Pokemon Tournament?
It's no secret that a lot of furs are into the game and enjoy playing and battling.
what i'd like to know is if there is one in the works already and if not, is there enough potential interest?
if there is one in the mix, i'd like to make a suggestion... if anyone has that Wii game that lets you battle on the television screen using your DS, that would make it also a spectator sport so the battles can be watched. and also, make a sort of "no hax" kinda rule. sorry but this is going to sound cynical but i know there are a lot of people that will hack their pokemon just so they can get the best of the best (which really takes the challenge, and fun, out of battling.) and yeah, there are ways of determining if a pokemon is hacked.
also, maybe make the battles capped at lv50? that way it will mean that people won't have to worry about the highest level being the automatic win, it would be about strategy and playing smartly other than "he-who-has-the-highest-level-wins" kinda thing.
if so, i might be able to bring something that would be a pretty neat prize for the winner (aside from bragging rights.)
so, is there a tournament in the works for this upcoming year?
well, personally having them all at level 50 would prevent the whole "mine's bigger" problem. every mon at level 50, levels the playing field so that the emphasis is on how well you use your mons... strategizing and team-building and all that jazz. kinda like a sealed draft tournament for games like M:tG or YuGiOh (since there will always be some out there that will have the time/resources to spend leveling all their mons to 100... also a deterrant for blatant cheating imo.
i think you can use Pokemon Battle Revolution for the 4th Gen & lower for the TV battles. but as for the 5th gen, i dont know how. ive been in battles where its just the game, & the trainers tell the judge who won. of course, there are witnessess, & the judges made sure your pokemon were hacked, or had double items.
aaah, thanks for hte name of the game. it was slipping my mind. and yeah, it would likely not work for the gen V. maybe they're working on one?
don't know... still, kinda wondering if there's one in the works/planning stage or if nobody has shown interest in creating one yet.
I'm up for a few rounds here and there, I've been EV training a handful in Black. But I disagree with anything less than a 100 battle, or rather, I disagree with anyone who would need the levels lowered to 50 in order not to feel overwhelmed. Leveling a Pokemon to 100 is a show of effort, and you get to see the full potential of whatever you raised. Asking someone to lower their levels is like getting into a boxing match with someone much bigger than you, knowing they'll own you, and going "Oh, you'll need to pull all of your punches, I've only been boxing for a few months".
I can understand wanting to keep things open/accessible to anyone with less time on their hands for raising Pokemon, but if you aren't planning on going all out, don't be competitive. It's not fun having a Rock Band/DDR tourney where things are scaled to be easier for inexperienced players. Getting 100%/a full combo on Easy in no way means you're better than someone on Expert, it just means you should spend more time pushing yourself to get better. Being awesome on Easy = time to move on to something harder.
But yes, I'd rather not see cheating/hacks.
well, that's the thing. the intent (as i would hope or as i would aim were i to run it) would be to make it as accessible to more people than to reserve it to merely having the heavy players taking the lead.that way you can have lots of battles with a lot of people and make it an EPIC tourney. though, having a couple classes would probably be ideal too (things like the "anything goes" bracket with the "lv 50 cap" bracket and a "Doubles/Triples" bracket...)
if you're IV training as well, you also know that it's not just about who is the highest level but the strategy involved in choosing the right team, having the right movesets, the right held-items, who works with whom, that kinda thing.
though i do agree, capping the levels at 50 would be a bit like having to pull one's punches, but like i suggested above... the emphasis would be more to strategy than making monstrous mons and really, it's really, REALLY hard to get your mons to level 100 if you don't have the time to level them all up... since, well, in most of the games the wild or vs-seeker battles don't tend to be above lv 80 which means grinding... and grinding... and grinding... which, to some is not that fun. emphasis would be to put it on fun instead on who is the most dedicated at playing.
but this is merely my own suggestion and i don't even know if there's a tournament in the works or not. if there is and the organizers already have their minds set on a particular set of rules or whatever, well, more power to them.
I feel you, I'm on both sides of the argument. Wanting more people to be involved/feel less intimidated without feeling like you're taking away from the challenge.
The first time I went to a Rock Band tournament, my friends and I had been practicing hardcore for the weeks leading up to it, since we enjoy playing it anyway, so why not put forth our best? It was judge-based, and two of the judges represented how you looked (outfit, if your bad had a motif going) and interacted (both with each other and with the audience). Most of the other bands were comprised of young teens or casual players, some of which put on a good show, but most of which weren't serious players. We wound up winning (just barely, since we lent our guitarist to a band who were down a player, meaning that band got that much better), and in the weeks following, I checked the Rock Band forums for any news of the tournament. The thread for the event was flooded with parents complaining about how we shouldn't have been allowed to enter, how we took it "too seriously" and how their kids had been "practicing for days" leading up to it. We were also accused of cheating because we happened to know/be friends with the folks running the tourney (local Gamestop), which happens if you you're a friendly talkative person who actually cares about what you're involved in. We had to defend ourselves for both enjoying a game and being good at it.
Basically, it sucks knowing that you've put forth so much effort into something competitive, only to realize that the difficulty has been dropped so that more people have more of a chance. The folks who try that much harder to have a chance of winning can be brought down by someone who spends half as much time practicing.
Also, semi-unrelated, I hate getting ready to battle someone only to find out they have six level one Ratatas with the FEAR strategy.
well, if i were to handle it (hoping not since there would be people complaining and who do you think they'd complain to?) i think the best way would be two (at least) brackets... one for the main competition (cap and boost levels to 50) and one for an anything goes (no cap, no boost.)
and yeah... FEAR is an ugly strategy. thing is, if i'm not mistaken, the devs have made some changes to some of the powers and abilities to neuter that combo (though i have yet to find it.) and what if you were to do two quick-attacks at the same time? wouldn't the one with the higher base speed take priority? if they're playing level one ratattas, that would kinda kill that strategy. (also, something like that "pointed rocks on the field" move and roar or gust (the ones that force the player to switch mons.)
and also, my favourite mon, Wobuffet (well, not #1 fave but he's up there) with destiny bond would put the hurt on for that FEAR strategy.
Heh, Chandaleur gets Shadow Tag in the Dream World (whenever Japan recovers and activates it), and it's pretty beastly. I just get all my info from Bulbapedia, not sure about the priority between two Quick Attacks. I know some Pokemon get a move that blocks against + Priority attacks.
I'm not a pokefag but my friends are and they would love this, although the only thing is... why would you cap it and shun other people from playing if they dont have 50 lvl pokemon? Why not just have sections, <= 10, 11 -> 20, 21 -> 30, etc etc? Iunno, just might be my logically thinking mind but that's what I'd do...
http://skunkiebutt.com ~ Home page