it does allow for rapid growth in rarity levels, however it also makes for an equally rapid decline in those levels as well. Making the chance of finding 'hidden' pokémon, especially those two or three deep in the list ridiculously small, especially if you're away for a couple days.
+2