The great Sinnoh Dex debate

**Rival Max** · 02-04-2019, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Suicune's Fire

Basically what I'm gleaning from all this is:

Is there even a point to this debate? As I'm interpreting, Max isn't going to change his stance no matter the argument. I think you've firmly made up your mind and even if what you're standing for can be changed without breaking the game, I don't think you're interested in changing it so...any argument is going to fall flat no matter its logic or reasoning. Is that a correct assessment? I'm not saying you're incapable of change, but I am saying that I don't think you're open to budging on this issue no matter the argument in favour of it.

Similarly, Jacob isn't going to budge either. You firmly believe that you have a solid argument but this debate has not shifted at all. So you're getting frustrated because you feel like you're being shot down and ignored even if your points make a lot of sense.

What I do understand is that Max doesn't want things changed because it's his game. That's something I can wrap my head around, although I think that most people replying to this thread don't actually know why the pokedex is limited, and so far it seems to only work against the motto of "gotta catch them all" if 39% of "all," which is 210 pokemon, is literally unobtainable except through events. Which means...we would individually have to participate in two hundred and ten events to obtain those pokemon. Which...doesn't...seem logical or attainable. If we did one event per week, which is a lot of time and effort assuming it's a creative contest or something we have to do in addition to regular GCEA posts, that would mean 52 events a year. Which would mean we'd take four years to get the Sinnoh Pokédex pokemon alone. Which to me does not push the concept of "gotta catch 'em all," unless there's a hidden "over five to ten years" on the end of it. xD

So I get you being protective, but I don't get why this is a bad thing to change. Yes ultimately it's your decision but I don't think one person who's responded to this thread can understand why it's limited because it's a direct contradiction to the slogan which is your entire argument for this issue.

--

So all in all, people are getting frustrated, things aren't changing, and I personally only see a larger divide between creator and players at this stage. Also, just make sure you guys are keeping level heads. Best leave emotion out of this as best you can.

There is a lot to respond to here. 210 isnt the number. 97 is the number of actual pokemon to catch. This doesnt include legends since they arent required. They have story points to be unlocked.
There are also 7 to 9 achievement unlocks. A player only has to catch in the high 80s. The dex has been changed to match the actual sinnoh in game dex. With the exception of 25 pokemon. 8 of which are fossils that will have a set point

**[Desolate Divine]** · 02-04-2019, 01:41 AM

Then there is the costs of evolution which is where it gets pricey.

And in the first post I said that if the players agreed with Max, I would step back. I am willing to budge but the conditions of that budging havent been met.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

**Rival Max** · 02-04-2019, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Desolate Divine

Then there is the costs of evolution which is where it gets pricey.

And in the first post I said that if the players agreed with Max, I would step back. I am willing to budge but the conditions of that budging havent been met.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Jacob you are entitled to your opinion. As is everyone else is and I have listned. Noble suggested making a spreadsheet and the two got together to start that up. I am entitled to final say in the RPG that I created. I have been reading and have yet to see a reason to change the basic premise of this rp. I think that on my end I have missed the perceptoin of this issue and that is where the trouble has come from. I will of course take time and go through each point again.
@Suicune's Fire I havent seen an optoin yet that sovles the problem without breaking what the base of this game is Xanthe. Which is why I actually want the debate to end to go through the all of whats been said.

**[Desolate Divine]** · 02-04-2019, 03:13 AM

So far the only arguments provided by Rival Max are the following:

1. The purpose of GCEA is to Catch ‘Em All, and that allowing Pokemon that count towards the Pokedex creates an unfair advantage on players.

2. The rule restricting which Pokemon can be given as event rewards has been a mechanic in GCEA from the beginning.

3. He is the creator and has final say regardless.

My responses to the arguments are as follows.

1. The purpose of GCEA is to Catch ‘Em All, and that allowing Pokemon that count towards the Pokedex creates an unfair advantage on players.
-Whilst the creator may say this is the purpose, this is not the way the game is played by current players in Platinum. It is not a priority, based on lack of incentive, and the goal being reasonably unattainable. Even with Rival Max’s adjustments to the Regional Pokedex, the goal is still reasonably unattainable, in terms of both time and cost. Rival Max increasing the RNG rate from 6 out of 20 to 17 out of 20 makes this situation even worse, as in order for players to actually afford to catch that many Pokemon, encounters would need to be fewer and more far between to allow them to build up enough points. 69% of Pokemon listed for encounters on the front page of GCEA Platinum cost more than 15 points each. Some You can force more encounters, but at the current rate points are distributed, there will not be enough for players to capture Pokemon more frequently. This doesn’t even begin to cover evolution. More details can be found here, and here.
-Advantage is defined as “a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position.” Players receiving Pokedex Pokemon from any event does not put said player in a favorable position over other players. This is due to three things, the first being no time based rewards for completing the Pokedex, the second being reward Pokemon not being better in terms of battling than other Pokemon, and the third being that Pokemon must be below a certain level (and can have their levels temporarily lowered) to be used, meaning that players are on no less equal ground than if they use Pokemon caught elsewhere. This is mentioned briefly in the first link above, then elaborated on further in the second link.
-I must ask, what of players who have zero intention of completing the Pokedex? Who’re playing for story purpose. Should they be forced towards this goal?

2. The rule restricting which Pokemon can be given as event rewards has been a mechanic in GCEA from the beginning.
-Whilst this rule has been around since the beginning, so have the issues that come with it, that have only been brought to light in this debate. This debate has proven that this rule has no real value. It supports a system that is already doomed to fail, and the only value it seems to have is sentimental value. My personal ideology is that sentimental value is only relied on for the purpose of persuasion, when there is no other true value present. To retain this rule, and in turn, the issues it brings, based purely on the fact that it has been present since the beginning is to say that an inflamed appendix should remain, and not be removed, even with the pain it causes, because it has been there since the beginning. Sentimentality should not get in the way of usability and practicality.

3. He is the creator and has final say regardless.
-Whilst this may seem like a fair argument, no creator is perfect and will get it right first go. There will be mistakes made that are overlooked. This is one of them. GCEA was not made perfect, and has had issues since the beginning that have not become present until now. Look at any mainstream video game. The moment mistakes are found, they are removed in the next update. A developer who refuses to fix a game that is broken and borderline unbeatable (in this case, if the goal is to catch them all), is asking to have their game abandoned by players.
-To this, I must ask Rival Max, how many players need to disagree with you before you will be willing to listen? How many times do your arguments need to be proven wrong before you can be open to something that isn’t necessarily what you wanted to begin with?
-Whilst he is the creator, he requested that I run Platinum, in order to get ot prepared to begin, and to keep it running. I was given creative freedom to run Platinum, which seems to have been revoked upon wanting to make a change that I think will improve the game. This is not a change I am forcing on other GCEA versions, such as the new Blue version which will be opening soon, but one I want to test on Platinum. A test which will have no consequences outside of Platinum, and will not create any more work for myself or Rival Max.
-Whilst he is the creator, the alternative solutions suggested by Rival Max do little to fix the issues, compared to removing the rule being discussed. The reduced regional dex that Rival Max has created has only 10% of the National Dex less Pokemon, and still far too many for a medium-length role play (intended length of Platinum is 18 months at most) to be able to fit in without forcing constant encounters, which would force Platinum to run longer than intended due to the time taken for players to respond to capture posts and to make sure Trainer Cards are up to date. This solution also doesn’t address the fact that the average player cannot reasonably earn enough points to fund catching that many Pokemon (the second link above details the costs). These ideas purely hide the symptoms of these issues, in order to hide the fact that it would be in the players and the games best interest to remove this rule. In addition to this, these solutions are not up for discussion, and are already being implemented even though there is no agreement to them. When pointing out holes in these solutions, such as the costs associated with catching more Pokemon more frequently, I was quickly demonized and ignored.

So what do the players think?

Noblejanobii

So I have been taking notes on this debate since the initial post. I addressed this as if I were judging a debate tournament to see what both sides had to present argument wise. And while I have more than just the two points below listed in my notes, these points are the main ones that in the end have caused me to side with Jacob. The rule should be removed. You can see my brief notes down below but that being said they aren’t very elaborate due to the fact that I’m currently sending this from my cellphone. So if anyone wishes for me to elaborate I will do so later tonight.

-Trying to figure out what Pokémon are and aren’t in the regional dex right now is a bit cumbersome due to them being logged in a forum post that takes a while to load due to it using images instead of names.
•Reducing the size won’t really fix this.
•Leaves room for potential error from player
•We have to use points to catch and evolve Pokémon. Too expensive to catch them all?
•Could cause them to miss out on their favorite Pokémon potentially or from building a dream team when the game is all about having fun.
•If this really needs to persist a better solution would be to list every Pokémon in the regional dex in a searchable spreadsheet on google sheets OR list every Pokémon and have a yes or no next to them corresponding to with who is and isn’t in the regional dex to make it a lot easier for players and GMs to figure out what is and isn’t in the dex.
•Jacob was given creative freedom by Max. Overall he should be allowed to use trial and error to see what works and what doesn’t, then be allowed to make changes if the alterations weren’t successful like intended. Helps to improve future games.

AWA1997

From the arguments I’ve seen, my first idea for a compromise is letting pokemon that are not available moving forward to become event rewards. For instance, the example with Shinx: after the first few routes, it is no longer available without backtracking, so it becomes eligible for being a random reward. However, if that is not a viable solution, I agree with the removal of said rule.

Brettles

My 2 cents worth :)
I played a DnD game once where I started at level one with an intelligent +2 (+4 vs dragons) magical shortsword, and the magic items just kept rolling in. It was fantastic. The DM loved putting more and more magic items into it and seeing how creative we could get with them. It was awesome.

Right now I am playing a DnD campaign where we after nearly a year we are about to hit level 6 and the party has 1 magic weapon between us. I am still hitting things with a non-magical dagger. This DM likes to run his campaign with few magic items and see how creative we can be without a lot of magic items. It is also awesome.

Two different GMs with different priorities for what is allowed into their games does not make for one good game and one bad game. It makes for two different but, potentially, equally enjoyable games.

Shruikan

OK, I will admit, until I saw this discussion, I didn't even know this was a rule.

So, GCEA is about catching them all, ok, so why are event pokemon limited? If It's about catching the pokemon, then shouldn't being able to get those pokemon quicker be a good thing? The way the battle system works, pokemon wouldn't be overpowered, the only balance issue would be if someone got a pokemon worth 40 points for 5, and everyone else had to catch the same one later at full cost., which could be easily worked around.

I honestly don't see this as changing something that's working, because if it was working, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Suicune’s Fire

So I get you being protective, but I don't get why this is a bad thing to change. Yes ultimately it's your decision but I don't think one person who's responded to this thread can understand why it's limited because it's a direct contradiction to the slogan which is your entire argument for this issue.

All of these players state one of two things:
-The rule should be removed.
AND/OR
-Desolate Divine should be able to change GCEA Platinum if he thinks it is best for the game.

Here is what the removal of the rule would allow:
-In terms of in game events such as the tournament that just passed, Pokemon from the Sinnoh Regional Dex would not be excluded.
-For short story contests, drawing contests, half birthdays and other events, these Pokemon would not be excluded.
-Players would be able to use these events as means to get Pokemon they missed out on without Rival Max and myself having to run another minigame like the journal or sketchpad, and spread our time even thinner.

The initial argument came from Rival Max in response to characters receiving eggs containing Pokemon from the Sinnoh Dex in GCEA Platinum. It moved here because when it looked like there wasn’t going to be an immediate resolution in his favor, Rival Max responded by altering GM posts. So now I must ask again; how many players need to disagree with you before you will listen to them? How many must you stand alone against before you will allow a simple change for the best to be made? Would you deny the players what they want, on the basis of you know better than all of them?

Not a single person agrees with you that Platinum must have this rule in place. Will you ignore them all? Because to deny this change, after it has been so prominently backed, is to ignore them. To deny this change is to say that you know better than all of us.

We don’t want solutions that only serve to hide the problem without doing anything substantial to fix it, nor do we want compromise where any opinion that is different to your own, is ignored.. We, the GM and the players of Platinum, want Platinum to have this rule removed. Don’t deny the thing that is vital to GCEA even existing what they want on the basis of a single different opinion. It is not fair and is insulting.

Read through this properly, and think long and hard before you say anything else. I made this debate on the basis of if the players disagreed with me, and I was proven wrong, I would concede. If you truly have an respect for me like you insisted earlier that you do, you would show me that same courtesy.

Maybe I should have sugar coated this. Maybe this might get me into a bit of trouble on PXR. But so far sugar coating has only lead to me being ignored, walked over and demonized. After multiple times of trying to discuss things like this privately, where it lead to me being told I was stubborn or being difficult just for not agreeing, and made to feel like there was no respect, the sad truth is that this, is what I was driven to doing just to get a fair discussion, and try to actually be listened to. The sad truth is that I have been ignored and disrespected that much that I am willing to risk punishment to make sure that myself and the players are heard and respected. This is the cold hard truth.

**Rival Max** · 02-04-2019, 10:00 PM

Lets be 100 percent clear almost every point made of what the rule is, seems to be completely misinterpreted. I dont know what else i can say on this. So ill be blunt as possible. What people think is wrong with this rule seems to come directly from you just making stuff up.

1. Random eggs thrown in tournaments can not feature dex pokemon. Points should be the main focus of battles
2. On your Bday everyone is allowed to make a dream list of 4 non legendary pokemon including dex pokemon.
2. I literally never said special events couldnt feature dex pokemon. Im actually working on a capture writing section that will have a writing section and for those serious artist a drawing with short story capture. I am doing that because as has been stated to get the pokemon is almost impossible. I have been listening to everyone.

The only problem for me is have pokemon being random gifts for random tournaments. I think need to mean more. I am for ingame events that unlock pokemon that involve teamwork if there a special pokemon you want to give a mini plot to.

It seems to me that neither side is actually listening to the other. This issue is one that should have remained in the staff section as I feel it has caused unnecessary frustration.

Jacob the only one whose disrespect is me in this whole thing. I think its pointless to pretend you've taken a diplomatic approach here. Youve taken personal shots throughout this. Im actually glad this is on the forum so i didn't have to get sworn at constantly like i do in the chat

**[Desolate Divine]** · 02-04-2019, 10:39 PM

The only problem for me is have pokemon being random gifts for random tournaments. I think need to mean more. I am for ingame events that unlock pokemon that involve teamwork if there a special pokemon you want to give a mini plot to.

So if we were to have a writing competition later in the year, where the prize was the players choice of a base level Pokemon, Sinnoh Dex Pokemon wouldn't be excluded? Is that what you're trying to say? Because if that is, then we might be that much closer to agreement, and the thought of ending this damn thing.

It seems to me that neither side is actually listening to the other. This issue is one that should have remained in the staff section as I feel it has caused unnecessary frustration.

I have read every single one of your posts in great detail Max. I have listened to you. The fact that I disagreed with you isn't because I didn't listen. It is because your reasoning had holes in it, that proved you wrong. And I posted these holes. But you continued to argue points I had disproven. What does that say about you listening to me.

The reason that this is on the forum, is because when I tried to talk to you about this elsewhere you just ignored me and did what you wanted. When I tried to tell you why I disagreed with it, you told me I was being difficult and stubborn. You refused to talk about it. You just did what you wanted.

**Rival Max** · 02-04-2019, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Desolate Divine

So if we were to have a writing competition later in the year, where the prize was the players choice of a base level Pokemon, Sinnoh Dex Pokemon wouldn't be excluded? Is that what you're trying to say? Because if that is, then we might be that much closer to agreement, and the thought of ending this damn thing.

I have read every single one of your posts in great detail Max. I have listened to you. The fact that I disagreed with you isn't because I didn't listen. It is because your reasoning had holes in it, that proved you wrong. And I posted these holes. But you continued to argue points I had disproven. What does that say about you listening to me.

The reason that this is on the forum, is because when I tried to talk to you about this elsewhere you just ignored me and did what you wanted. When I tried to tell you why I disagreed with it, you told me I was being difficult and stubborn. You refused to talk about it. You just did what you wanted.

Jacob why would I have a problem with that? Im planning on making a whole section for unlocking pokemon. So that would fit nicely with that theme.

**[Desolate Divine]** · 02-04-2019, 10:56 PM

In that case I will contact you on Facebook in a few hours and discuss some things on how to best make this work. That cool with you?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

**Rival Max** · 02-04-2019, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Desolate Divine

In that case I will contact you on Facebook in a few hours and discuss some things on how to best make this work. That cool with you?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Of course, you know ill be around in 5 hours. I need sleep. Before work