Frostyjoereborn
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Frostyjoereborn
-
-
The price of coins was changed recently! The result is the price of coins increased by at least 18%
What used to cost 25$ for 5 coins is now
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this and what it possibly means for the game i'm not sure what impact it will have or if the increased price will even make an impact and would love to hear community thought on the topic.
-
Greetings, @XDzin
Sorry for the inconvenience.
The lend option is being fixed by our Developers the fastest they can and it should be soon back, i hope you understand it.
Have a great day,
Nezuko
When you say"fixed" are they going to operate the function any differently? Such as allow you to somehow see the lent list of Pokemon or something along the lines of changes of this nature?
-
+1 Been waiting to hear any update on the state of lends
-
Insta transferring tomorrow like we spoke about
-
-
-
start
-
-
+1
I would very much like a detailed answer as well from staff because while rule two clearly states that you cant have more than 4 accounts it doesn't explicitly state a lot of the small details that many players have about this rule. I have spoken with Logan personally many times and, hes pretty brilliant and I would say that while almost all of his rules are written nearly flawlessly this one along with a handful of other ones do have particularly limited explanation of the boundaries of the rule and its hard for players to really full obey all the rules if they aren't able to fully written for players to see them but its my understanding of the rule that players may have 4 accounts with the ability to have Characters on both gold and silver on each however, what is not explicitly written is the rules is that if you want to transfer back and forth you can not be banned on any accounts and this is also important as well that any account banned permanently or suspended still counts toward your overall 4 accounts so players with an infraction history will have their pools of accounts reduced alongside being unable to transfer back and forth between servers as a way of giving them a limited of number of chances to correct their behavior and punishing them for the things they have done to get to that point. If you have more than 4 accounts you will be served a mass account infraction. Im not sure what tier infraction that is but my gut is telling me its pretty high so its pretty sketchy to test your luck and I certainly would not and have even reached out to staff on the subject myself to gain clarification on my journey as well. I think an amendment needs to be added to the rule to reflect the later instituted rules that have came since this rule was written by Logan. As it is though the rule doesn't reflect the fact that you may only play PVP on two on them and you have to go to a totally different section of rules Written by Mercurius/Felix and others to be able to find out that information, which is ambiguous because now their are two different sets of rules overlapping each over. But lets just go down the rabbit hole for a second and go further lets say your curious about what happens if you accidently make play on your third account instead of you second one well you have to go to another set of rules in a different place to find the answer written by Red. To say the least the information is just not in one spot and that is hard for the player because its just not readily available with the right context of for players to understand interpret quickly.
just to clarify here is how the rule is written by Logan,
2.Each person is allowed a maximum of four owned accounts.
This includes, but is not limited to:
- Exploiting more than 4 allowed accounts in order to gain mass profit or frequently gaining large amounts of income. If someone has quit PRO and gave their account to you, take anything you want at once and stop using it only if you already own 4 accounts. Be aware doing this may trigger a ban in which you will need to appeal and provide proper evidence of the account being given to you.
(Example: Having the password of more than 4 accounts you received by people who are inactive in order to fight bosses, doing PvE quests to receive rewards, or progressing during a Special Event in order to receive one time rewards such as Reroll Tickets, etc...)
- You may only have one account per email address.
Here is the rule written by Mercurius
6. You can use only 2 of your own accounts to PvP within each season. Using any account you do not rightfully own, or using more than 2 accounts, will result in heavy punishment.
Here is the the infractions for both of those rules written by Red.
- Using more than two alternate Accounts in the Ranked Ladder.
PUNISHMENTS : PvP Bans, Mute Bans, Temp Bans, Perm Ban, Rating reset, PvP Coin resets and Tournament Bans
- Mass Accounts.
- PUNISHMENTS : Perm Ban.
- PUNISHMENTS : Perm Ban.
-
1
- Exploiting more than 4 allowed accounts in order to gain mass profit or frequently gaining large amounts of income. If someone has quit PRO and gave their account to you, take anything you want at once and stop using it only if you already own 4 accounts. Be aware doing this may trigger a ban in which you will need to appeal and provide proper evidence of the account being given to you.
-
What a great thread!
I am the guild leader of NoMercy. NoMercy has been a guild since April of 2017. I was very vocal in the past about how changes over the past few years devalued guilds and the competitive integrity of guild ladder. (1, 2, 3, 4)
As others in this thread have expressed, I was also very excited about initially proposed idea of the Guild Island. What we got is different, so I will only focus on what is actually present instead of speculating the initially proposed. June is the first month I am getting to experience the Guild Island. I don't think it's that bad so far. I see nothing wrong with pushing it live with the bare concepts (spawns, tutors, tms) and adding features as they are coded (boss). I prefer to be optimistic and presume that is the plan. Everyone should keep in mind PRO is run off volunteers, not paid professionals.
That said, the requirements to gain access to Guild Island have further exacerbated my concerns about guilds in PRO. It is absolutely true the social ecosystem of guilds have completely changed since the introduction of Guild Island. Immediately, we saw guilds start to merge by distancing themselves from players who did not want to or chose not to pvp. Even worse, the rule allowing players to pvp on two accounts also creates incentives for guilds to invite alt accounts with pvp rating in order to unlock Guild Island. Additionally, we see many players in two guilds to increase their odds of getting into guild island. For all guilds with aspirations to unlock guild island, the favoring of alts or veterans will continue to grow. A majority of the players left guildless during these merges or favor towards alt accounts are new players. I believe this to be very, very dangerous to the grow of PRO.
Quick Solutions?
- Calculate guild rating based on the top 50 players within the guild. This would reduce the incentives of alts and necessity of filling your guild with veterans or pvpers.
- Allow access to the guild island to be purchasable each month by the guild leader. I can see a few options:
- A flat fee of 5m for the month, no matter your guilds placement in the ladder.
- If your guild finished in top 10, you can enter guild island for the month for a fee of 100k. Top 5, 50k. Top 3, free. ( fee per member)
- A flat fee of 5m for the month, no matter your guilds placement in the ladder.
Eventually, I would like to see PRO implement a more sophisticated way of dealing with alt accounts. I understand the suggestion that follows potentially requires a lot, but I think it would dramatically improve the moderation of the game throughout many aspects.
- Every player must create a profile.
- You must then link your accounts to a profile. An account that is not linked to a profile will not be able to trade, pvp, etc.
- Only four accounts can be linked to a profile.
- You must then link your accounts to a profile. An account that is not linked to a profile will not be able to trade, pvp, etc.
Profiles will join guilds, so all your accounts will be in the guild of your choice. The account with the highest rating applies to your guild rating (not all four). Your accounts will not share pvp rating, but instead share the same "ELO" of the account with the highest rating. Example: Lets say "teerav" and "vikingman" are under my profile. "teerav" has 300 rating and "vikingman" has 1 rating. Assume I pvp with "vikingman" and the opponent has 400 rating. I win, "vikingman" will gain rating based an 1 rating winning against 400 rating. However, the opponent's rating change will be based on 400 losing to a 300. Its a big difficult to explain, but hopefully you (the reader) understands. This would mitigate "sniping" at the end of the season. And it would still allow players with pvp anxiety or veterans looking to test still use multiple accounts to pvp on, but it would remove a lot of the negative aspects effecting guilds described earlier in this post.
I myself I am one of the 3 co-Founders of Empire I have to say I very much agree with the ideas TEERAV brought forth about the initial content of guild island actaully being pretty awesome and the idea behind it being in the right place. However I must insist that staff and player take a deeper look into what he is saying about the ecosystem in guilds right now and in particular the way that rating is calculated for guilds needing a change because its almost game breaking at this point. While I like his idea of the 50 highest rating players making up the rating systems i feel like little to no changes need to be made to guild island as far as access it should definitely be top 3 get access its not a consultation prices its suppose to represent the hard work players put in. The changes for a pve to guild to be in could be easily instituted with the same thing as pvp rating but a system instuted where your guild gets points for defeating bosses and using the recycler and so on then at the end of the season guilds with the top pve rating can be given access as well. I have to say that its not easy to get there and I like it. The thing i will admit is that the guild ecosystem is a definitely weighted now to a very limited number of guild even being able to fight to gain access with realistic chances. I just dont feel like the solution is making access to the island easier but instead changing the way that rating is determined to allow for smaller more tight nit guild with a lot of pvpers that arent an Empire, Nomercy, Trinity to also have a fair chance because in all honestly winning doesn't really feel great if the scene isn't competitive enough to host ten guilds with a decent chance of getting to the island then it just becomes a everyone must join x guild to get to guild island every season thing. I and the other founders always have and always will run our guild as a home for the players who choose to join us and make a future within our guild, and its incredibly hard because the real world happens and players cant play all the time or whatever life throws at them and because of the way game works if your not producing rating guilds cant afford to keep you their while you sort out your things even if you have been a part of the guild for an extended period of time and I really feel like at the bare minimum the number of players that make up your rating needs to be changed to be allotted for some sort of slack for guild be able to play with to retain some of the players who cant/dont produce rating because at the end of the day while pvp is a huge part of the game and without it their would be no game without it, a guilds worth to the game is not determined solely by it so it should not be calculated soley by it either and this should be looked further into considering the future of the game is going to be determined by the path you choose to solve this.
It was always planned to give PvE guilds a chance to get to guild island but we don't have many options to do that right now.
One of our Content Scripters is currently reworking all fighting NPCs within PRO. Kanto (and Johto?) should already be live. It might take a while till he's completely done and replaced all old fighting NPCs. I thought about using it to hold a planned (and not random) PvE Trainer WQ every two months where guilds get +1 for all NPCs they beat while the WQ is active and the top guild would get access to guild island for the upcoming month. This is nothing decided yet but a possibility for the future. I am all ear for other suggestions.
It might take a bit but we are working on new PvE updates (especially) with and for the upcoming region. We did not forget PvE (and PvP) players but we cannot focus on them at the same time. So there will be times with more PvP and times with more PvE updates.
I think that for the time being until real changes can be implemented as you said its going to be a long time till pve players will see a vast majority of the changes some sort of middle ground should be offered as far as content that could be implemented fairly quickly to at least hold these players over if you will because these last few changes have been extremely hard for their communities to be ale to hold on as they get torn apart by the bosses changes and the guild island change promoting the balance so far towards thepoint of game being about your placement on the guild ladder and that placement being determined soley by pvp by nature is also pretty damaging as well and something must be done to let them survive.
Huge shout out to the staff who actually listened and are fighting through the mud to make sense of everyone comments all at once to get to a solution this one isn't an easy fix and I just hope that one day a middle ground can be reached somewhere for all players.
- Calculate guild rating based on the top 50 players within the guild. This would reduce the incentives of alts and necessity of filling your guild with veterans or pvpers.
-
We sadly need a boss limit. I am not saying it's perfect or that we implemented it the perfect way but we only added bosses very, very slowly for the last year cause we couldn't add more without exceeding the limit we set ourselve for boss runs. With the upcoming region and many boss requestes within the staff we had no other way left.
The Content Scripter lead, I and a few others will need a while to discuss and rework some bosses. This is to somewhat balance bosses so we do not have "useless" bosses anymore. That's needed with the upcoming updates anyways. We have many construction zones within PvE and PvP right now and hope to find solutions for everything within the next months. Right now, we are fully working on the upcoming update which mainly focuses on PvP. But we did not forget about other things like boss updates and the world quest which need to more interesting in the long run for users that already got all legendaries.
I hope you can give us a bit more time to sort out everything and then work on tweaks and changes.
While discussing it here, I would like to ask a question. Would you guys prefer a global cooldown reset for the 7-days boss cooldown? So that it always resets Monday 12 AM GMT+0?
I unlike most think that I limit makes sense to a degree it at the very bare minimum can't be unlimited, and therefore actually see the complex problem for what it is too much one way bad for the game in ways that most don't see. I recognize that the content itself has pieces that are jaded and outdated, while i find that to subtly charming and shows a games growth i recognize that eventually all games update the bosses for instance in wow some of my favorite old dungeons were completely redone to keep the game fresh. What I think was truly the sad part is that as many have said it was clearly a poorly timed change to say the least I vote for the time being reverting it completely would be the best method till the update comes out then when the new bosses and content is a available to players you institute the limit giving players both a heads up its happening and time to voice their opinions on which bosses they want reworked/eliminated from the game. However and This is a huge However, I want to give props to EATY for atleast coming out saying that they recognize some of the folly in the way it was instuted and that it was clear oversight on their behalf. Along with that he also went an extra step further and proposed a ground in the middle lowering the cooldown from 2 weeks to 1 week and I for one value the fact that he is listening to the community and would vote to institute this change if its what him and the rest of Developers are willing to give us as a middle ground. Its really refreshing to hear staff have a different view point about something for once and I am insanely grateful for the path that they are choosing to take on this one I would even call it the high road and would hope that other players will do the same.
-
Thats exactly what I was thinking too EATY THE LEGEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
How about having a system where players can plus one a player ig maybe a little bubble with the a +1 and players can click it right next to battle then a little pm window pops up and you have to write a little summary and then instead of having the system be voted on by the community have a system in place where players who for instance are on the same friends list are worth less points lets say then players who the system recognizes are not on the same friends list/guild roster. Then the most important thing is make a cool-down for players so they cant plus 1 more than a handful of players in allotted period of time lets say a week or month and make it so if a player has plus one someone they cant do so again for the rest of the year/month depending on what EATY thinks the time period should be for giving out some sort of prizes or whatever. However I also feel that from meeting some of these players I know they aren't in it for a cc or ms or whatever prize you think would be nice to give to them instead they do it for the love of the game and I think rather giving them prizes just the recognition from the game that this will bring for those players will mean a lot more than a coin capsule or a bms will, so for that reason I agree that I think its rather silly to give out a prize for said things and may even muddy the water from the whole purpose of players being spotlighted for their amazing value they bring to the game.
-
gg :) i wanna go swoom swoom with lighsaber man
-
-
2.5m if you can come silver
-
+1
-
-
I dont want to muddy the water but its really just sounds like the deeper problem is that players dont have enough say when i comes to changes in general as this quote from the original point sums up the true problem of the game
"To summarize it up:
1st I am mainly asking for more Informations from Staff, giving more PRECISE updates about things upcoming or getting fixed and don't talk in riddles!
2nd if no solutions to issues can be found ask us to help, 4 eyes see more than 2."
Staff rarely makes changes after making sure the community is behind them which is usually a sign that they know what they are doing will be disliked to some degree and instead of coming out with it and seeing how the community would feel about for instance changing the bosses or the way repel trick worked is shady.
I very much feel like staff would rather be right about something or just not do it because of personal interests not aligning with resolving said problem, or how much work or time it will take to correct each problem the community is having with the game but more than ever this feel like it rings true a lot of players didn't like recent changes and voiced their opinions in a myriad of ways but it has not gone both ways as most of the problems have gone largely no where, mainly because staff likes to play in the mud and argue about a topic more than find a solution. It shows a lack of gratitude for the people who spend their time effort money life playing this game they love and don't like a certain topic and start a discussion about it. Many of us very much support the game in other ways ways that carry the games needs as well ill be it donation or hours played, this relationship is symbiotic we need you as you need us but its not a two way street players have not been given the same respect they have been forced to give to staff.
-
1
-
-
Awesome Ill take a look hopefully I can figure out some and submit a map or even one day my dream region (orre)!!!! Thanks for the In @Raika
-
Hey guys I would like to request a guide for Pokeeditor as learning how to make maps would be awesome but I can't find anything as far as tutorials or anything on youtube and I really am just starting from square one I have been playing with it by myself and asking around the grapevine for tips but its seems little to no players that I specifically come into contact with have any idea how it works or even that it is available to the public.
-
@Aspheric i think your missing a few pieces of the discussion or something because your statement just marginalizes the 54% of players who voted this was a bad thing as "people this game is not suited for". I along with many other don't think staff getting the mons is bad just in certain situations playing with them in pvp can be game breaking/unfair. Also the point of how many staff members are playing pvp is irrelevant as this is a discussion about the few staffers/players with generated mons who do and the rest are irrelevant in the discussion. The fact is that something is reducing the quality of the game experience for players even if its a minority of them. They are seeking refuge from said experience and the situation should definitely garner more respect than turning it into a he said she said but such is the way it feels with the world not just staff buts it just seems like another classic example of my way or the highway rather than listen and meet in the middle its always right or wrong to some extreme when a solution of nerfing the staff pokes to stats in line with tour pokes is all that is required to meet in the middle so everyone can play fairly and keep their hard earned mons. Just seems to me as always their must be a charade or some sort of divide between player and staff as if every single suggest or complaint made here was extremely invalidated by the idea "they worked for those mons". Maybe you should realize that doesnt mean anything how many hours you spent working on this game shouldn't give you a unfair advantage and to say that because it happens infrequently or that the amount of players who are staff that pvp are small just shows just how little you care about the problem to begin with because if you saw this as a negative thing even it happening just one time would be bad. To be honest I believe that this is the true root of the problem is that one side must always be right. The very idea players should turn an eye to something they don't like just because it benefits staff is not reasonable and you should re evaluate your thought process there as close to nothing you said had any reasonable bearings in this discussion at all. We all want to play in a fair and balanced game and the ideas should be about how do we get there for everyone not just staff.
-
1
-
-
well its not just the stats you cant even select a shiny pokemon higher than t5 after being the single best player on a server and tour mons are supposed to be the best pokes one can have to represent that you are the single best player in that given season we are talking if their has been 32 ladder tours that means there are 32 mons and you have to compete with the other server too... the idea that you can devote your entire life to the game and fall short never winning a tour for a prize that is sup par and that somehow isn't as valuable to the game as the people who make it holds absolutely no water the relationship is symbiotic players want an awesome game and the game needs awesome players. The isnt that staff mons are wrong in a nutshell but just look around the major of the players feel this is wrong to some degree. I understand that players like belz and others who have staff generated pokes would like to continue to play with their rightfully earned pokes but its about time that we address that tour has rules to which pokemonn you can obtain "to be fair to others" yet staff pokes dont follow the same idea or structure at all the reins are just limitless and a double standard.
-
I just don't think its fair that tour mons arent the same as staff mons you know how hard it is to win a tour? Yet what you get from that is so limited and staff can get absurd pokemon with 31 31 30 30 30 30 while tour mons are 31 30 27 26 25 23 i think thats a good example of where the bias is, if your going to give away generated mons in any capacity they need to be equal chance to obtain things for players who get it other ways, i really have no problem with staff getting mons but they should be tour stats. I think this is a fair middle ground to stand on, players could more realistically obtain the staff generated mon and it would serve both sides as they get to keep their mons but they will be slightly less unfair and more balanced.
-
1
-
crystal onix and other shenanigans
in Spriting Corner
Posted
+1 crystal forms look so cool always wanted a crystal steelix from the show!!