Qeight

In my average calculation I used 100 IVs - but I can gladly use the 96 it would be based on ((31+1)/2)*6=96. There are obviously difference in between certain maps based on rarity, some maps will be better. I will take the better maps and take their average case scenario for rares per hour. In this case the lower end would be 9, the higher end would be 12. So 10.5 on average. The encounters used are 300 per hour, you could do 6 per minute-so 360 per hour but to give some error/catching time). 10,5/rares per h * 96/average IV =1008/ average IVs per hour A 10.000 score - which makes a user eligable to be considered for ladder: 10000 score ÷ 1008 ≈ 9.92 hours or 9 h 55 min. The highest average score: 1008 score × 12 hours = 12096 total score My initial comment was about the possibility and there were complaints prior why we did not force parties of four if the event can not be achieved in less than 4 partymembers. My coment is not to show you, that someone can do it - I am saying that there is a chance and it can be achieved. I do not think someone will achieve this but the possibility is there. This is a group content and best to be played in groups. If someone think this is stupid and what not, so be it. The ragebait was comment in regards to the rules you mentioned. Yes you can not start it "solo" but as a person with two accounts you can still technically participate solo. As for if staff will discuss your ideas - it was mostly me pushing the changes with AlCedo together, we privately talked about these changes and went through different scenarios before we approached Eaty with it. What we discuss and what we do not discuss, I will not mention here but once again - staff will not engage in discussions that start of with disrespectful behavior (we all know how it was meant) and seeing all the little digs here and there, on different discords and everything. Players want transparency, players want that we talk to them and the second we say something they do not like (e.g. my comment about that not every content is for everyone), they will get upset. In my previous comments, I said and displayed our intentions behind the content, why we did what we did and what our reasons were. This post and all the comments prior and after show us exactly why especially the content staffs in our game will not partake in these discussions. I am gladly talking to anyone who wants it but don't take me trying to be transparent as me being some form of punching bag for your frustration with XYZ. I am open to discussions and if you think this was an "Ego-war" then so be it. My comments were merely displaying what hapened, I might have used some hyperbolic statements when expressing myself, that is one me. I will try to be very clear next time - so let me make this very clear for next time. We will not tolerate any disrespectful behavior in any form towards any of our staff members. If you conduct yourself in a way you want to be spoken to then we should have no problem. I am talking general and not specific to anyone user. I will also lock this thread now because there is nothing further to add. The suggestions were forwarded to the right people within staff for discussion. Everything after this is just back and forth for no reason. Best wishes.

I do not understand these ragebait replies. Yes you can do it solo, have your own alternative account in your party and reach the party limit of at least 2. You can do it solo with average case scenario that I mentioned prior within less than 10 hours. They can reach somewhat around 12500 score solo with an average case scenario. These are obviously just probabilities, you can do it in less hours or not get it within the hours but the possibility is there within the "average case scenario". Edit: Yes you are right, the NPC rules ingame forbid you from starting it solo but you can do it "technically" as a solo player. I should have been more clear on this.

We did run through two dozen scenarios to find a decent min score-Top% cut. From bassing min score in the #1 score, to different minscores with different Top%-cuts. This is the best we could come up in terms of deciding who gets in and who does not. Based on this, it is reasonable to think that 8-10 teams will achieve the required score and be in the Top%-cut. This would have resulted in similiar numbers for the first few weeks. As for the hours, this is obviously something that has to be experimented with. There is no "perfect" hour solution; increasing it will result in people having to hunt much longer. Lowering it will result in having RNG play a bigger role but also will increase the expected hours you will actually need to spent on the event. The change we have done today, will also make it possible to reach the top-cut solo. So the event can be completed solo for very dedicated players. As for the reward, this is something that will evolve obviously. It is like one of those things, either you like it and think its worth it or you do not.

Locked as user is banned.

As long this is just something similiar to what BetterFarm or TrackerBee is, it is fine. As long as it only tracks encounter data and does nothing ingame.

I just replied to half the things you said... I will stop engaging with you guys if you simply do not read my replies.

Totally agree - the same goes for if content has any underlining moderation aspects with it. We had discussed this in the past weeks as well. Sometimes things will slip through our minds but the somewhat forceful saying of "we need to accountability, we need to apologize" and all that - yeah stop. We can agree to disagree - some content is just simply not meant for you. If but as I mentioned prior, this is simply not the case. The previously suggested hour requirements is already what is roughly required to be in the top 20%. 58-80% of 12h is needed on average case scenarios, read above in my other reply.

The entire preface of this thread and the comments made on discord were that this content is a good concept idea but everything surrounding it was just terrible execution. Our content is made for a vast majority of our playerbase however we can not make content that fits to every playstyle, every players interest, cater to every timezone and every life situations of each indiviual player. Yes the content right now is not suitable for some portion of the community but the proposed solutions do not fix an underlying issue. The 24h were reduced to 12 hours because in reality, there will always be players that have more time than you, be it that they have vacation, are out of school, jobless and what not. The hour reduction helps to even the playing field a little bit because. If left at 24 hours, I can gurantee you that players will hunt to exhaustion within the 24 hours - that is just how some play the game and a lot of the participating teams would have no chance to even get close to the top 20%. The originally planned percent value was set at 5% prior to seeing engagement data. We had the percent-value hidden on purpose so we can adjust while the event is on going and have a closer amount of teams that we would like to see in the leaderboard places that receive rewards. Players assuming something we never confirmed and these players getting upset over assumed data is absolutely on players and not on us. We have had the percent hidden for the reason mentioned prior, it is not something we need to communicate and quite honestly - we will continue to do it this way. We have to adjust things like this based on user data and engagement. The outrage would be insane if we went from 20% down to 5% if we thought there were too many teams getting into the area. It is dishonest to think this would not be the case. In fact we adjusted it the way to have as many teams possible reach this area within reason. As a matter of fact the Top 10 suggestion would have resulted in less teams having access to the hunting area. Also to hit on some of the new comments: If you do not like the reward -> do not participate If you do not like the time invest -> do not participate You have free will, nobody is forcing you to do anything within this game. It is a PvE competition not "I want it, I spent 30 minutes hunting". I will hit on the suggestions for a bit: What it does, increase the RNG factor and in fact the dependancy to hunt for the entire amount of time. The pressure would be to hunt on only the very best map with the higher likelyhood for rare Pokemon and you would have to spent the full duration constantly hunting with four players to reach the higher ranks. With the 12 hour hunting time right now, the cutoff time to reach the upper 20% is roughly around 58-80% of said 12hour hunting time. Based on average rare encounters per hour of a team of four players hunting with an average of 300 encounters per hours per player. So in fact, the proposed hours are already within the cutoff time - what reducing the time would result in would be a higher RNG dependancy and less forgiving time spending requirement. We like this suggestion. As said up top, this would result in less players getting access. We will improve upon things we can improve on but if we make decisions on purpose there is nothing to communicate. We will not tell you everything. This is not true - a party of 3 can achieve the cut-off score within 80% of the given time with the averages mentioned above. A party of 2 will not be able to reach the upper 20% but this content is not made for a two player party but for rather four players. As mentioned above, 12 hours straight hunting is not required. This content is not for everyone and this is simply something players have to accept. If you like it or not, that is up to you but this just how it is. I mentioned this prior on the why and why it does make sense. We will communicate what we need to communicate, I have mentioned above as to why some information was hidden. Mentioned above as to why this is not the solution you think it is. The original idea was to let players choose between one or the other but it was decided that we allow both to be hunted. The final decision on this was made 3 hours after the maps opened however it needed a map update. Our mapper was asleep at the time and it was fixed within 8 hours. Maps opened at 2am German time Decision was made at 5am German time Change was made at 10am German time +-1 hour, who knows with DST Yes - please fault us for not staying up till 5am to immediate cater to something we decided. I am not sure what you really mean by this, like again even if you think differently, we are volunteers and we try our best. It is not like we want the game to die. Honestly no idea what you mean by this - feel free to apply to any staff position. Will be fixed for the next one, we still have to decide on what the best approach is to filter out these low effort particiapation teams All in all, what I read in these threads all the time are just players screaming at us to fix something because X/Y/Z even though we put thoughts behind it, reason as to why we are doing it that way. We do not have to communicate every little decision we take - agree or disagree, quite honestly I do not care enough; but just saying "X would fix everything" "Y is so much better" while not actually taking into account everything is just simply.

New content, we wanted to adjust the % value based on player engagement and therefore hid the % to make sure we are not giving access to too many players, we had a rough estimate in mind. The originally planned % was lower than the revealed 20%. You guys would crucify us if we changed the % from 20% to a lower % after we had taken the engagement data into consideration. Thats how we try to balance content, it was not delibertarly hidden to deceive players- rather on balance it on the go, to give a fair amount of players the access to the new content. We did not want to go with a set amount like Top10 due to the fact that we had no engagement data, no minimum score requirements or anything like this. It goes without saying that this is the type of stuff we do not need to reveal to players as we are the once balancing the game not players. The rules were clear - they have been since the start and quite frankly, if people are unsure - why not simply ask? We read all complaints/suggestions and see the feedback. We are not ignoring it but just because you do not see something does not mean its being addressed internally. Shift workers, different timzones, school kids - your experience is valid but it is not for others, to insinuate that your experience is the experience of everyone is simply not fair. We absolutely agree on the second part and we will be changing this come next time. However a Top 10 was not considered at the start due to the fact explained above. The reward is the same for everyone, why would lets say #1 with a score of 40000 be deserving of the same reward as #10 with the a 4000 score. These are fictional numbers but you get the point, a % based leaderboards gives us the chance to reward the upper % of teams who scored the highest while ensuring we do not have such a big score gap. We have no decided yet on what we will do in case of the manipulation aspect but from our data, the impact is very minimal - at best 1 more party gets to hunt. The % based scoring does not entire fix the gap between #1 and the last leaderboard placement however there are ways to fix the manipulation aspect and this with adding a minimum score to be considered for the leaderboard. We are not holding your hands - not everything needs to be written down to its core values and core % of everything we release. If we do not want you to know something, we will not tell you it. Has nothing to do with communication and again to falsely insinuated this is not fair. That is why a % based leaderboard makes more sense as explained above with the score gap. You are fully aware that this a fully volunteer based project, right? If you want AAA-games, there is plenty out there. I bet you their Devs and Content team would lovely to read feedback on their games. So everyone gets to hunt? So why not just open it to all and scrap the Party WQ? The idea is to limit the access to certain upper % scores. See explanation above. I am not blaming anyone but if you want to argue - do it with accurate data, facts and come at us with statements that are truthful. We are a team of volunteers, some of us are staff for almost a decade. It is our game, we want to reach its best form to even think that we do not want that is insulting. So make everything easier, less chance dependent - why don't we give out a free set of forms to everyone, so nobody has to waste hours? I honestly do not believe these suggestions are well thoughtout or even take into consideration the bigger ramification. This is after all still considered an MMO, a MMO has the grind aspect ingrained into it. The content is not made so that EVERYONE can participate in it, this is not a bad thing. This is simply how some competitions are, someone who has more time will naturally get a higher scoring. Lowering the hunting time will simply result in higher dependancy on RNG-IVs - same result. There are ways we can improve upon and we gradually do that however going at us, at the content team for trivial things because you do not agree with it are not okay. The original post had a picture of one of our staff members writing a message on PRO Discord titled "disgusting.png" - do you really think that a productive and respectful conversation is based on attacking the very staff team that is providing the game with content? No - we do not believe so. Constantly going in circles and telling us we are ignoring, not listening or that we have to somehow "fix" and beg on our knees for forgiveness for something we simply did not even do is outrageous. That is how I interpret every conversation and diallogue we had with Kamui on this topic. We are open to suggestions but a lot of these suggestions are simply one sided and do not actually "fix" anything for the vast majority. A 9-5 worker will not have 12 hours or 8 hours or even 6 hours to complete this party world quest- at some point you will need to accept that some content is simply not made for you. Some of the suggested fixes, we forwarded to the content team however some are just fixes that would benefit you guys as indiviuals but would not fix anything for the vast majority of players. I invite you to keep this thread civil, respectful otherwise I will lock this thread. Best wishes.

Does make sense to us. You are free to upload it again but just because players can not see it but we can. Its like someone insulting us in appeals and not banning because players can not see it. You again know better than this. Edit: Everyone can see it if you open the image btw.

Your opinion can remain your opinion, does not mean its true. You know exactly what it meant and calling it "disgusting.png" does not really show that your intention are to be respectful towards our staff team henceforth the removal of the picture.

I have removed the picture from your post - you know better and if you want to be disrespectful, you can do that somewhere else. As for moderation aspects of this posts: The rules were clear, they were posted with AlCedo post once again and then clarified with a rule update once again. Just because you do not understand it, does not mean that they were unclear. An admin will respond to this post however I will tell you right now, making these kinds of posts without having any clue or confirmed information is just in bad taste. 80% of this post is just false or written under false assumptions. You get a clarification later however honestly you should know better.

Thanks - removed your gains.

Is this ragebait? You logged in 32 times in July.

Yes - force traded he auction.

Done.

It is depending on offense and everything but for now, we say no.

August 28th 2023 Route 201 - Added Repeltrick to Swirlix - Fixed tiers Alto Mare Secret Garden - Removed Espurr (now in Kalijodo Path), Pidove, Stunky - Added Turtwig, Ponyta - Changed Misdreavus, Nuzleaf to M/D/N for balance Kalijodo Cave B2F (surf) - Removed Corsola - Added Marill - Changed Tirtouga to slightly higher spawn rate Kalijodo Path - Removed Turtwig (now in Alto Mare Secret Garden) - Added Espurr - Changed Grimer-Alola, Ralts to M/D/N Vulcan Cove (land) - Removed Clauncher (now surfing), Psyduck, Qwilfish, Shellder, Staryu - Added Azurill D, Corphish M/N, Panpour, Wingull Vulcan Cove (surf) - Removed Corphish (now on land), Shellder - Added Clauncher, Pelipper, Staryu Vulcan Cavern - Removed Cyndaquil, Rhydon - Added Fennekin, Vulpix Sinnoh endgame: Changed Pokemon tiers, items, selfharming moves, themes and more on the following maps: Battle Tower Route 225 Route 226 Route 227 route 228 route 229 Route 230 Stark Mountain Exterior Pt stark Mountain Entrance Stark Mountain Main Cavern Pt

Recovered

This bid is the winner. Start 7:20am Wed End 7:20am Saturday - _ (adjusted to my timezone) Bid at 7:15am Saturday - End 7:30am Bid at 7:22am Saturday - End 7:37am Bid at 7:29am Saturday - End 7:44am 4,8mil Bid at 7:41am Saturday - End 7:56am 5mil Bid at 7:41am Saturday - End 7:56am 5,5mil Bid at 7:48am Saturday - End 8:03am 5,6mil

No.

August 11th 2023 All Summer Event maps are completely reworked including adjusted tiers, helditems, levels There will be rotating starters for the hunting quest (either you hunt for Team Magma or Team Aqua) -- NOT LIVE TILL ALL BUGS ARE FIXED The new forms are all available on the event map Adjusted the following maps: Route 25 / Route 5 for the Abra repels Changed Route 36 fixed Kanto Safari area fishing spawns Eriyadu Sulfur Pools receveived changes Breakers Beach received changes Update on summer maps post launch Replaced Mimikyu with Alolan-Exeggutor in Vulcan Fair Added Alolan-Diglett in Vulcan Cavern Alolan-Geodudes should no longer explode in Vulcan Lava Pit and Vulcan Cavern Cave

Is this your way of saying - your arguments are just flawed?

The post has 90 votes - 68 are for hard/very hard / the other 32 are for Ok/easy. The pool has 90 votes out of 7505 players who were active in the last 24h (4101 Silver, 3404 Gold). The pool has 75% negative votes towards the update which might make one to believe that there is a "fundamental" flaw with the update but the opinion of 0.9% (68 out of 7505) of the active community are not substantial enough to draw conclusions. The loud minority are the ones complaining - the same way the every game operates, it is always the old veterans that cry wolf but don't understand the change or refuse to adapt their shortcomings.