Cutting straight to it mostly because there's a good bit to go over and I hate fluff.
So, roughly a week ago, the Discord brought up an interesting discussion topic: sources of JC for new(er) players. I say new(er) because this also includes players who may have been around a little while, but are still too anxious/inexperienced to get into reffing of facilities and other non-Battle Tower battles. This discussion highlighted a core issue with the way the game is structured, the Battle Tower is consistently devoid of battles, preventing quick accecss to JC for new(er) players that don't just frequent the Discord server and start flashes.
And then I retreated to discuss this over with the other mods and then mull over economic solutions on my own. That brings us here, with a proposed solution. I say proposed, but unless I see substantial pushback to this, it will be implemented on the 21st. Let's talk details.
-------------------------
Issues to Fix
Above you can see the quick list of points I focused my attention on when working on these changes. Now for the changes themselves:
Facilities
As a point of convenience for the team, I'm going to quickly define a facility: A source of battles on the forum where the ref is also a battler in the battle, and the ref is playing with a team that isn't their team. Moreover, these battles (alone or in sequence) provide access to progression rewards and are under a specific ruleset determined by the Facility Manager.
In less technical terms: Battle Tree and Realgam Tower are the currently active facilities. Battle Pike is on its way out of testing, and there's another facility in the works as well. This is their overarching category.
Changes:
The Legend Gauntlet
Changes:
Small adjustment in-line with the earlier goals, enhancing the alternative purpose but without punishing the loser.
-----
Next set of changes, the actual currencies themselves!
Formulas
Nothing has changed with TC generation, RC generation got a slight bump to allow for easier purchasing of Pokemon and Items, and JC got a fundamental overhaul of the formula for its generation. Starting with the simpler change to explain here, we moved forced progression of Pokemon from JC to TC. TC has felt overall entirely underwhelming as a currency, and the initial version of the forced progression purchase was designed to be unnecessarily punishing to the player, so we felt that this was a good way to solve both issues at once.
Now for the JC payout changes. The biggest change of note here is that there is no longer a battle size modifier on JC rewards. This is experimental for now, but it would be my preferred course of action. There's already incentive to push for higher battle sizes in the form of (a) more engaging gameplay and (b) more RC and TC per JC spent. We're aware of the potential for this to create "degenerate" battle spamming, but that's a bridge we would rather cross when we get there instead of pre-emptively burning it at the risk of something else in the vision, especially considering that flash spamming was only considered degenerate under the old system where it was the only way to make any sort of meaningful progress in the system quickly.
Coupled with the removal of a battle size modifier, I've added a new modifier, the Source Modifier. This is to allow me to quickly tune JC rewards by source as I see fit to keep all rewards and economic flow within the design parameters. Currently, this is used to keep JC in/out flow relatively well-controlled in the economy, with no source providing too much of a net change in JC (system-wide) outside of specifically the entry fee to the Tournament. Here's a quick reference of the new JC in/out values:
-------------------------
Still with me? Great. I know the above is a lengthy read, but I do hope you read it all. As I stated at the top, this is not going live yet, I want to gather opinions from outside of the moderation team on this stuff, but I am aiming to push this to live on the 21st if there is not significant pushback on these changes.
With that said, a couple of starter questions:
Thread is now open for discussion!
So, roughly a week ago, the Discord brought up an interesting discussion topic: sources of JC for new(er) players. I say new(er) because this also includes players who may have been around a little while, but are still too anxious/inexperienced to get into reffing of facilities and other non-Battle Tower battles. This discussion highlighted a core issue with the way the game is structured, the Battle Tower is consistently devoid of battles, preventing quick accecss to JC for new(er) players that don't just frequent the Discord server and start flashes.
And then I retreated to discuss this over with the other mods and then mull over economic solutions on my own. That brings us here, with a proposed solution. I say proposed, but unless I see substantial pushback to this, it will be implemented on the 21st. Let's talk details.
-------------------------
Issues to Fix
- Facilities largely encroach into the role of the Battle Tower
- As a result of the above, there's very little activity in the Battle Tower
- While not a Facility, TLG (and by some extension Tournaments) somewhat do the same, but not as egregiously
- TC is a pointless currency
- Battle Tower needs to have a solid purpose for existing beyond being just a place to kill time.
- Adjust the economy so as to allow new(er) players to appropriately progress, given that we retooled progression a while back with this aim in mind
- Giving TC a reason to exist
Above you can see the quick list of points I focused my attention on when working on these changes. Now for the changes themselves:
Facilities
As a point of convenience for the team, I'm going to quickly define a facility: A source of battles on the forum where the ref is also a battler in the battle, and the ref is playing with a team that isn't their team. Moreover, these battles (alone or in sequence) provide access to progression rewards and are under a specific ruleset determined by the Facility Manager.
In less technical terms: Battle Tree and Realgam Tower are the currently active facilities. Battle Pike is on its way out of testing, and there's another facility in the works as well. This is their overarching category.
Changes:
- Challengers no longer are rewarded with standard battle values of RC or TC upon completing a battle, win or lose
- Battle Tree's entry cost is being lowered to 8 JC; Realgam Tower's entry cost is being lowered to 6 JC
The Legend Gauntlet
Changes:
- The winner of a match no longer receives standard battle values of RC or TC, just the match's associated legendary. However, the legendary will be acquired at Stage 4.
- The loser of a match still receives standard battle values of RC and TC, as a fair consolation prize for a battle hard-fought.
Small adjustment in-line with the earlier goals, enhancing the alternative purpose but without punishing the loser.
-----
Next set of changes, the actual currencies themselves!
Formulas
- RC: Total number of Pokemon on the smallest team + 1
- TC: Total number of Pokemon on the smallest team
- Additionally, 20 TC can now be used to progress one Pokemon to Stage 4
- JC: 2 * (Number of non-referee battlers) + Source Modifier
- Source Modifier: A bonus to JC award per battle based on the source of the battle
- Battle Tower, not self-reffed: 2
- Battle Tree: 1
- Realgam Tower: 2
- The Legend Gauntlet: 0
- Matches from the ongoing tournament will have a Source Modifier of 2
- You can still spend 20 JC to progress one Pokemon to Stage 4, but I don't know why you would when TC now does it too
- Source Modifier: A bonus to JC award per battle based on the source of the battle
- Overall: Referees of Facilities/Self-reffed matches no longer get paid in RC and TC twice. They will only get that once now.
Nothing has changed with TC generation, RC generation got a slight bump to allow for easier purchasing of Pokemon and Items, and JC got a fundamental overhaul of the formula for its generation. Starting with the simpler change to explain here, we moved forced progression of Pokemon from JC to TC. TC has felt overall entirely underwhelming as a currency, and the initial version of the forced progression purchase was designed to be unnecessarily punishing to the player, so we felt that this was a good way to solve both issues at once.
Now for the JC payout changes. The biggest change of note here is that there is no longer a battle size modifier on JC rewards. This is experimental for now, but it would be my preferred course of action. There's already incentive to push for higher battle sizes in the form of (a) more engaging gameplay and (b) more RC and TC per JC spent. We're aware of the potential for this to create "degenerate" battle spamming, but that's a bridge we would rather cross when we get there instead of pre-emptively burning it at the risk of something else in the vision, especially considering that flash spamming was only considered degenerate under the old system where it was the only way to make any sort of meaningful progress in the system quickly.
Coupled with the removal of a battle size modifier, I've added a new modifier, the Source Modifier. This is to allow me to quickly tune JC rewards by source as I see fit to keep all rewards and economic flow within the design parameters. Currently, this is used to keep JC in/out flow relatively well-controlled in the economy, with no source providing too much of a net change in JC (system-wide) outside of specifically the entry fee to the Tournament. Here's a quick reference of the new JC in/out values:
- Battle Tower, not self-reffed (2 players): 4 JC in, 6 JC out
- Battle Tree: 8 JC in, 3/6/9 JC out
- Realgam Tower: 6 JC in, 4 JC out
- The Legend Gauntlet: 8 JC in, 8/12 JC out
-------------------------
Still with me? Great. I know the above is a lengthy read, but I do hope you read it all. As I stated at the top, this is not going live yet, I want to gather opinions from outside of the moderation team on this stuff, but I am aiming to push this to live on the 21st if there is not significant pushback on these changes.
With that said, a couple of starter questions:
- First and foremost, do the proposed changes read clearly at current? Just want to make sure that the meaning of each change and it's interpretation is clear to all.
- Are there any potential issues with these changes that you feel were completed unaddressed by this writeup?
- Do you have any concerns about these changes, including things that I may have touched on but you feel didn't hit the mark for you?
- What's your thoughts on the removal of a battle size modifier from the JC reward formula?
Thread is now open for discussion!