[X] My Assistant

[Swampert rox]

As I said in the Suggestions Thread right before it got closed.

A lot of the time, it seems that just when I'm leaving and won't be around in an hour when my pokemon comes out of the Vs. Seeker, my pokemon are the odd ones out and didn't end up battling. Its rather annoying, as it taking another hour to come back when I won't be there for a few hours after I waited 10 or so minutes to take it out is really an inconvenience and a waste of time. Why not add a button for people who are going/sleeping/etc and won't be back between when the pokemon would be done with their battles and the next battle? Essentially, there would be a button on the Vs. Seeker menu that could be checked off by users who wouldn't be able to come on to replace their pokemon, and if there was an odd number in a specific rank the pokemon to be carried over would be selected from those whose owners wouldn't be able to take them out anyway.

I'd say that this would save a lot of bother for people, since I've had days when two or three pokemon have to spend another hour or two while I'm on, and then when I leave they all come back immediately.

[Torrita]

Maybe in addition to this, add a point reward for being forced to carry over if you checked the button. Not a large one, maybe 100 points at most.

I also agree that the one entered last should be carried over if this is rejected, though; why should those that enter sooner get postponed while the person that enters at the last second get to battle?

This post has been edited by Torrita: Jul 19 2010, 02:12 PM

[Tyranisaur]

I'll just suggest like I did in the old suggestions thread.
The pokemon that are entered last are the ones that should stay for another hour.

That would make it impossible for one pokemon to wait 2 times in a row, like what happened to me.

[Swampert rox]

That wasn't really what I meant. Instead of "pokemon that are entered later get carried over" we could have "pokemon whose owners won't be able to take them out get carried over". That way both the pokemon which were entered sooner and later would get to battle, except for the ones which wouldn't be taken out and replaced before the next battle.

This post has been edited by Swampert rox: Jul 20 2010, 07:19 AM

[Crystal Shards]

Agreed. The last one in should be the last one out... if that's a possibility coding-wise. Otherwise I like the idea of volunteering your Pokemon to be held back if necessary.

This post has been edited by Crystal Shards: Jul 21 2010, 02:34 PM

[Retrospect]

I don't think a "volunteer" option is very viable. If all I had to do was check a box every time to guarantee my pokemon fights, I'd check it every time. If it was a check box to volunteer to be held over, I'd never check it. I think it's safe to assume I'm not the only one who would do this.

[TheIgDemon]

I don't see what the big deal is. :/ Sometimes I leave Pokemon in there for hours without taking them out even after they have battled. I'm more concerned with the unfairness of the whole system. How the heck could a level 100 lose to a level 1? Type and level should be a huge factor in determining the winner of a battle.

[Crystal Shards]

I don't think a "volunteer" option is very viable. If all I had to do was check a box every time to guarantee my pokemon fights, I'd check it every time. If it was a check box to volunteer to be held over, I'd never check it. I think it's safe to assume I'm not the only one who would do this.

Maybe you wouldn't, but I would if I were going out somewhere or doing homework or something, and I'm sure there would be others who would be willing as well. And it's not a volunteer to DEFINITELY be held over--it's a volunteer to POTENTIALLY be held over. And if no one does that hour? Continue with the random.

Again, that's if the whole "last one in is last one out" isn't an option.

[Swampert rox]

I don't like the last in, last out idea as much - it doesn't mae as much sense for people who won't take their pokemon out to have them battle when the person who just came online (and will be able to take it out afterwards) doesn't have their pokemon battle.

[Crystal Shards]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

[Swampert rox]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I think that it makes more sense for the Pokemon which wouldn't come out of the Vs. Seeker anyway to be carried over.

eg. if someone won't be able to take their pokemon out before the next battle, they select something so their pokemon might be the ones that don't battle.

That way everyone who would want to take their pokemon out gets to and the pokemon that gets carried over belongs to somebody that wouldn't be able to.

[Crystal Shards]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I think that it makes more sense for the Pokemon which wouldn't come out of the Vs. Seeker anyway to be carried over.

eg. if someone won't be able to take their pokemon out before the next battle, they select something so their pokemon might be the ones that don't battle.

That way everyone who would want to take their pokemon out gets to and the pokemon that gets carried over belongs to somebody that wouldn't be able to.

Which has been suggested...? The "last in last out" is probably a lot easier to actually do, but that is also an option.

[Swampert rox]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I think that it makes more sense for the Pokemon which wouldn't come out of the Vs. Seeker anyway to be carried over.

eg. if someone won't be able to take their pokemon out before the next battle, they select something so their pokemon might be the ones that don't battle.

That way everyone who would want to take their pokemon out gets to and the pokemon that gets carried over belongs to somebody that wouldn't be able to.

Which has been suggested...? The "last in last out" is probably a lot easier to actually do, but that is also an option.

Where was it suggested? I didn't see it anywhere, both now and when I originally posted.

[Crystal Shards]

Hurr you're the OP. Ignore my stupidity please.

Still, I stand by saying it's probably a lot easier to implement a system where the last one in, if it's an odd number, would be the last one out. I'd prefer the volunteer option, but I'm talking ease here.

[Swampert rox]

Hurr you're the OP. Ignore my stupidity please.

Still, I stand by saying it's probably a lot easier to implement a system where the last one in, if it's an odd number, would be the last one out. I'd prefer the volunteer option, but I'm talking ease here.

I agree, but just because its easier doesn't mean that the simpler option should be chosen, or that it not be changed at all.

Admins, please tell us what your opinion is.

[Crystal Shards]

The more complicated the script is, the more room there is for it to screw up other things on the site or make pages load slower.

This post has been edited by Crystal Shards: Jul 26 2010, 10:30 PM

[Swampert rox]

The more complicated the script is, the more room there is for it to screw up other things on the site or make pages load slower.

I guess so, but still...

[Crystal Shards]

The more complicated the script is, the more room there is for it to screw up other things on the site or make pages load slower.

I guess so, but still...

But still what?

[Swampert rox]

The more complicated the script is, the more room there is for it to screw up other things on the site or make pages load slower.

I guess so, but still...

But still what?

But it would still be nice to have this feature.

[Torrita]

That feature would be nice, but if it's not accepted then (as I stated before) I would also prefer to have the last entrant kicked out. Why should others have to wait when someone procrastinates?