Trading Pokemon

[Grimsley]

I know a lot of people talk about the option of trading Pokemon, and this topic usually gets shut down, however, hear me out.

So, what are the benefits of being able to trade Pokemon? Well for one, it will increase the happiness of most players. For example, I have 7 male purrloin, and despite my relentless efforts, haven’t been able to recruit a female purrloin… Also, i know a lot of other people recruit pokemon whom will never be used, so why not take advantage of the situation and just benefit every single individual in pmu in order to contribute to a better society?
…
Now for the not so good stuff. People could abuse this privilege by constantly trading pokemon back and forth, i understand that. But this blunt criticism doesn’t take into account the staff’s purpose! If the option of trading pokemon became available, all the staff would have to do is set the appropriate regulations and requirements.

One possible solution would be to explicitly monitor all trades maybe, or even say the traded pokemon have to be within a certain level range that is close enough to not be bizarre, or give only a certain amount of trades one can make based off of either time or experience/accomplishment.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that there is a solution, but as staff it’s your job to find one! I am simply pushing for an idea that I think is fun, easy, and relative to Pokemon as a game. I hope you take this idea even simply into consideration after all the effort I have put into this idea to answer any immediate questions you might have :).

To PMU players who are reading this, comment what you think of this idea or add your own ideas please!! Let’s try to make this happen!
:D

[anon37025557]

I see the good in trading Pokemon, but I still do not approve of it.

First, while it can lead to a better society and increase happiness, it will make every single Pokemon in this game easy to obtain. If someone needs to get a certain Pokemon but can’t, they have to try for it. Rare Pokemon are rare because they are special and/or unique, and being able to trade Pokemon makes nothing rare or common. In other words, there will be no drive or motivation for players to get Pokemon they want since all they have to do is buy it.

Monitoring all trades will make no difference. If a player wants to trade is Salamence for someone else’s Magikarp, the staff team would let them because the players are liable for any aftereffects, not the staff team. It’s the same as buying a Plain Seed for 1,000,000 Poke`. The staff team won’t try to force you into only paying a certain price or to not go through with the deal.

Going by a certain level range will not work; an example would be recruiting a Level 10 Clamperl and trading it for a Level 10 Magikarp. Limiting trades based on EXP or accomplishment is very ineffective as some veteran players may not have gotten far into the game while newer players have. Limiting the amount of trades is also ineffective as players could be at different points in the game and still have the same playtime and “experience”.

Also, I’m seeing a problem based on morality. This is Pokemon Mystery Dungeon where the player is the Pokemon, not a trainer commanding them. Pokemon choose to join your team and only your team, not someone else’s. Being able to trade away your own teammates who have fought hard for you seems similar to slavery.

TL;DR - I don’t approve for logical and moral reasons.

[shadowlucario50]

Thought I would put in my input since I’m here and I feel a bit research-happy.

The benefits of trading Pokémon may have a positive influence, but there might also be negative influences. Imagine if a player continuously spams the other person to trade with them. That would be quite the problem, wouldn’t you say? Also, it would promote laziness.

There are some players that do not recruit Pokémon they don’t need, setting up their assembly so they have less Pokémon to scroll through. (Still waiting for organization of menus to appear…) And sure, rare Pokémon could go up for trade for a huge price, but there are also those that can put up less rare Pokémon for higher prices, fooling the newer players to think that it’s rare.

Even if there were restrictions put on these trades, that doesn’t mean that people won’t find loopholes to this. What12345 gave a pretty good example of the loophole with a low leveled rare Pokémon with a low leveled common Pokémon. Even if you were to be able to trade at certain ranks would be counter-intuitive.

There’s also the fact that Staff cannot be online all the time. Someone could easily find a time when staff isn’t on and trade Pokémon under their noses. And anyways, staff doesn’t have time to moderate over all trades when they have player conduct to look over. To have a job open for “Trade Monitoring” just seems a bit redundant. After all, without a safe, reliable trading method without staff presence, it would be time consuming for both staff and players.

The idea is relative to Pokémon, yes, but not the Mystery Dungeon series. This MMO is supposed to relate to the Mystery Dungeon games instead of the main games. Trading Pokémon would take the magic away from that.

Also, players could obtain HM Slaves that would allow them to skip quite a bit of the game.

The problem with this suggestion is that it has been suggested many times before. And it has been rejected many times before. Many discussions have been made, but the general consensus is still “No”, with many arguments made against it. It would just cause more trouble than positive standings.

[Grimsley]

I see the good in your answer what12345, but I do not approve of your attitude. Just because it’s already been shut down many times before, does not make it wrong to bring it back up. Change is good.

Additionally, if you want to talk about morals then please notify PETA. I mean, do you really want to talk about the “morals” of pokemon? Talking about morals would begin to classify the very existence of this game as wrong. But it’s not right? Trading isn’t wrong, unless you are anti-Pokemon.

Also, it takes time to obtain rare items correct? But that doesn’t mean they are super abundant. The same thing would apply to pokemon.

I really do not see the sense of your argument. It seems you have said other player’s arguments without explaining the reasoning behind it, or even beginning to elaborate on it.

Therefore, I think trading is still a good idea.

[Grimsley]

Shadowlucario50.

Yeah I understand your argument with the staff thing. Something would have to be done about that, good point.

Yet, I don’t understand what you mean by “loophole”… Sure you could trade rare poke with common poke, but how is that any different from trading common poke with common poke, or rare poke with rare poke? It’s like items. It’s not the fact of receiving something higher or skipping out on work. It’s the fact that it’s not wrong to trade Pokemon with a friend, because you simply want to.

If you want to talk about how it promotes “laziness” let’s talk about laziness from both sides. The side you present is one-sided, saying it will only promote laziness. What about the other side? What about the side that says after countless efforts of trying to get this near-impossible pokemon to recruit, the player just doesn’t want to train it anymore after they do recruit it? I mean, there’s not just one outcome of trying hard.

Now, building off of your point of view, we would just come into an argument of human morals. And we could talk about that if you want, but I think there needs to be arguments that aren’t based off this idea of human morality. :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@:

[Bloodthirst]

Whilst some people may support your suggestion, I sadly do not. I just don"t see the need of adding trading into a Pokemon Mystery Dungeon based game. Trading wasn"t featured in these games and for that reason, I believe it shouldn"t be featured in PMU. As it has been said before: it does somewhat promote laziness and definitely could be unfair and unjust. I just don"t see the why it should be added, sorry.

[anon37025557]

Only one of the examples Shadowlucario provided contained a thread that was shut down and that was due to a flame war I believe.

@shadowlucario50

The idea is relative to Pokémon, yes, but not the Mystery Dungeon series. This MMO is supposed to relate to the Mystery Dungeon games instead of the main games. Trading Pokémon would take the magic away from that.

The original Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games did not have trading because you recruited your teammates, you didn’t catch them. Let me put this in a simple manner. Trading is in the trainer games will it is not in the PMD games; reason being it does not belong and most every Pokemon is obtainable so long as you tried. The same can not be said for trainer games where trading is required to obtain every single Pokemon. Endurance and perseverance is key in PMD. Laziness is a sign of giving up.

@Grimsley

Also, it takes time to obtain rare items correct? But that doesn’t mean they are super abundant. The same thing would apply to pokemon.

Which is why there are items that are not able to be traded; they are rare and unique. Pokemon are the same in this manner. They are rare and unique so they can not be traded.

The morality of change is dependent on the situation. In this case it is dependent on logic. Trading is not in the PMD games, only in the trainer games. While PMU is growing off of PMD and occasionally adding something new. PMU will stay true to Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games.

[Chaotix_Bluix]

I sincerely apologize if this upsets those who wish to trade their pokemon in PMU, but it is never going to happen. Peroid. Besides being a coding nightmare for the staff who’s actually in charge of creating the code to run the game (on their freetime without pay I should add), it is mainly an issue that it becomes a game balancing nightmare, especially when creating dungeons and generating appropriately powered NPCs for said dungeons. This is especially the case when determining what is early game, mid game, and end game content.

[shadowlucario50]

@Grimsley

Yeah I understand your argument with the staff thing. Something would have to be done about that, good point.

Thank you very much.

@Grimsley

Yet, I don’t understand what you mean by “loophole”… Sure you could trade rare poke with common poke, but how is that any different from trading common poke with common poke, or rare poke with rare poke? It’s like items. It’s not the fact of receiving something higher or skipping out on work. It’s the fact that it’s not wrong to trade Pokemon with a friend, because you simply want to.

I guess I was a bit one-sided there with the trading of rare and common Pokémon, but I’ll define the loophole I speak of. I pointed towards What12345’s description: “[T]here will be no drive or motivation for players to get Pokemon they want since all they have to do is buy it.” That would be the loophole. Someone could easily request to get a Pokémon and buy it without the effort of going through that particular dungeon to obtain it themselves. Imagine if a player went through Inferno Volcano and obtained a lot of starters in the dungeon. This player then goes out to sell them out to other players. But what about those players that cannot obtain these Pokémon?

@Grimsley

If you want to talk about how it promotes “laziness” let’s talk about laziness from both sides. The side you present is one-sided, saying it will only promote laziness. What about the other side? What about the side that says after countless efforts of trying to get this near-impossible pokemon to recruit, the player just doesn’t want to train it anymore after they do recruit it? I mean, there’s not just one outcome of trying hard.

While that may be true that the other side may work hard in getting a Pokémon and then not training it, just giving it away to another player would be kinda counter-productive. I mean, they worked hard to get something and they’re just willing to let it go even though they put in a lot of time for it?

@Grimsley

Now, building off of your point of view, we would just come into an argument of human morals. And we could talk about that if you want, but I think there needs to be arguments that aren’t based off this idea of human morality. :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@: :@~@:

With a broken Pokémon Trading System, it comes down to “is there a system that wouldn’t need staff supervision?” After all, Pokémon aren’t just items to trade away. You can’t drop Pokémon like you can drop items. That’s why there’s a “/trade” command for items and not for Pokémon. Also, items have a simple purpose like Oran Berries heal 100 HP or Warp Seed warps you to a different part of the floor. Pokémon, on the other hand have many uncertain movesets and have different strategies under their belt. You never know what you’ll get. As I stated, you could easily get an HM Slave or a Level 100 Pokémon that can allow you to beat most of the dungeons.

Other players may give subjective moral ideals to Pokémon like “Pokémon join your team and like you”. But me, I think of it more as “you’re giving away something that can break gameplay”. Items have a set use. Pokémon have many different uses.

I am not even going to talk about human moralities with this suggestion. Everyone else has already given their statements of why it’s morally wrong. I, instead, focus on the mechanics of the game and the wrong gameplay-wise.

[Grimsley]

Yeah I understand all of your down-to-earth ideas, so I’m gonna pitch out an idea, tell me what you 3, and other people, think of it o;.

Okay, so how about that there are only certain trade-able Pokemon. When saying this, I am referring to specific pokemon, not general species.

For instance, you could only trade pokemon that have a star next to their name in the chimeco inventory-thing. This would make trade-able pokemon very rare, and for the most part, would only be obtainable through random gameplay, so you couldn’t go and hunt one out.

This would take away the aspect of “promoting laziness” and “taking away from the game’s characteristics”. (I put those in quotes because I don’t know how to do the thing where i type a response to each point you guys said :no: .

I think the idea works OxO. Although it doesn’t solve every problem about trading, does it not solve one of the biggest problems of trading, laziness?

If you respond, please make sure you’re answering that last question. (Meaning, I know it doesn’t solve every problem, but is it atleast a good idea apertaining to laziness, or no).
:o.ol: :o.or: :o.ol: :o.or: :o.ol: :o.or: :x.x: :x.x: :x.x: :>:D: :>:D: :>:D: :>:D: :>:D: :?:

[anon37025557]

The biggest problem to trading in PMU appears to be PMU itself, not the laziness of players. PMU is based off of the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series which doesn’t have trading. As Shadowlucario has said, it is unnatural to be able to trade within a PMD game (or a game based off of it).

[ArtMax]

You guys are right that trading Pokemon will never be in PMU, but for the wrong reasons. It is not because it’s based on PMD - it is based both on PMD and the main series. However, trading Pokemon in PMU would be a gamebreaker because of the possibility of trading strong/able Pokemon to players which haven’t reached that point in-game.

@Grimsley

Okay, so how about that there are only certain trade-able Pokemon. When saying this, I am referring to specific pokemon, not general species.

For instance, you could only trade pokemon that have a star next to their name in the chimeco inventory-thing. This would make trade-able pokemon very rare, and for the most part, would only be obtainable through random gameplay, so you couldn’t go and hunt one out.

This would take away the aspect of “promoting laziness” and “taking away from the game’s characteristics”. (I put those in quotes because I don’t know how to do the thing where i type a response to each point you guys said :no: .

I think the idea works OxO. Although it doesn’t solve every problem about trading, does it not solve one of the biggest problems of trading, laziness?

No. It just shrinks the pool of players’ available Pokemon for trading. Players can still give newbies strong Pokemon they randomly recruit, or even train (or teach field moves), when they see it has a star. Even in the case of rare species, the player might just wait for somebody who has it. It just wouldn’t solve anything.

[Grimsley]

Well obviously you wouldn’t be able to trade pokemon that have learned HM’s. Duhh, do you not play pokemon.

But you’re saying “giving” when it is in fact not giving, it is trading. You can’t just give a poke, you’d have to trade it for another poke that has a star next to it.

Then, just put a level bar on the trade. For example within 5 levels. Maybe even set a number of trades a player can make. Maybe a player can make only one trade.
OR
We can run with this same star idea, that a pokemon can only be traded if it has a star and is within 5 levels of the other pokemon being traded, however, the trade ITSELF can only take place with the use of a certain item. And that item could be relatively rare, making it impossible for someone to infinitely trade.
What about that idea o; :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :?: :?: :?: :?:

[ArtMax]

@Grimsley

Well obviously you wouldn’t be able to trade pokemon that have learned HM’s. Duhh, do you not play pokemon.

It’s been always possible to trade Pokemon with HM moves, just not transferring them to the next generation.

@Grimsley

But you’re saying “giving” when it is in fact not giving, it is trading. You can’t just give a poke, you’d have to trade it for another poke that has a star next to it.

Which may be a Krabby that you got from the coast.

@Grimsley

Then, just put a level bar on the trade. For example within 5 levels. Maybe even set a number of trades a player can make. Maybe a player can make only one trade.

Still possible to do unholy things. Limiting the amount of trades kinda makes the feature lose a lot of value.

@Grimsley

OR
We can run with this same star idea, that a pokemon can only be traded if it has a star and is within 5 levels of the other pokemon being traded, however, the trade ITSELF can only take place with the use of a certain item. And that item could be relatively rare, making it impossible for someone to infinitely trade.
What about that idea o;

Would limit it to players that have better resources, which isn’t exactly desirable. Also not entirely impossible to bypass.

[shadowlucario50]

Alright, even though I still reject this idea, I suppose I can give a small idea of how the restrictions could be in play.

You know the maingames having badges that allow you to receive stronger Pokémon that will obey your orders if you have the proper badge. But if you don’t have the required badge, then they would less likely to obey your commands.

We could easily implement that with Ranks. The higher the rank, the higher leveled Pokémon you could trade away. On Normal Mode, you can only trade away Pokémon Level 5 and under, Bronze allows you to trade Level 10 Pokémon, Silver at Level 20, Gold at Level 30, etc. It would motivate people to get on more missions and get to higher ranks.

I did make a link concerning that at a certain rank wouldn’t be helpful, but I really didn’t use much information to back it up. It seems like it may be a good restriction, but… Then there’s the problems with movesets and the like (HM Slaves, Pokémon given high-powered moves). And making the movesets change during the trading process would just cause more trouble if they want to trade their Pokémon then want it back.

Just gonna throw something for the other side since everyone’s against it. :/ Even though it’s never going to be implemented, it’s still fun to argue about.

[Grimsley]

Artmax your arguments aren’t really being backed up by anything. It sounds like you’re just arguing human evils, which will always exist.

And yeah, good point whoever posted above this post! Just restrictions and maintenance are needed to incorporate this idea. You say that this certain item restriction takes away the desirable attributes of trading yet the whole point is to keep it under control and SPECIAL. That’s what I’m arguing. That trading should be made possible with the appropriate regulations. It would still be desirable, but more of just a fun aspect than an actual game-play aspect.

In summary, all the arguments concerning abusing the trading process can easily be implemented and fixed. Now it’s just getting over this whole PETA WILL DESTROY POKEMON argument, where you are examining the morals of Pokemon. And if you argue the morals of it, you really should just not play the game then if it makes you uncomfortable, because it is really causing no harm at all.

That’s all darling, I’m a star. :la: :la: :la: :la: :la: :la: :!!: :!!: :!!: :!: :!!:

[anon37025557]

I’ll say it again,

PMU is a game based off of PMD. PMD did not have trading so PMU will not have trading. Trainer games have trading; PMU is not a trainer game so therefore will not have trading.

And that is why trading will not be implemented.

[CorndogQuannie]

Trades Pokemon with What when Staff aren’t online
Gives him level 90 Zard for his level 3 Weedle
Swag
Consider this carefully

To add on, if trading Pokemon was possible, it’d be like dragging in TC

Instead of going to a dungeon and recruiting it, a person would just trade for the Pokemon they wanted and give some “worthless” Pokemon in return, and considering PMU, I’m pretty sure that one will not simply fix any flaws with this

[shadowlucario50]

@Grimsley

Artmax your arguments aren’t really being backed up by anything. It sounds like you’re just arguing human evils, which will always exist.

Same could be said about yourself, except for thinking about all the human goods. There should be a balance between the two. But, at the moment, negative is leaning over the positive. Nobody really has been giving any support to this idea besides yourself. And while you’ve been defending yourself, you haven’t really presented a good enough argument for your side. It would just do more harm than good.

@Grimsley

And yeah, good point whoever posted above this post! Just restrictions and maintenance are needed to incorporate this idea. You say that this certain item restriction takes away the desirable attributes of trading yet the whole point is to keep it under control and SPECIAL. That’s what I’m arguing. That trading should be made possible with the appropriate regulations. It would still be desirable, but more of just a fun aspect than an actual game-play aspect.

Now you’re just putting words into my mouth. I never said “restrictions and maintenance are needed to incorporate this idea”. And even if that’s true, the problem is that you cannot have constant surveillance over all the trades. Also, there’s no balance to the restrictions of this trading thing. It would either make it too much of a hassle if too many restrictions are place, as well as if no restrictions are placed.

@Grimsley

In summary, all the arguments concerning abusing the trading process can easily be implemented and fixed. Now it’s just getting over this whole PETA WILL DESTROY POKEMON argument, where you are examining the morals of Pokemon. And if you argue the morals of it, you really should just not play the game then if it makes you uncomfortable, because it is really causing no harm at all.

You’re still aren’t thinking of the consequences of this. It would be game-breaking. No matter how many restrictions you put, there still wouldn’t be enough to cover all bases of how you could receive a broken Pokémon. Let me repeat something that has been said: “There will be no drive or motivation for players to get Pokemon they want since all they have to do is buy it.” There’s no easy fix to this. You can continue slamming against the “moral” side, but on the technical side, you still haven’t given a fair enough way to make this not broken.

Now, I won’t doubt people would use this trading feature for good, but there have been plenty of reasons why it would be bad as well. Just look at the GTS, for example. Bidoof for Arceus. Magikarp for Meloetta. Snorunt for Regice. People will make the most extreme requests for something that would be problematic. Heck, just random passerbys try to trade for something amazing. There would be more harm than good since not everyone on PMU are mature enough to make fair trades.

… Of course, there is always a way, I assume. While I still do not approve of trading Pokémon in a PMD Fan Game, I still have made a point of Ranks acting like badges. And if moves are randomized and items are not able to be traded, then it may fix most of the technical problems. I given that to your argument. Now, about your “morals” argument…

Let’s look at it this way. Imagine that you’re in a job for a friend, but get an offer somewhere else that may or may not be better. The boss could either let him go into this new field or keep him in his job. Now, let’s look at trading. Imagine if a Pokémon joins your team because they admire you, but they start to tire working for you. They may want something fresh and new. So what if they swap with someone else that has that same idea?

Basically, you cannot trade away a Pokémon you just recruited or received recently. You must have it in your team for 7 days before you trade it away. That way, the abuse of just recruiting a random Caterpie to trade for another Pokémon won’t be abused.

But, like I said before, I don’t agree with trading Pokémon in PMU. But if no one is going to give something else for the other side, I might as well give something. :/

[ArtMax]

@Grimsley

Artmax your arguments aren’t really being backed up by anything. It sounds like you’re just arguing human evils, which will always exist.

How is that so? I think I’ve explained my points pretty well. So did a lot of other people. I think you just don’t want to accept the truth: that feature would be broken. If you really feel like my arguments aren’t backed up, bring up specific arguments.

@Grimsley

And yeah, good point whoever posted above this post! Just restrictions and maintenance are needed to incorporate this idea. You say that this certain item restriction takes away the desirable attributes of trading yet the whole point is to keep it under control and SPECIAL. That’s what I’m arguing. That trading should be made possible with the appropriate regulations. It would still be desirable, but more of just a fun aspect than an actual game-play aspect.

The problem is, it would be hard to balance out without making excessive restrictions. You say that it should be fun, yet you suggest all kinds of annoying restrictions, like only certain random Pokemon being tradeable or using a rare item.

@Grimsley

In summary, all the arguments concerning abusing the trading process can easily be implemented and fixed. Now it’s just getting over this whole PETA WILL DESTROY POKEMON argument, where you are examining the morals of Pokemon. And if you argue the morals of it, you really should just not play the game then if it makes you uncomfortable, because it is really causing no harm at all.

People have barely brought that up, yet you seem to cling to that the most…
But anyway, your point of view is wrong. After all, you ARE a Pokemon. Pokemon are all equal to you (sort of). So it’s not about the main series’ problems with morals, it’s about you trading away equals to you. Those which joined you because they respect you.

@what12345

I’ll say it again,

PMU is a game based off of PMD. PMD did not have trading so PMU will not have trading. Trainer games have trading; PMU is not a trainer game so therefore will not have trading.

And that is why trading will not be implemented.

I’ll say it again, PMU is based on both the main series and PMD. That’s what Sprinko said and that’s what can be clearly seen in many mechanics.

@shadowlucario50

Basically, you cannot trade away a Pokémon you just recruited or received recently. You must have it in your team for 7 days before you trade it away. That way, the abuse of just recruiting a random Caterpie to trade for another Pokémon won’t be abused.

That wouldn’t prove anything, it’s only a matter of waiting 7 days.