Orean

There isn't any cause you can singularize; as this multi-theoretical discussion has shown, many events can be attributed to it, as the playerbase already low-key started to depopulate before most of us even felt consternated enough to discuss it. Many are ascribing the ~3k-bot ban, but that isn't the direct cause of it or even paramount to the issue; it was nothing more than a compounding circumstance to an already-dwindling playerbase. The discussion here is nothing more than a belated one To know how the active playerbase downsized so dramatically, you need to contextualize all the antecedents that made it astronomically populated to begin with to know what phenomena are no longer around to keep the game afloat; as one who has been around the project since its nascency and on staff for most of the time, I can help historicize how that happened. In the afterglow of PRO's release (circa August 2015), PRO's honeymoon period started—a time where it was ringing with the "new game" allure, as it only took a few months for it to start brimming over the maximal capacity. It wasn't just a cookie-cutter Pokemon MMO that was bound to drop off fast after the honeymoon period; it was already perhaps the most consummately developed custom-engine Pokemon MMO at the juncture of its release, and thus it became a topical part of discussions among the gaming communities—topical enough to become a compelling subject in some of the more high-profile streamers. Indeed; even with an already-steady upgrowth of players, it was only amplified as the game became a central topic among a few high-profile LPers, such as FaZe Jev. As an MMO that wasn't optimized to house many players online simultaneously beyond, this prompted Shane to add in the secondary server in Blue (last March or thereabout), and therein was a lead-up to what's at the crux of the problem, IMO: Yellow's addition. Last year's summer is where the stage was set for PRO's apex, popularity-wise, and I feel that it, indeed, materialized. Hoenn's release (last June), Pokemon Go's renascence of the Pokemon franchise itself, summer-time leisure, more high-profile PRO-promotive LPers, and the fact that PRO was still at the tail-end of its honeymoon period all coalesced to push PRO at its playerbase pinnacle; this prompted Yellow's addition, thereby expanding PRO's game-server network to three. Problem? These were all short-term trends; as such, it was inconclusive as to whether or not Yellow was needed to accommodate a long-term playerbase, yet adding it in still had long-term implications regardless, which the playerbase is suffering now. All those trends have waned away since; and as the playerbase normalized to pre-summer levels, the playerbase became a lot sparser with three servers to divvy it all out. Long story short is that Yellow—while not the be-all, end-all cause—is perhaps the biggest reason for the playerbase's shrinkage, and it could have been preceded by a more prudent critical analysis before it was added in as soon as it was. Not only does it steepen up the financial maintenance needed to keep the servers operational; it also has sparsified the playerbase, as it's lacking all the activity-stimulators that we've seen last summer, which debases some of the appeal of the game newer players had—especially on the least-populated server in Blue, where it's become enough of a chore to even find suitors for various commercial activities. It's why I feel that the three-leaf game-server network needs to be seriously re-examined, as it isn't realistic to expect us to keep all servers sustainable moving into the future. You can try resurging the playerbase through various updates and promotions, and you'll perhaps see similar bouts of activity that you did last summer, but you can't extrapolate those activity levels and expect to subsist all three servers for the long haul; you need to make a decision based on the normality of the community, which we've seen after the summer ended. The playerbase is more than salvagable, and I trust that the staff will pull through as they historically have, but there is no glossing over the issue with having three servers; one of them will need to be dropped or merged (preferable, but there are more than a few ethical and technical complications with it that I'll save for another disquisition). It's an invariably controversial decision to make, but it may be the optimal decision in ensuring PRO's financeability and healthy playerbase proportions.

While we'd all love this feature in an ideal world, it's infeasible in the practical realty of it. Bandwidth needs to be expended in order for the auto-updater's server to transmit all client-side updates to the client; that would take an extravagant toll on the server with how often one would need to update their client, and it's too bandwidth-expensive for the server to accommodate for at the end of the day. Auto-updaters may be ubiquitous in other MMOs that you've played, but PRO takes on its own complexion from those that can afford high-end host PCs. Not only does PRO need a donation pool—something it isn't exactly replete of at this moment—to subsidize the servers; it also has to make do limited pool of hosts—that is, those that operate in the most copyright-liberal countries to safeguard against all the legal threats that loom this fan-made project—and it too often finds itself with low-end host-PC machines—hosts that aren't nearly as limitless in the bandwidth expenditures allowed as you see in for-profit, professionally developed MMOs. The closest workaround we had to skirt around the bandwidth deficiencies is as Giovanni alluded to; Shane was able to engineer an auto-updater that minimized the bandwidth expenditures—in other words, only sending packets receptible for updates that weren't already in the user's client, as opposed to sending an obscene amount of packets to repackage the entire client—but as stated, too many experienced difficulties and were not OS-savvy off-hand to know how to fix it; as such, it would have come at a great expense of user-friendliness that was not overall-worthwhile in the end. To reiterate, this would be an ideal feature; but there are too glaring of poisons to pick in order to workably accommodate for it, and neither are worthwhile just to spare players the manual labor of redownloading the client whenever an update is made thereon. The routine can get tiresome, but Shane at least tries to ensure infrequence to it by spacing out client updates amply between each other—typically only releasing client updates when major updates have been consolidated together over time or when it's categorically necessary (such as when there's a host-PC changeover and the client's port address needs changing, per se).

Thank you for the information, I will update it when I gather enough details on the tier :) As the creator of the daily-challenges system and deviser behind this system, I was remiss not to announce and delineated these changes; it's better late than never where it's resourcefully needed, so I'll do so now. Previously, the reward payout would strictly yield a reward from the uppermost-tier range of IVs that you've satisfied; now, it has been multitudinalized to offer all prizes of the IV-tier coverage your Pokemon's IVs have. What Dialatz posted is an overview of the output of one of the dynamic menus, wherein each menu option corresponds to the tier—ranging from 1-5, depending on the eventualities that are earnedly available. While the initial reward-payout parameter did yield the most "valuable" prizes on-paper, it didn't invariably return the most coveted one; too many abstractions factor into what commodity the rewardee will covet the most. Perception transcends what you see on-paper, and the scope of all the prizes vary enough that it's plausible enough to argue that a tier-2 reward would hold more stock to some than a tier-4 reward given the circumstances; for example, if one is already replete of Party Hats—a tier-4 reward—and would prefer junk items to sell—some of which are subsumed under the tier-2 subset—one would argue that the tier-4 payout is easily passable compared to the lower-tier ones, yet they would not have been afforded the latitude to select them in the previous framework. Now, this multi-optional system allows players to select it from any tier to turn more stones. Will it consistently yield them their desired reward? No, and you'll never have those results in any balanced PvE hurdle; but it will ensure that players aren't deprived of potentially more optimal rewards and potentially shafted for submitting higher-IV Pokemon, which is one of the more realistic compromises I could think of. As for the tiering system: I've been intransparent about it for a while because I wanted to challenge the players to deduce it themselves by a recurrently active usage of this system and pooling in their own experiences to help glean all rewardable prizes; with continuance of that process, players could deductively pinpoint the IV ranges of each prize until all were conclusively known. Due to unexpected disuse of the system, however, that has not been going as expeditiously as I expected; therefore, I'll elucidate them all myself by itemizing all-five tiers. Base tier: I call it the base tier because there isn't any threshold other than completing the task. It doesn't matter what your Pokemon's IVs are; the base-tier prizes will be made selectable in the eventual payout, because all it requires is a submissible Pokemon. Tier 1: 85-plus IVs. Tier 2: 115-plus IVs. Tier 3: 135-plus IVs. Tier 4: 155-plus IVs. Any IV baseline covered by your submitted Pokemon will yield that reward; for example, if your Pokemon were to have at least 135 IVs, you would cover 3 tiers and thus have 4 selectable prizes (including the base tier), as shown in Dialatz screenshot. While this doesn't reveal all the tier-respective prizes—data that is assuredly at least almost as coveted—the unveiling of the tier system and the advent of dynamic menus should make it much more deducible; therefore, it still will take player initiatives to glean all the information desired, but it's safe to say that it has been facilitated better with this explanation. Please let me know if any further clarifications are needed on the system. :)

i think you need beat red before able go to trainer valley, when you lose, wait for tow week like other boss. but really? Red is easy, i think you just need good gyara + dragon dance, remember use revive/recovery item. when get outspeed, you can use magnemite sturdy + thunder wave. As a former Content Scripter who has had access to all scripts and perused through the scripted requirements not too long ago, I can confirm that isn't entirely true; irrespective of the outcome against Red, that requirement is flaggedly satisfied as long as you have challenged him. The rest of the requirements are subsumed as MecanoJilano stated (with a few inexactitudes); you need 120 caught-data entries of Generation I Pokemon and 34 evolved-data entries (generationally irrespective)—near-parallel requirements to Love Island. Lastly, you will require 10k Pokedollars in order to board the train; this is actually one of the more nuanced requirements, because if you have a monetary shortfall on-hand when speaking to the NPC screener in the train station, Trainer's Valley will be a dialogically latent option. The script's dynamic menu will only offer it as a destinational option if the fee is covered, so it's explainable as to why it may not surficially seem it's accessible. With all that being said, the option should be at your latitude on the second floor of the interregional-train stations if all those requirements have been satisfied; therein may also lie the problem in misdirection, depending on where you were searching for the option. Let us know if further clarity is needed. :)