Pvp Bets.

[Boora]

Uhm, so i was thinking, what if we had an option to pvp with other players but for money ?
for example i'l send "x" a battle invite and it'll say that the winner gets 1m from the loser
now before people get butthurt and rage, it can be only an option you dont have to bet if you dont want too, same goes if you battle "top" players, dont bet unless you think you can win

i'm guessing the coding of this is impossible at the moment anyway, just thought i'd throw it outthere though,

 

[hamzasrk]

i already propuse that as an unofficial event but the GM locked it because they don't want to promote gambling in the game
u can check this http://forum.pokemon-world-online.net/showthread.php?pid=261845#pid261845

 

[Liakos21]

To be this idea acceptable needs to fix the afkers in game

 

[HeavyPetter]

Isn't it a little bit strange that time is being spent on preventing "Gambling in the game"? First off: To be consistent one should then also ban all official and unofficial events which have an entrance fee and a prize. Second: Is it even a problem at all? It's not gambling for real money, and even in the handheld games you would loose a portion of your money if you lost a battle and gain some if you won. There are way more dangerous elements in this game when it comes to corrupting kids, especially as has been pointed out before, that one can become the master of the game simply by throwing ones allowance at it.

 

[Nikola]

I can't see anything wrong if only opponents are involved. Making other people to bet on a battle of previously known opponents would be hard to control without 3rd person collecting the bets and being trustworthy without any attempts of a bribery. I used to battle for an tempting amount in the past and we always had fun, without allowing other people to bet of course. I remember talking with knuckles and in a middle of convo we were like "lets do best of 3 for an XXmils"? Sure why not? Really can't see anything bad if only 2 people are involved. If one side decide not to pay after fight is over you can't do anything about it since no one ever supported something like that. God knows what future update and policy might bring, for now I wouldn't suggest anything like that due to possible issues that might arise. Imagine someone starts crying "GM halp I lost all of my money in a battle with a person X". But then again...If "server" is the one who is collecting the money via NPC and will give it to a winner somehow...that would be nice ;D Today NPC is going to collect the money, opponents will speak with a NPC before battle starts and who wins can claim it. But meh...who knows what future might bring.

 

[CheckeredZebra]

I say absolutely not for several huge reasons.

1) There's the issue of DCing when somebody is about to lose. That would probably be THE fatal flaw; it would be impossible for betting to work automatically because of it. Automatically counting DCs as a forfeit is an absolutely stupid concept as well, because I see respectful battlers accidentally DC all the time. And if the server crashes, how would it handle both players DCing? That sounds like a potential money duping/money erasing glitch to me :L And even then, auto forfeits on DC would only make stalling hugely rampant, because people would start a battle and then just sit there, trying to force their opponent to forfeit. Speaking of which...

2) Stalling would ALWAYS be a problem regardless of the DC situation until we can get anti-stall features. It's an annoyance now, and there aren't even real rewards at stake currently. (At least, not between battlers.)

3) Another large problem with this is that people could lose on purpose to transfer money in an untraceable way, which is the biggest issue. Before a GM could even look at betbattle logs, an adm/dev would have to program that feature in for them.

3a) And then, not only would GMs have to watch for botting signs, IPs, and trades, they'd have to look at something as benign as bet battles. Which could still be covered up easier than trades, because while trades rarely involve giving a lot of money for nothing back, that's EXACTLY what bet battles would involve. Maybe somebody just legitimately bet battles a lot? Or just decided to take a large risk one day? The money could go everywhere, then slowly accumulate on other accounts through trading and battling, even guild transfers.

4) You'd also have to limit betbattling with badges/gametime unless you like people "trading" before they can actually legitimately trade.

So...Suddenly, a simple feature for thrill-seeking players becomes a huge annoyance (constant DCers) at best and a security risk at worst.

Isn't it a little bit strange that time is being spent on preventing "Gambling in the game"?

While I have no comment on your other points (haven't found anything that strikes me as wrong with them at the moment), I will say that it takes way less time to say "no" than to script an entire feature into the game's server.

 

[The-Predator]

Yeah I can see te gambling! We cannot bet our virtual pokemoney/pokemon earned by years of gameplay but u can still get pokemoney/pokemon (donators) in 1-2 weeks that other trainers (non-donators) cannot in 1-2 years of pure gameplay! (hmm) that makes sense

 

[Orean]

Just going to comment on one counter-argument for now, as it seems some are blurring the notions that separate gambling, and first-hand skill-based competitions such as the competition that is proposed here (I don't know a simplified term for it off-hand): one of the elements that constitutes gambling is relying on sheer luck, for an indeterminate outcome—an outcome that the gambler would have no influence over, as it's just a self-determinate game of chance. A competition that boils down to a skill-based activity in this, especially one that is not prefaced with compulsory wagering, gives the user an influence over the outcome, and it does not implore the habit of real gambling.

Furthermore, regardless of what is at stake, we believe that true gambling (in other cases) is a deleterious habit that should not be fostered here, given the audience that the game is meant to accommodate for. This may explain why the Park Raceway allowed the wagering of participant-invested bets, for bike/surf races), from what I read on its wiki page a while back (though it's closed now, for a different reason), whereas the gaming corner, wherein its activities in the handheld games involved relying on games of chances, have been branded as off-limits in that scheme.

Regardless of how I play semantics, however, the rest of the staff will also need to confer their stances, likely on a behind-the-scenes venue, to actually solidify any consensus which type of wagering activities are on-limits here. I just personally would like to see no ambivalence on this stance, whether it applies to in-game content (the Park Raceway, for when it was open), or player-hosted events; the stance will only have utmost clarity with consistency.

 

[Kitrina]

this could really turn corrupt though

 

[HitmonFonty]

I think it could be used in one section of a Battle Tower or similar if that ever ends up in PWO. I don't think it should ever be an option available in normal PvP however. As has already been stated it could be easily abused and another way to scam people. Presumably if you have to enter a tower and a specific area of that tower to battle for money you should well know what you're getting yourself into.

 

[VinceyZZ]

You should make a designated area in Pwo, especially made for this, like others have suggested: the battle tower.