Jump to content


Registered User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Haneroze's Achievements

Rookie Trainer

Rookie Trainer (2/12)



  1. Regarding the discussion in your screenshot, although it's true that we should ideally reward better for what requires more skills and effort, the comparison is a little off. The problem where the comparison fails is the "type of reward". That you work at McDonald or as a Lawyer, you still receive the same reward: money. You just receive a different quantity of it. If you want something, you'll be able to buy it regardless of what you work as, the only difference is that it will take significantly longer if your salary is lower, and you may have to make compromises to remain in your budget. In PRO, the reward set is however different between PvP and PvE. There are rewards that can only be claimed in PvE, and other rewards that can only be claimed in PvP. Yes, it should ideally be faster to get the common rewards from the PvP side since that requires more skills. But when it comes to exclusive items, it's no longer a question of "better rewards", it's a question of HAVING to do that. For example, if you want a Kyogre mount, but hate PvP... Well, you're kinda screwed because no amount of PvE can help you get that. And the opposite is true as well for PvE. It would be ridiculous to have a Lawyer start working at McDonald for the reason that he can only get a Playstation if he works there.
  2. Although I love objectives, and I like seeing more ways for non-ladder players to earn PvP coins, PvP quests are unfortunately risky features. There's essentially 3 problems. PvP is an environment where two players try their best to win over the other. Only one can win, and it's the one who has gathered the best team and made the best use of it during the match. A single bad decision can cost you the match, and so can a wrong team composition. So when a game introduces quests like "Win PvP with this" or "Achieve this during PvP"... These are quests that give you an handicap. Unless you are already using what's designated, you will have to change your play style for something you may be unfamiliar with or simply don't know how to use efficiently (for example, impatient players resonate a huge lot more with Hyper Offense teams than Stall teams). So if you come across a player of the same level, that handicap will be just enough to make you lose. And since the matching tries to give you players of the same level as much as possible... It means that your best option is to purposedly lose matches to reduce your ranking and get matched with weaker players. I've seen this done in many MMORPGs, and there's even one where this has become the norm for "farming" PvP, so if you play normally, you mostly end up meeting only people stronger than you or people that give up right away. That's the first problem. The second problem is regarding directly the "win" quests. Unlike the point above, you don't put any handicap, it's just the original objective of PvP. If you win regularly, it's not a problem... But when you're on a losing streak, this is where the daily Win quests become very frustrating. Losing becomes more frustrating as it means missing out on rewards, and the bigger the difference in rewards between a win and a loss, the bigger the frustration. In fact, I tried to do Randoms with the goal to place top 25, and it felt a lot less fun than when I played on Showdown without any care about ranking. Finally, there's the problem that getting a PvP-viable Pokemon is no trivial task. If you're asked to get a Garchomp and you don't have one ready to use, you'd need to go buy one (which is likely not worth it for the few points we'll gain) or spend time hunting a new one. Depending on how much time you can spend per week, you may be unable to find a good one and have to fight with one that has horrible stats. And that can be very discouraging. Ideally, time-based PvP quests should be more broad objectives. Objectives that are completed naturally by participating, or quests that can be completed without changing your team composition or play style so much that it becomes an handicap. For example: Complete x matches in a specific ladder. Right now, we only have OU and Randoms, but this could eventually have UU or whatever other side ladder available. Defeat at least x Pokemon for y matches. Basically, a softer "Win" quest as it still counts if you weren't too far from winning. Participate using x Pokemons of a specific type. There's very good chances that you are already using said type, and if you don't, you can pick whichever synergizes the best with your team. And if you prepare at least one Pokemon for each type, you don't get any surprise by having to suddenly go hunting. Defeat a Pokemon with x different Mega Evolutions. Since this is your ace, it should at least be able to do that. If we do quests that require you to use a specific Pokemon, we should probably do it like that: The Pokemon will always be one that is considered viable for one of the active ladders, and never an event-exclusive or legendary Pokemon. The quest lasts an infinite amount of time. However, twice a week, you can reroll the designated Pokemon. When the quest is completed, a new one can immediately be started, unless it has already been completed 5 times in the month. The reward decreases for every completion in a month. This gives a little bit more freedom, in case the player rolls a Pokemon that is too rare to obtain or that he hates using. Furthermore, the decrease in reward makes it still worth to complete just a couple times instead of trying to complete it as many times as possible, reducing the pressure of trying to capture a good one ASAP. There could also be more long-term quests, like winning x amount of times in total (and not within a specific amount of time frame). If you can slowly progress at your own rhythm, these Win quests aren't too frustrating when you're on a losing streak. So yeah, I would try to avoid quests that force the player to set themself an handicap in PvP, and focus more on quest objectives that the player can complete at his own rhythm, in his own way.
  3. I don't like the idea of server exclusives at all. The reason why Version exclusives exist is that Gamefreak wanted to encourage players to trade between each other, or just plain make players buy both versions. There are other things they implemented to encourage trading, such as starters, choice Pokemons (like Fossils) and trade-evolution Pokemons. And because breeding exists, you just need to get any single Pokemon of the specie to get started on creating your perfect Pokemon if you need to. However, here, this is a completely different situation. Trading is already a common activity between players, although in a different shape than in the original games. We still got trade evolutions, but we also got commerce type of trades, such as daycaring, selling and lending. Sure, server exclusives encourages another type of trading... But it comes with a huge bad point. If you want to trade server exclusives, someone HAS to do a server transfer. A server transfer means that you quit the current guild you're in, and enter a community for which you may not know anyone. Some players are totally fine with this, but for players who really don't want to leave their guild, even temporarily... Their only option is to wait for someone to show up and sell the Pokemon they need, with the very stats that you want since we have no breeding or alternative feature. And because they're exclusive, chances are they'll purposedly set a higher price, making it not worth it to buy. As a player, this is NOT a situation I want to be in. It's just frustration. As for the other possible reason of version exclusives, being making more money... Well, as far as I know, we still have a good enough income to pay for the servers, no? We have plenty of things to sell in the cash shop, many players buy coin capsules to resell them ingame for money, it's looking pretty healthy to me. And besides, if that's the only reason, you're just going to make the playerbase more angry and distrustful than it already is. There's other consequences to this feature, which is unrelated to reasons why you'd want this in... If we implement server exclusives, it will become more complicated to do new modifications to our server. Server merges means we have to get rid of the feature at the same time. Adding a new server means we need to split more exclusives. And finally, it makes the server choice more annoying for the players as well. Will the exclusives be displayed before you even select a server? If they're shown, it's kinda too much information when you're just starting out (and could also scare players away because they don't like that feature). If they're not shown, you're making an uninformed choice and may regret your choice of server. And regardless of these, if you're joining a group of friend, but they're on a server where your version exclusive does not spawn... That already takes a big hit at your motivation to even start the game. So please, don't implement this. There's too many bad consequences, and its only purposes are already fulfilled by other features. As for time differences... I don't really mind, server times are already completely out of sync with real time, and it doesn't change availability... Although it could encourage players to create alts for hunting in succession in both servers. Since we want to discourage alts, I don't think that would be a good feature. That said, if you do implement it, just make sure that you don't break time-based quests in doing so.
  4. First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to explain the system and provide us with some spawn data and other facts. Looking at your explanation and the data, it does confirm most of the theories I've had from my experience and observations. I did estimate that each tier is about 1.5 times rarer than the previous tier, and the testing data you've provided us proves this to be a good guideline... Except for Tier 1. I did feel that the difference between tier 1 and 2 was rather larger, although I did not expect that difference to be 4 times rarer, or at least up to. I also agree that words are more meaningful than numbers... Although I wouldn't say as much from the name tiers that were originally given for the 9 sub tiers. While numbers don't speak as much when you don't know where they start and where they end, it's easy to grasp the "order". But for words, we can't quite always grasp the order. We don't see words like "Meagre" often, and it would rather be hard to remember which one is the most common between "Scarce" and "Sparse". I imagine the difficulty to grasp the exact order and ranking of the rarity vocabulary is the reason we settled with just numbers. That said, the data does prove that my points still stand. But before, for the sake of my arguments, let me provide a fictional table, based on your Vulcan Forest data. I've created two new columns: one where I assume there are 3 tier 1 spawns, and another where I assume there are none. The idea behind the calculation is that by removing the 4548 spawns, or by adding more 4548 Tier 1 spawns without changing the amount of tier 2+ spawns, I can simulate how the weight distribution gets shifted. It might now be 100% accurate, but it should be close enough to the reality. Tier 1 The big thing to notice is that the amount of Tier 1 is far too important to bundle it into another category. I wasn't sure how much Tier 2 clogged the spawns, but with Tier 1 being 4 times more common than tier 2, it's definitely the main culprit of lowering the spawn rates of what's below. If there's no Tier 1, the spawn rate of Tier 8 can more than double! If there's 3 Tier 1, the spawn rate of Tier 8 can go lower than half! Meanwhile, if we compare Route 116 with Vulcan Path, we can see that Tier 2 is not making that much of a difference. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that we can tell which Pokemon are Tier 1 in an area. Without knowing that, there is simply no way that we can get an idea of which area is better than the others. Estimation Range The other thing to see is that tiers do have an estimation range rather restricted. From your data, Tier 8 stands between 0.94% and 1.28%. With my fictional table, going up to 3 Tier 1 in the area, it's between 0.45% and 0.96%, which is just like I said in my previous messages: the upper limit of the estimation is around twice that of the lower limit. Even if we include the situation where there's no tier 1, the upper limit reaches 5 times the lower limit, although we have to take into consideration that you might be taking more time to enter a battle anyway (As noticeable in areas with no tier 1 and 2). It is still definitely better than reducing to 3 categories. From your data, Common would become like 10% to 100%, Uncommon would become like 2% to 10%, and Rare would be 0.8% to 2%. If you include the 3 tier 1 column of my fictionnal table, you rather see that there's a rather big overlap, Common being ~5% to 100%, Uncommon being ~1% to ~10%, and Rare being 0.4% to 2%. It gets even worse if you include the column with no tier 1. So we definitely lose a lot of information, and we can't give an accurate estimation. Even if the displayed rarities were determined on the spawn chance rather than the tier, AKA no overlap in percentages, it would still result in a lot more vague information that is not reliable enough. With 5 rarity categories instead, we could have: - Abundant: 25% to 100% - Common: 10% to 25% - Uncommon: 4% to 10% - Rare: 1.5% to 4% - Very rare: 1.5% and under (lower limit estimated to 0.5%) We would still be losing information as the upper limit is more than double the lower limit, but we'd be at least somewhat close enough. However, there would still be another problem that rises. With the old tier system, we can give an "average" spawn chance for each tier, and tell how much it deviates according to the amount of tier 1 in the area. 3 tier 1? We deviate downwards. Only 1 tier 1? We deviate upwards. We may not know how much exactly we should deviate, but it would still land us close enough to the real spawn rate. But with a rarity category based on the spawn chance, we lose that information and we still don't know where exactly the chance actually is within the category. The difference is a bit like between trying to guess the result of the average of two dice throw, or trying to guess the result of a single die throw. In the former, the probability weight is heavier in the middle, so 3 and 4 are better guesses, while the probability weight is equal all around for a single die throw. The upper and lower limits are the same, but you're still more likely to be closer to the actual result with the two dice throw.
  5. That's a very good point! There's already a lot of factors that goes into the price of a Pokemon. Ability, Hidden Power, Nature, IVs, especially if it needs 31 Speed, usability in PvP, shiny/event form... But also how hard it is to hunt it. Even with every information being very clear, it's still very hard to be able to put a value on a Pokemon. Every sale is unique, you can't just look at previous sales and put the same price like with Coin Capsules. But now that the spawn tiers are vague, it's gonna be even harder to put the right price. If the seller has been hardcore hunting in an area, sure he could probably estimate the spawn rate of his sales, but for someone who just passed by and casually found a shiny or caught a rare-looking Pokemon with very good stats, he would have no idea of the actual spawn rate. And that's no better for a buyer who probably haven't even hunted the Pokemon in the first place. It's easier to misunderstand the real spawn rate of a Pokemon... And it's also easier for a seller to lie about it and try to sell for more than the real value of the Pokemon.
  6. These estimations are based on personal experience, and they have been in general pretty accurate. If you are just shutting down my arguments because I do not know the exact spawn rates, then please provide us with that information so that we stand on equal ground. Until then, an argument from a player's point of view will ALWAYS be based on estimation, because this is the most accurate information we can use. And it will ALWAYS remain the basis of a player's experience. And besides, that my personal estimations are accurate or not does not matter one bit for my argument. There's surely players who have been keeping better track of their spawns and can give better spawn estimations for each tiers. What the exact values are does not matter one bit, what matters is the logic behind the estimations. And you have yet to provide counter-arguments to prove that logic wrong.
  7. Please explain why you think it's more reliable and accurate. I've already explained, based on the information you and Walross have provided us, why it's objectively worse, that is: The new categories are STILL based on the old tier system. Common is Tier 1, 2 and 3, Uncommon is Tier 4, 5 and 6, and Rare is Tier 7, 8 and 9. We still have not moved away from the conception that having multiple Tier 1 spawns makes all the spawns behind get a lower spawn rate. We just don't know if the Common spawns are Tier 1 or 3 anymore, so it's even harder to tell which areas have their spawns clogged with Tier 1 Pokemons. The possible estimation range is A LOT larger. As I said, the new estimation for average time to spawn would be instant to 5 minutes for Common, 3 minutes to 25 minutes for Uncommon, and 15 to 80 minutes for Rare. However, just looking at the Rare tiers, 7 would be 15 to 30 minutes, 8 would be 25 to 50 minutes, and 9 would be 40 to 80 minutes. Before, the maximum estimation is only twice the minimum, but after, the estimation's maximum is more than 5 times the minimum. Even for a player that doesn't understand how spawn works, going for the average is still a better estimation than going with the new rarity categories. Even if the new categories took into consideration the spawns around and had no overlap in probabilities, it still would be too wide of an estimation with only 3 categories. You'd get instant-4m, 4m-20m, 20m-80m. It's still a maximum at least 4 times larger than the minimum. And how does making our perception even more vague improve this point? Before, we could at least get a very good estimate of the rate by looking at other spawns in the area and adjusting the average estimation of the spawn tier. So unless you casually just showed up in a random area where your target Pokemon spawns, you would never end up in the worst spot, you would at least arrive in one of the best spots. It's no longer the case anymore, since you can tell the difference between tier 1 which really clogged the spawn rates, and tier 2 and 3 which don't as much. Here's an example. You want to hunt a Farfetch'd, and you're looking at Route 38 during the Morning. Here's what you see: Pokemon Before After Magnemite 2 Common Raticate 3 Common Snubbull 3 Common Farfetchd 4 Uncommon Before, you see that there's actually no Tier 1, that's great! That means Farfetch'd would actually feel like closer to Tier 3. So a first estimation could probably be between 3 and 5 minutes per encounter. But after the change? There's 3 Common Pokemon before, you probably assume at least one Tier 1, and shrug it off as not being that good. It's probably around 12 minutes per spawn... But we're not too sure where in the category Farfetch'd stands, so the estimation gotta be somewhere between 6 and 18 minutes. See how we're going farther from the reality now? Whatever we try to estimate can actually be very far off the reality, because not only we cannot tell where in the vague category the target Pokemon stands, but we also can't tell how much the previous categories are clogging the spawn rates. Yes, at first glance, having categories name is more representative than numbers. But remember that category names are still very vague: In other Pokemon MMORPGs, Rare can mean you're not expected to see one before farming 24 hours. In the end, regardless of if we give a category name or a tier number, we still have to explain how much time you're expected to be hunting before finding one in average. The difference is that as an older player that have known tiers, I would rather give a tier as an answer, rather than a vague category. If someone asks me "How rare is Charmander?", my complete answer would be "It's Rare, but it was Tier 8 before, so unless nothing changed, it should take around 20-25 minutes to find one in average". See how I need to use both old and new vocabulary to try to be up to date, and to give the most accurate answer at the same time?
  8. We've debated a lot already, but I'll still post my opinion regarding the changes, especially since they're opinions mostly as a player, and thus that I expect many players to share as well. First of all, I personally don't have any issues regarding the tier changes. Sure, it effectively makes many Pokemons harder to hunt since they no longer have an exceptionally good single hunting spot, but times change and there's definitely certain Pokemons that need a change in rarity due to their changes in usefulness. In the end, one of the main reasons that kept me playing PRO is that every single Pokemon are realistic to obtain, you are never expected to waste days without even seeing the Pokemon once, and the dream of capturing every Pokemon is actually feasible. As long as this does not change, I will never mind the changes. What I personally don't like is the loss of information on the Reborn bot. I understand this change makes your job easier as it comes with more freedom to adjust the spawn odds without having to suffer the public opinion on every single change, but from the viewpoint of players, this is a strongly negative change that comes with no obvious positive point. I'll try to organize all the possible arguments I can find, both for and against the change. Overreliance on Reborn Data I'll put this in front since it will also get touched in other categories. One of the arguments that could be made for the change is that we've grown overreliant on this information being provided by Reborn. This is a similar argument to Staff View: Players were not meant to have this feature, but was still made available to use. While it was very useful, it did negatively impact the game to some point, as exploring was no longer exciting when you could see so far away. In the same line of thought, we do rely heavily on the data provided by Reborn when deciding where to go hunting, and have grown used to it. So there's actually two different player views that is born from this change: The view from a player who have been relying on Reborn, and the view from a newer player who never got to experience having that much accurate data. ... Unfortunately, the result is not going to be quite exactly the same as the Staff View removal. This is because Staff View did not provide new information, it just made it easier to play. For Reborn, we are losing information, but the old information remains available. New players will still get affected by the removal as old information will still continue to get exchanged. Knowing the odds Hunting for Pokemon is already a very heavily RNG activity, and we like to at least be able to estimate the odds. To me, this has always been extremely important whenever confrontated to a low-odd RNG mechanic. Poker? I always estimate the odds of landing on a specific hand before choosing which cards to discard. Drop rates? I always investigate to see how many attempts I need to drop it. If I can't tell, I might actually grow irritated because I'm not dropping the item, when in fact I might still not have made enough attempts to even reach the expected amount of tries before dropping. Being unable to drop an item, either because the odds are way too low or because I grew irritated from an assumed bad luck, has been the reason why I've quit the majority of MMORPGs. This is why I loved being able to see tiers in PRO. For any Pokemon I want to hunt, I could always estimate the average time required to hunt before I can encounter the Pokemon. Even for a beginner who don't know how spawn rates work, this is still a good information to be able to tell approximately how good a spawn is. To put it into examples, I can easily approximate Pokemons of a same tier to require approximately the same time to spawn. Tier 1 litterally shows up every other spawn, but Tier 3 shows up around every 10 spawns. Tier 7 requires approximately 20 minutes to spawn, but Tier 9 can take around an hour. This estimated time per spawn changes according to what's more common, but still remains accurate to a certain point: Tier 9 actually vary between 40 minutes and 80 minutes. That's good enough estimation for a beginner who just looks at the tier and not what's around. But what about now? We get only 3 visible tiers, where Common = instant - 5 minutes, Uncommon = 3-25 minutes, Rare = 15-80 minutes. This is extremely vague, and players might get confused why a Rare Pokemon isn't spawning even after 80 minutes. Another example. We have Vermilion's Surf, particularly during the Day, where Squirtle is tier 8, but there's only Tentacool and Tentacruel at Tier 2 and 3. This is great information, it means that Squirtle's spawn rate would actually feel tier 7! But now, you see two Common spawns in front, and you assume it's not too different from the other areas. This, in particular, is an enormous loss of information! Information discovery One of the "positive" points we could potentially see about the change is that this favorizes players exchanging information between each other. Instead of just asking Reborn, they would instead ask the information to other players, increasing exchanges between the community... But unfortunately, it's not that simple. There's four major problems to this. The first problem is that the community is not large enough, compared to how much information there is to gather. There's hundreds of Pokemons to hunt, but there's not enough players that spend enough time hunting to accurately get an idea about spawns. At best, they'll figure out spawn rates about the popular PvP Pokemons like Ferrothorn, but far too many Pokemon will remain without any information to be shared. Our playerbase is simply not large enough compared to how much data there is to gather. The second problem is that the RNG is far too unreliable to be able to make a good comparison between different areas. A player could ask where's the best place to hunt Larvitar, someone could suggest a place where 3 spawned super quickly... When in fact, he might actually have been at the worst possible place yet have gotten very lucky. None of the information obtained without hunting there for weeks is reliable enough. The third problem is that all spawn rates are subject to change at any time. People are much more likely to want to write information on a website knowing that this information is going to be accurate for a long time. When I wrote for the wiki, I wrote information on every single area in the game... Except Sevii Island, because it was announced that it would get reworked (it never did in the end). When a battle rework was announced, I lost all interest in continueing to work on the Move pages. So when you know that the odds in a single spawn area could entirely change due to a single modification, it really does not motivate players to spend so much time to figure out the spawn odds in an area. The final problem is specifically the existence of old information. Before this update, we knew the exact tier of every Pokemon on every area of the game. Unfortunately, this will remain the most "reliable" information for a looooong time, even though it might get outdated due to future spawn odd changes. So unfortunately, if the change remains as if, I doubt we will ever be able to figure out information more reliable than the pre-change information, for the majority of the Pokemons. Misleading One of the reasons you mentionned is that the old tier system is misleading. A common example would be certain sea routes where there's no Tier 1 and 2, so that wild encounters are not as frequent and annoying while traversing the route. This makes the Pokemons in that route actually feel one or two tiers more common, hence why it's misleading. Unfortunately, since this change is still based on the original tier system, it doesn't really fix the problem that it's misleading. A route with a Tier 3 Pokemon, tier 4 Pokemon and tier 7 Pokemon? You'll see one Common, one Uncommon and one Rare... But in reality, it would rather feel like two Common and one Uncommon. In fact, it might be even more misleading since a route with a lot of tier 3 Pokemons would appear to have a lot more annoying spawns than it really has! Exploration The probably most positive point that, I believe, is the main goal of this change, is that players would be more likely to try out new hunting grounds, rather than just look at the spawn and go directly at whichever hunting spot seems the best. We might indeed see players being spread around more hunting spots. Knowing that tiers for each Pokemon have been made constant, we might also be seeing hunters that aim for grounds specifically because multiple rare Pokemons spawn there, rather than just because their main target has the highest spawn rate in this area. However, many players are lazy. Without the ability to estimate how good each area is, players might just look up the spawn locations and go to the nearest spawn area, which could also potentially be the worst one due to a high density of tier 1 spawns. I don't think many players are ready to actually try out multiple areas, especially given how unreliable RNG is. Term Discrepancy Right now, "rarity tiers" is a word in the vocabulary of PRO. When a player joins and asks how rare, say, Charmander is, many people will reply Tier 8. After the change, some people will say Rare, while others will continue saying Tier 8, because that's really the more accurate and representative information. This could lead to confusion for new players who might not understand what's this about tiers when nothing gives that information anymore. If they search online, they'll also see that the most "recent" information (Reborn) gives a vague term in "Rare", but also see the Wiki or other guides say "Tier 8". They might conclude that the spawn system have been completely overhauled at some point, when in fact, all that happened is information being made more vague. Transparency This is very important for many people. Right now, spawns work with tiers, and the exact odds change according to what's around. For a player, this means that as long as no number changes, nothing changed. But that won't be the case anymore. I don't know how you plan to deal with this, but say, starters pass from tier 8 to 9 at some point. That means passing from "Rare" to "Rare", AKA no visible change. Would you announce that they've been made more rare, or leave it unannounced? Players might fear the latter, and they might grow paranoiac that a Pokemon has secretly been made more rare because they're on an unlucky hunt. In summary, this is the arguments in favor and against the change that I've aknowledged, from a player experience point of view: In favor: - Better spawn balance due to more freedom. - Players are over-relying on Reborn data. - Players will try new hunting spots. Against: - Not being able to estimate the spawn rate can lead to a more negative experience. - Information on player experience is too unreliable. - Older data will remain the most reliable information for a long time. - Clash of "old" and "new" vocabulary for tiers. - The data still remains misleading, if not even more. - Transparency problems may happen. Of course, I may have missed other arguments... But from what I can think of, the arguments against the change heavily outweight those for the change... And a good part of it is due to the fact that this older information will continue to exist and remain the more reliable information for many years to come, even if it's now off by a tier. A lot of the negative points wouldn't have meant anything if the tiers were hidden from the beginning. Although I would definitely prefer to have the change undone, if we were to keep it, this is what I would change: - Rarities should take into consideration what is in the same area, rather than the original tier. In other words, even if a Pokemon is the same tier everywhere, it could still appear one rarity higher on a route filled with Tier 1 Pokemons, or one rarity lower when on a route with no tier 1 Pokemon. - Given that this can change with the time of the day, the rarity could be calculated for each time of the day (A Pokemon could be Rare/Very Rare/Unavailable for Morning/Day/Night) - There should be 5 different rarities, so that the range of our estimation isn't that large.
  9. Since I haven't worked on the quest, I'm going to give my opinion as a player. And honestly, I'm very disappointed in the quest. I already knew that beforehand, but right from the trailer, we knew the quest was supposed to be inspired from the Zelda serie. However, the quest itself failed to deliver on this inspiration. I heard we would have dungeons, but what we got was just huge mazes. Zelda mazes are typically puzzles. Normally, a typical Zelda dungeon, you enter a dungeon, you figure out how to progress through rooms with what you got, you get a new item which allows you to access new rooms, you find a map, a compass, keys, eventually the boss key, all while solving puzzles to be able to progress until you reach the boss and defeat it. We had none of that. It was just large mazes. I quickly followed the right hand rule to avoid getting lost, found random stuff we needed to find, then found the boss. There was no puzzle, and it didn't take very long before I got the urge to search for a map of the area. The maps were also unnecessarily huge. If you are to make huge maps, you need to fill it with stuff to do. Side quests, items to find, fluff NPCs, just, anything to reward exploration besides the main quest! But there was nothing. Just dead ends. This problem of huge maps is further amplified by the Mountain boss. It didn't happen for the Forest boss, but for the Mountain boss, if you lose, you get sent back to the Pokemon Center. And then have to walk aaaaaaaall the way back through the huge maps and mazes. I'm normally very patient and never use repels, but I've lost it, and cracked open a bunch of the repels that were laying in my inventory. The bosses were rather hard, specially since you couldn't use items. For a legendary quest, that is fine, you don't want to give legendary Pokemon for free. But as an event quest, it just doesn't work. Events are supposed to be available for all players, but this is a huge barrier for the players that haven't had the time to optimize a boss team. The trainers on the way were also made on the hard side. Every battle, I would lose around half my team, and find it better to use an Escape Rope to return to the Pokemon Center, rather that use revives and potions to heal my team. I was honestly hoping to see an healing point somewhere so I wouldn't have to go through the hugetastic map again, but I was disappointed to find none. Also, we're used to completely ignore the Pokemon roaming the routes. In the Wasteland, the first thing I did was to talk to, I believe, the Garchomp, but just out of curiosity, nothing happened, and I moved on. I triggered the cutscene with Keldeo, and then moved on, trying to find my way. Only when I finally reached the end, did I learn I actually had to go back and talk to the roaming Pokemon, even the one I already spoke to before. I was annoyed since I was already getting lost in the huge map. I've also seen from a guide that the reward from the present in Matsuki would have worse rewards if you had not completed the quest. This is an extremely bad design, as it means you get penalized for exploring before doing the main quest. Normally, you rather want to reward players that explore. If you penalize them instead, they'll just want to follow guides in order to not get penalized. Finally, staying away from the gameplay elements, but rather into the story... I honestly didn't really like a few of the elements. I've never liked self-inserts inside story, like Chappy in Johto (They're fine as side NPCs). And seeing the hero being Niko (as in our Admin, Red), it just doesn't work for me. There were also a couple dialogs that I didn't like. The two main examples I remember were: - After defeating a Tyranitar, it said it returned to Mt. Silver. But how? How did the Tyranitar even get on Matsuki island, and why did it go there? I remember that something attracted Pokemon, but if it even attracted a Tyranitar from a completely different region, then why don't we have a huge swarm over there? - At one point, my character said she shouldn't have eaten perished Oran Berries. I know you were trying to be funny with that line, but personally, it instantly breaks the immersion, as I see my character to be someone that's very careful, and wouldn't have eaten something perished. This is why all games that allow you to customize your own character makes you either completely quiet, or only talk via choice dialogs. Regarding that last point, that's also going against the Zelda reference, since Link never really speaks. This is all of the feedback from me. It simply didn't live up to the hype you tried to rise from the trailer, in my opinion, and I'm already hoping for a rework of the quest.
  10. I don't think the situation will change much at all in 2-3 generations from now? In general, illegal movesets are caused by only a few things: -Having a regular ability with a move only learnable in generation 1 -Learning both a newer gen Egg Move and an older gen TM/Move Tutor move. -Having Hidden Ability and learning a move from before gen 5. In other words, it's mostly changes from the past that causes illegal movesets. In the future, they add a new move as level-up, TM or Move Tutor, it's going to work fine with any of the previously legal movesets, since all you need is to import said moveset and then add the move you want. Unless they decide to make a game unable to import from older generations, or make big changes to the stats of Pokemons, those cases will never be a problem. Only Egg moves create a problem, since the Pokemon needs to be created in the newer game, and thus can't benefit from moves only available in a previous generation. But again, same thing as before, if it ends up being too powerful, we just ban. There shouldn't be too many bad cases. The other possible problem would be with new mechanics. We will get Dynamaxing, which is certain to end up proving itself more useful with certain Pokemons than certain others. Those are definitely more likely to break the meta. Will those new mechanics cause certain illegal movesets to become too powerful? Maybe, maybe not, but a case-by-case ban still sounds more fitting. I'd be more worried about how we try to fit Dynamaxing along with Mega Evolution and Z-crystals, since they apparently won't make a return. And same with gen 9 and 10, we just don't know what new mechanics will change the game, and it's best to make a decision when we reach that point, rather than make decisions now in fear of what might not happen at all.
  11. I don't feel every combination that isn't possible in the original games should be banned. Gamefreak make games where each of them is supposed to feel unique. They implement new stuff each generation, but some other stuff, particularly TMs and Move Tutors, don't make it back. They are not necessarily choices for balance, but rather choices because of limitations. As thus, Showdown bans these not because they're broken, but because they want to simulate the experience of specific generations. On the other hand, we're an MMORPG that aims to make everything available. We have TMs and Tutors that were only available in old generations, available to use right here in a 7th Generation environment. So why should we pretend that a specific Pokemon should be unable to learn something? If it's broken, then sure we should ban it, but if that combination ends up only being a niche, why should we ban it? Elemental gems are not available in Gen 7, because they were replaced by Z-crystals. Should we ban Elemental gems then? If yes, then why are we even making them available to obtain? The only situation a gem is better than a Z-crystal is for Acrobatics, and that's not really broken. Gen 8 will be unable to bring back all Pokemons. Although the choice of which Pokemon to keep was done with the apparent consideration of a better balanced PvP environment, the choice itself of not keeping the Pokemon in the files was made due to limitations that we don't have. Should we then ban half of the Pokemon when we upgrade to gen 8? That would be ridiculous, and ruin the MMORPG experience. So yeah, since we're not trying to imitate the original games to the letter, it makes more sense to allow everything, and only ban what proves to be broken. That, actually, shouldn't be possible even here. Rotom was designed to only be able to use the elemental move that matches its current form: when it loses its form, it also forgets that move. It's definitely something that shouldn't be allowed, and the NPC that changes Rotom's form should definitely make Rotom unable to bring other form moves eventually.
  12. It's not just a video game... It's THE video game! (っ'ヮ'c)
  13. Uuuh, I have to fix you, but... In Silver at least, Coin Capsules are worth 250-300k, making it 50-60k for 1 USD. Also, the first 4 regions are all based on Japan regions.
  14. I disagree! Japanese Pokemon has always used the Yen sign (円, which is the Kanji version of ¥) in the japanese version of all generation pokemons. However in oversea versions, they don't want to use the yen sign, so they created the Pokedollar instead. This makes sense because of the following two reasons: -Prices for items make sense. A Pokeball is worth 1.76 USD, an Ultra ball is worth 10.57 USD, a Full Restore is worth 26.43 USD, etc. That shows how expensive it is to actually purchase tons of items, unless you're a main protagonist that wins every battle and accumulates victory money. -If you compare ¥ to the Pokedollar sign, you'll notice it's the same thing, except that Y has been replaced by P. That's right, they're both just a letter with two bars in the lower half! Now, PRO's world is a bit special. If you follow that logic, the items are worth the same price, but the subway is worth 2'643 USD for a month. A Coin Capsule, which should be worth between 2'202 and 2'643 USD, is actually obtained only for 5 USD. What is going on in there, you ask? Let me explain... First, the value of goods and services are all over the place. In this world, everyone dreams to be a Pokemon Trainer, and so everyone is travelling all over the place. This means that finding materials for building goods is easy, but there is a huge lack of personel for services. Thus, the Offer and Demand have a very good balance for pokeballs and potions, but when it comes to services like the Subway, the Offer is unfortunately extremely low, and thus they have to sky-rocket the prices. Second, the value of the Yen, or Pokedollar, has unfortunately inflated. As wild pokemons magically print Pokedollars, the value of the Pokedollar has dropped. These USD equivalents I've given? Actually, they're worth less in USD, and that means Pokeballs are actually as pricey as getting a bubble gum from one of those bubble gum machines. This is actually the second reason why services are expensive: The Pokemon government has reached to the subway manager and various other companies, and they have concluded an agreement to raise even further their prices and give back a percentage of it to the government so that they can limit the inflation as much as possible. Third, Coin Capsules are not goods recognized by the government. They're goods that came from the black market, for which their production is actually very cheap, only 5 USD worth of material, but sold at extremely high prices. Of course, the government knows about it, but they have decided that leaving it like that is a more healthy choice for the sake of preventing inflation: Money that gathers into the possession of one person tends to be money that does not circulate anymore in the economy. This allows to keep the normal trainer's wealth to reasonable amounts. And there you have it! The Pokedollar is actually an inflated Yen!
  15. Hello, The latest major update brought a lot of changes. And amongst them, there's one of the changes I'd like to talk about. Now, at the end of every message in-battle, you hear a UI sound. However, I find this rather annoying, especially when I want to hunt while watching a youtube video or something. This makes me want to disable Sound Effects altogether, but that means I can no longer hear the cry of the Pokemons, greatly increasing the chances that I accidentaly run away from the pokemon I want. Note that in normal game design, playing a UI sound during a message only happens when you press a button to move to the next message. This means that messages that automatically move to the next one do not play a UI sound. This is done so that the player understands that his or her button press did something, and it is the same design in the original Pokemon Games. However right now in PRO, it plays whenever a message has been fully displayed, even if it automatically moves to the next message. While that's sortof okay for normal NPC messages, it feels very unnatural for in-battle messages, and it gets annoying quickly. Could it be possible to revert it back to how it was before, or give us the option to disable that sound?
  • Create New...