Economy Rebalance Discussion

[JJayyFeather]

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

• 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

Tenets of the Changes

• 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

Facilities are going to be reworked into being almost exclusively sources of progression, as that's an area of value that they still hold very well over the Battle Tower, and I think we should lean into that identity. To lean into this, we're going to make their purpose for existing out to be exclusively the progression rewards, leaving currency rewards to the realm of the Battle Tower. We're only half stripping this for now from refs, simply because I don't think the new values for JC payout will make it necessarily to fully strip this from the refs, but I want to make sure that there's still better incentive to pay attention to the Battle Tower over facilities. Entry costs are being reduced though, as obviously some of the value of these activities is being stripped away.

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
• 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

One more large systems change to accompany all of this: For the time being (see: probably for 3 months following the implementation of these changes), self-reffing/double self-reffing of matches in the Battle Tower (and by extension, flashes set up via the Discord server) is going to be prohibited. Not necessarily to villainize self-reffing, but rather that at current, it being an option undermines one of the current goals of the revamp (getting newer players involved as refs, yes they can self-ref, but reffing experienced players is great for learning) and I want to see what the system looks like without it present so I can evaluate its role in the game and whether or not it is actually necessary/healthy as opposed to just a luxury/desire.

-------------------------

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:

1. 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.
2. Are there any potential issues with these changes that you feel were completed unaddressed by this writeup?
3. 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?
4. What's your thoughts on the removal of a battle size modifier from the JC reward formula?

Thread is now open for discussion!

 

[HydrogenHydreigon]

So if i'm understanding this correctly, Realgam Tower rewards for the challenger aren't changing?

 

[JJayyFeather]

So if i'm understanding this correctly, Realgam Tower rewards for the challenger aren't changing?

The actual rewards specific to Realgam won't be changing, but the base RC/TC from it will be

 

[nightblitz42]

Off the top, I wanna say that I'm a big fan of most the ideas here. But in this reply, I'm mostly only gonna bring up the parts that I disagree with.

1. I think the proposed changes read clearly. The idea is to make it so that (almost) the only source of TC and RC is Battle Tower, in order to keep the place healthy and alive. Here are the payouts in chart form, if I'm reading the post correctly:

Format	Player TC	Player RC	Player JC	Ref TC	Ref RC	Ref JC
Battle Tower 1v1	+1	+2	-2	0	+2	+6
Battle Tower 3v3	+3	+4	-2	0	+4	+6
Battle Tree	0	0	-8	+2/4/6	+3/6/9	+3/6/9
Realgam Tower	0	0	-6	?	?	+4
TLG	0/+4/+6	0/+6/+9	-4	+4/+6	+6/+9	+8/+12

(Realgam rewards depend on battle size)

2. I gotta come up with a new reward for solving RP Segments in Battle Tree. Maybe solving RP Segments would reward extra Mulligan Tokens for the player's next reffing, or allow extra privilages in writing somehow. Would a long-form "level-up" system that unlocks new functions for Mulligan Tokens make things interesting? idk, still brainstorming. Ideas would be appreciated.

3. I think the RC rewards for reffing Facilities are too high. It seems that by reffing Facilities, players could mostly or completely eliminate the need to farm RC in Battle Tower. I suggest eliminating the RC reward for Facility refs (TLG is probably fine, signups are too inconsistent to be farmed reliably).

4. With the proposed rewards, smaller battle sizes are very heavily encouraged. One 3v3 battle creates a total of 6 TC, 12 RC, and 2 JC. Three 1v1 battles create a total of 6 TC, 18 RC, and 6 JC. In the long run, it would be optimal for every player to participate in frequent 1v1s.

Personally I don't see a benefit to allowing 1v1 flash-battles to begin with. Either the flash battles wind up being suboptimal and therefore unplayed, or they end up efficient enough to make players feel like they're being punished for playing larger formats. I would suggest standardizing a Battle Tower battle format or two (like how we standardize the rules for Beginner Battles). I think it would be good for game health, and could potentially also make matchmaking run more smoothly.

 

[epicdrill]

I like these changes a lot, overall, but I am going to comment on a couple things.

In response to nightblitz, I think it's a difficult balance with regard to facility rewards. On one hand, if you make them give too much RC/TC, then people will just get their RC from that and continue not using the battle tower. On the other hand, if you make reffing tower better than reffing facilities, then that encourages experienced players to grab battle tower matches to ref instead of facilities, leading to fewer facility refs and fewer battle tower matches for newer players to ref. One possible solution to this could be dropping the RC rewards and increasing the JC rewards, so reffing facilities isn't a reliable source of RC but gives enough JC to be sustainable. If you remove RC from facility refs as nightblitz suggests, I'd suggest increasing the JC reward from facilities so that you don't have, for example, reffing Realgam be both more work and less rewards than reffing battle tower.

I also think it would be good to make it so that people can sustain their JC by only reffing facilities even if we don't change facility RC, for much the same reason. Ideally we'd have new players being the ones stepping in to ref battle tower matches, and if we make old players have to do that then that interferes with new players' ability to get JC.

I also agree that we shouldn't be incentivizing 1v1s the way this system does. I didn't notice that in my initial pass through, but now that nightblitz pointed it out I definitely think the rewards should be changed to incentivize larger battles or at least to not disincentivize larger battles.

I will point out that the battle tower ref TC in nightblitz's table should be 0 though, since I didn't see anything in the post indicating that's getting changed.

 

[Gemini Taurus]

I think I mostly agree with the two posts above me, but I do think my biggest issue is with the removal of a battle size modifier in Battle Tower.

Reffing is primarily an activity people do to obtain JC. While it also rewards RC (and now TC), I think it will remain true that the main reason people are reffing is to have JC so they can participate in battles/facilities. With the proposed changes, a ref has very little reason to not ref 1v1's and 1v1's only in my eyes, as the JC reward is the same regardless.

If we want an increase in battle tower activity, I think we should be incentivizing larger and more interesting battles and I just foresee longer battles struggling to get refs if we have no battle size modifier.

But yeah, like the changes overall, don't love the battle tower JC not caring about battle size.

 

[Mowtom]

Posting to say that the above two posts speak for me as well.

 

[epicdrill]

One possible way to fix this system incentivizing 1v1s is to change the RC formula to FLOOR(pokemon per side*4/3), which would give less RC than the proposed formula for 1v1s and 2v2s, the same for 3v3s, 4v4s, and 5v5s, and more for battles larger than that. This would serve to incentivize larger battles while disincentivizing 1v1s and 2v2s. The other option I see that's worth considering is removing the +1 RC from 1v1s and 2v2s, so that it's just 1 RC for 1v1s, 2 RC for 2v2s, and then it goes up to 4 for 3v3s.

 

[Ooraloo]

I'm heavily against reducing rewards from reffing facilities. Since facilities are so fundamental to progression in this game, the last thing you want to do is reduce the incentives for the refs who make this progression possible, especially since battling and reffing at the same time like facility refs do is significantly more labor-intensive than just doing something like a tournament reffing. We already have periods where challenges can sit in queues for a week or more, and if facility refs aren't properly compensated for their labor, then that problem will just get worse.

People say that making facility reffing rewards too good will discourage people from using the battle tower, but is that really a problem? If someone wants to contribute to running the game's progression instead of doing brainless counter farming battle tower matches, is that really such a horrible evil thing that'll destroy our community's gaming experience?

Regarding tree, I would personally have zero interest in being rewarded in mulligan tokens or anything that only affects writing. Facility writing is fun, but it's not like we're aiming to write our own Crime and Punishment in a Pokemon roleplay forum. I'd personally just suggest removing the RP sections from tree entirely because I feel like from a challenger gameplay perspective, they're just a formality, as refs will more or less accept any solution. If the refs really really really love them and feel strongly about keeping them, then maybe have it reward a currency to purchase RP exclusive perks like Pike tokens?

 

[Maxim]

The changes in general look quite good to me, but I'm a little concerned about facility rewards not including TC/RC for the players. While this would help incentivize Battle Tower matches, it means that facilities no longer have a way to reward players for small actions (i.e. Tree Roleplays) or early wins (i.e. winning the first battle of Tree, then losing the second). To be clear, I'm not so much opposed to removing TC/RC in general, it's just we need a way to reward players for those activities, since spending 8 JC just to bite it to the first Tree boss and getting absolutely nothing can be a real problem, potentially compounded by the fact that you can get guaranteed TC for 4* Pokemon by just using Battle Tower.

I still think we should keep Tree roleplays though, they're fun and a rare way to get roleplaying into this game.

 

[nightblitz42]

People say that making facility reffing rewards too good will discourage people from using the battle tower, but is that really a problem? If someone wants to contribute to running the game's progression instead of doing brainless counter farming battle tower matches, is that really such a horrible evil thing that'll destroy our community's gaming experience?

The Battle Tower is the only place where new players can ref. It is also the most straightforward place for new players to battle at. Without Battle Tower activity, it can be very difficult for new players to integrate themselves into BBP.

Regarding tree, I would personally have zero interest in being rewarded in mulligan tokens or anything that only affects writing. Facility writing is fun, but it's not like we're aiming to write our own Crime and Punishment in a Pokemon roleplay forum. I'd personally just suggest removing the RP sections from tree entirely because I feel like from a challenger gameplay perspective, they're just a formality, as refs will more or less accept any solution. If the refs really really really love them and feel strongly about keeping them, then maybe have it reward a currency to purchase RP exclusive perks like Pike tokens?

I mostly agree with your thoughts here. I do intend to keep RP segments though, for two reasons:

• They contribute to the Facility's entertainment value for the ref.
• They give the Facility a distinct identity, compared to other Facilities.

(Well, I intend to keep RP Segments unless I get overwhelming negative feedback from the playerbase, that is.)

One course of action I am strongly considering is creating a Tree-specific shop where players can buy things to use within RP Segments. It would all be flavor stuff, with no impact on battles. The advantage to separating RP mechanics from battle mechanics is that it keeps the RP elements unobtrusive for challengers who aren't interested. (also it makes balance much easier on my end.)

 

[cherrybeans]

Hi, I'm terribly new, but perhaps the perspective of a total newcomer could help.

About JCs, While I believe that getting newbs to ref vets to get them to learn the system has its value, I'd personally rather just read past battles. Its less effort, less time, to learn what I believe to be the same stuff. I also believe that self-reffing is more efficient way to ref than getting a third party involved, because people are likely to make battle calculations on their own end anyways, and they can be recycled for the purpose of official reffing too. Plus, as far as I understand for self-reffings, there are likely less sittings required to advance a round, just two separate instances people getting on their computer and posting stuff is required at minimum, rather than three.

So, I think pedagogic incentives for third-party reffings and JCs are OK, some people may learn better with that kind of approach, but I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it.

I believe self-reffing is the way to go, when possible.

 

[Doduodrio]

I believe self-reffing is the way to go, when possible.

Personally, my opinion about self-reffing is that, yes it's more efficient, but if we're thinking about it from the rewards perspective, the self-ref doesn't get as much JC as they would if they reffed a match that wasn't self-reffed. I do agree, though, that observing past battles is a great way to learn how to ref, as the reffing format that I use was mostly taken from more experienced players battling. It also helps to see what other players use why they make the kinds of plays that they make. Back to self-reffing battles, though. As someone who has self-reffed some battles recently, I can say that it's sometimes a drag to have to think of orders and then ref the battle right after, but it also lets me have some more insight into how the battle might be going and make better decisions. If anything, I feel like the self-ref rewards should be raised just a little bit to make those kinds of battles feel more worth it for the self-ref. Your thoughts are very thought-provoking, though.

 

[epicdrill]

Hi, I'm terribly new, but perhaps the perspective of a total newcomer could help.

About JCs, While I believe that getting newbs to ref vets to get them to learn the system has its value, I'd personally rather just read past battles. Its less effort, less time, to learn what I believe to be the same stuff. I also believe that self-reffing is more efficient way to ref than getting a third party involved, because people are likely to make battle calculations on their own end anyways, and they can be recycled for the purpose of official reffing too. Plus, as far as I understand for self-reffings, there are likely less sittings required to advance a round, just two separate instances people getting on their computer and posting stuff is required at minimum, rather than three.

So, I think pedagogic incentives for third-party reffings and JCs are OK, some people may learn better with that kind of approach, but I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it.

I believe self-reffing is the way to go, when possible.

With regard to JC specifically, the point of it as a currency isn't so that new players have to ref to learn the system. It's so that everyone has to participate in reffing to avoid running out, because without that we'd have a situation where the number of players wanting to play would vastly outnumber the number of players wanting to ref, leading to issues with queues clogging. In the old system when we had to buy moves individually, reffing was incentivized by making the most efficient way to get new moves for your pokemon, but when BBP switched to a new more user-friendly progression system a new incentive for reffing was needed.

However, with this system in place, it means we need places for new players to ref. Since you need to prove you can ref well before being approved as a facility ref, the only place new players are allowed to ref is the battle tower. This means that we need there to actually be battle tower matches, because otherwise there's nothing for new players to ref. This is the rationale behind both these changes and punishing self-reffing in terms of currency rewards or possibly removing it entirely.

The currency changes make the battle tower and flashes organized on discord the most efficient way to get currency and the removal of self-reffing or reduced counters from self-reffing, depending on what the final decision is on that, incentivizes people to actually go through the battle tower instead of just arranging self-reffed battles on discord. While it would be nice to leave self-reffed flashes as an option for new players to learn how to ref, it's not good for that to be the only possible way for them to learn to ref, which is what would happen if everyone was organizing self-reffed flashes instead of using the battle tower as intended. It's also worth noting that some people can find reffing difficult or overwhelming their first couple times, so we need viable options for the first few reffings that don't involve self-reffing. I don't know if removing self-reffing completely is necessary to do this, but I understand the intent and think it's worth considering at least.

 

[JJayyFeather]

I have a full reply to everything said in the thread coming in about a day's time. Had to revise some of my original notes with some of the stuff I've seen brought up in the days since I originally wrote it up. But, I just wanted to go ahead and quickly reply here as I saw it was the current conversation:

I don't know if removing self-reffing completely is necessary to do this, but I understand the intent and think it's worth considering at least.

I don't expect the removal of self-reffing to be permanent, but I did feel it a necessary but temporary move for evaluating the upcoming changes.

 

[HydrogenHydreigon]

Looking at nightblitz's chart, one thing I don't like is how there aren't any RC/TC rewards for the challenger in facilities. This makes Realgam an all-or-nothing facility and Battle Tree requiring at least two battle wins to get something out of it. This imo deincentivizes facilities a bit because why take the risk of not getting anything when you can just get guaranteed TC from the Battle Tower to promote your mons?

 

[cherrybeans]

Maybe we could just repeal (have it merge with another currency, perhaps?) TCs rather than try to figure out a way to make them useful and balance it out with something else.

 

[Mowtom]

I don't see why one Battle Tree win can't still give 4 RC/TC? The issue is with facilities being able to give you enough counters, not with them being able to give you any at all.

 

[JJayyFeather]

larger post incoming, but quick one to address the immediate

My changes only mentioned stripping the standard battle rewards from the individual battles. I made no mention of that reward, and actually made the change with the intent to leave that reward in unless nightblitz had a better plan for it.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Alright now for a full reply. I left myself some notes to make sure I touched on as I've compiled thoughts from the past 2 weeks, let's speedrun them

Going in order of easiest to hardest to explain well,

1) Small adjustments to non-Battle Tower:
- Battle Tree will cost 10 JC to enter. This is down from the current 12 JC, but above the originally suggested 8 JC from the OP. Simply put, I didn't want Battle Tree to have an outcome that was JC-positive.
- Realgam Tower will cost 8 JC to enter, but its Source Modifier for JC rewards is getting increased to 4. This returns the entry cost back to 8 JC, but the ref will get paid 6 JC.

In addition to the above, Facility refs will not earn RC, but still will earn TC. I agree with nightblitz's concern that facility refs would simply have the best of all worlds otherwise.

2) After careful consideration, there will not be a Battle Size modifier added to JC rewards.

To best explain this decision, I need to talk a little bit about the design bind that efficiency enforces. I know this is potentially a really simple or basic concept, but I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that everyone is on the same page here without me at least explaining this a little bit. The sparknotes version of this is that all trying to adjust around what is currently considered efficient does is force innovation in the field of efficiency. This means that at some point, you end up forced to "take the L" in regards to which type of efficiency you want to have in your system.

With this said, we've decided that the "optimal" type of efficiency to be stuck combatting is players spamming small formats (1v1 singles, 2v2 doubles for example). With the inevitable truth that efficiency never goes away, just upgrades, the prospect of trying to penalize small formats or heavily incentivize standard/larger formats just runs in opposition to the goals of the changes: maintaining economic stability while also creating a space where there's a high volume of matches available to new refs. That second bit is very important. I have no doubt that the economy could be well-stabilized around any match size we opt for, but I think that trying to actively penalize/dis-incentivize small format matches is quite the opposite of what spurned the need for changes in the first place.

As always though, keeping an eye and an open ear out for feedback and suggestions, both before the changes go live and afterwards. Not going live yet, this all needs (a) proper documentation and (b) to be out in the air for a little while before I push it. I'll also take the additional time to make sure I missed no important details regarding both currently active roleplays, as well as the other two on their way through the pipeline.

 

[nightblitz42]

Making changes to Tree, with two goals in mind:

• Rebalancing RP Segment rewards, now that TC is going to become much more valuable.
• Making the challenger's contributions to RP Segments more meaningful.

With that in mind, here are the upcoming Tree changes:

• Winning Battle 1 will still reward 4 TC and RC.
• Solving RP Segments will no longer award TC, but will instead award an equivalent amount of Roleplay Tokens (RPT). RPT can be spent for RP-related unlockables between challenges. RPT cannot be stockpiled. More info below.

Attitude/Background rework

Complete overhaul to the Attitude/Background system:

• Backgrounds will be optional, and will have no bearing on RP Segments.
• Attitudes will be removed from Tree.
• The Challenger must give each Pokemon a Helpful Quality and a Detrimental Quality. These are Pokemon traits that can be used in RP Segments, and are intended to take the role that Backgrounds and Attitudes currently have.
  • A Helpful Quality is one (1) skill or a personality trait the Pokemon possesses that could potentially be helpful to the team. If it is a skill, then it must be a skill that a real-life human being could possess.
  • a Detrimental Quality is one (1) personality trait the Pokemon possesses that could potentially become an obstacle to the team. (Detrimental Qualities are typically "negative" or "undesirable" personality traits.)

RP Segment Mechanical Changes

• Backgrounds and Attitudes will no longer be usable in RP Segments.
• Helpful Qualities and Detrimental Qualities can be used to solve RP Segments.
• A Pokemon can contribute to an RP Segment in one of two ways:
  • Helping the team solve the RP Segment, by using any traits available to it.
  • Hindering the team and making it more difficult to solve the RP Segment, by using any traits available to it.
    • If it wishes to hinder the team, one of the Pokemon's contributions must be a Detrimental Quality.
    • Each Pokemon may only hinder up to one (1) RP Segment per challenge.
• Helping and hindering both count as valid contributions to an RP Segment, and doing either will award RPT.
• As far as flavor goes, the resolution of the RP Segment is as follows:
  • If no Pokemon contributed to an RP Segment: The team overcomes their obstacle either through brute force or sheer luck. This may have negative ramifications within the narrative.
  • If Pokemon only helped: The team overcomes the obstacle.
  • If Pokemon only hindered: The team fails to overcome the obstacle. From a narrative standpoint, their path to the goal may become more difficult as a result, or they may find themselves in a perilous situation.
  • If Pokemon both helped and hindered: The challenger may specify in their post whether they intend to overcome the obstacle or fail. If the challenger does not specify, then the ref may freely choose whether the team overcomes the obstacle or fails to overcome it.

Roleplay Tokens and Titles

After each Roleplay Segment, the challenger earns 1 RPT for each Pokemon that contributed. (Max. 2 RPT per Segment, and max. 6 RPT per challenge).

When signing up for their next challenge, the challenger may spend the RPT they earned from their previous challenge to purchase Titles. (RPT cannot be stockpiled, so it is recommended that the challenger spend all their RPT.) Each Scenario has its own selection of Titles for purchase. Challengers may only purchase Titles attributed to the Scenario that they are signing up to challenge. Once a challenger buys a Title, they own it for good.

[Titles]
Titles are collectibles that can be equipped to Pokemon to grant them special effects within RP Scenarios. Some titles grant additional Helpful Qualities and Detrimental Qualities. (Note that Titles are not subject to the usual writing restrictions!) Other titles have effects that alter the core rules of the RP.

In their signup, the challenger may equip up to one (1) Title they own to each of their Pokemon. Titles are not consumed, and can be re-used as many times as the owner likes. However, the challenger cannot equip the same Title to both Pokemon unless they own two copies of the Title. The challenger may only equip a maximum of one (1) Title that grants Rule Alterations.

Title Shop (in progress)

 

[Doduodrio]

Hindering the team by making it more difficult to solve the RP Segment.

• If it wishes to hinder the team, one of the Pokemon's contributions must be a Detrimental Quality.
• Each Pokemon may only hinder up to one (1) RP Segment per challenge.

So I'm assuming that there is no point in hindering the team other than to earn RPT? I like the new system; it seems very interesting as to how it affects future tree challenges! I do have a few questions, though. When will the changes be implemented? Also, are the titles simply helpful and detrimental quality contributions adding to your Pokemon's current qualities, or are they replacing them? Personally, I feel that the "Pack Leader" title is a little bit too good (adding 4 extra copies of your Pokemon to your party is insane!).

 

[cherrybeans]

At first I thought I wouldn't like it, but after reading it, I really like the title system! I was concerned about the separation between this and the rest of mechanics, but I think it's really worth it.

Maybe you could get a bonus to RPT on your first Tree completion, so that you can fill out your main mons with your preferred traits and then go on from there? I really enjoy the customization potential.

Some Title suggestions:
- Human Language: This Pokemon can speak human language.
- Legendary Herald: This Pokemon, via some ritual (a song, a dance, etc), can summon impressive theatrics (Ho-Oh flying overhead, Arceus' roar, etc) once per Tree, brought forth directly or indirectly by the Pokémon diety. The Legendary, the theatrics summonable, and the ritual must be chosen at the purchase of this title.
- Aura-Sensitive: This Pokemon can close their eyes and focus to make use of aura vision.

Personally, I feel that the "Pack Leader" title is a little bit too good (adding 4 extra copies of your Pokemon to your party is insane!).

Perhaps it could be made more expensive? It's at 6 currently.

 

[nightblitz42]

Hindering is just a different way to earn RPT, and gives the challenger more ways to interact with the story.
Titles are additive. They do not replace the Helpful/Detrimental Qualities the challenger writes in.
Pack Leader I expect to be more goofy than helpful, and might even make certain obstacles tougher. Not that difficulty is a big concern; I already consider solving RP Segments to be very easy without Titles.
I don't intend to give out free RPT at the start. Titles are more or less freebies you get from playing Tree already, I don't think there's a need to go further.
Every Pokemon can already talk per Tree rules. Legendary Herald and Aura-Sensitive I could see being added.
I can't increase price above 6 because RPT can't be stockpiled and 6 is the maximum amount that can be earned in one challenge.

 

[Doduodrio]

Pack Leader I expect to be more goofy than helpful, and might even make certain obstacles tougher. Not that difficulty is a big concern; I already consider solving RP Segments to be very easy without Titles.

Oh, I think I misunderstood Pack Leader and thought that it meant that you get 4 additional copies of your Pokemon to use in battle. So that means that these Titles are only to be used in RP Segments then?

I can't increase price above 6 because RPT can't be stockpiled and 6 is the maximum amount that can be earned in one challenge.

So you can only spend the RPT you earned in the previous challenge, correct? And it would be reset after a new challenge? Would we have to add a section in our profiles to list the titles that we own and equip the titles at the start of a tree challenge?