Party WQ System

[Qeight]

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

Soooo, after yesterdays/todays "clarification" changes for the Party WQ there has been a massive dissatisfaction throughtout the community. 
The lack of communication for such content as of lately is a really big issue and needs to change/be addressed.

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. 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

The execution of praised concept idea is abysmal. There were no clear rules, no clear explanation and any complaints towards the content is completly missed or ignored.

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. 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

Now, to explain all the issues a bit more in detail. The leaderboard hunt being 12h makes it basically impossible to compete for anyone who works a normal 9-5 job on the daily basis or has any responsibilities in life. The 12h hunt wouldn't be as big of an issue if it would be for a non-event content which is permanently accessible throughout the year. However this is an already time-gated contest. The leaderboard hunt not being accessible during the weekend also plays into this exact same issues. Why we are not able to hunt on the weekend already is absolutely beyond me.

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. 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

Removing the absolutely nonsense of a threshold and changing it to a top8/10 teams system gives a very clear definition who is allowed to access. With the current system there are so many ways to completely manipulate the top20% which is an issue.

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. 
 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

Well, now to the most obvious part - communication. It's a shocker but just communicate. Especially such crucial information needs to be communicated. It happens that you forget to add it in to the ingame dialogue - we are all humans, mistakes happen. But then simply communicate it, apologize and take accountability for it

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. 

On 10/25/2025 at 7:56 PM, Rhpositive said:

As it is right now, it feels half baked. It simply doesn't align with PRO's standards. The commitment it takes to reach a decent score surpasses the "rewards" by a mile. 

That is why a % based leaderboard makes more sense as explained above with the score gap. 

On 10/25/2025 at 7:56 PM, Rhpositive said:

Unlike content from the past, this contest felt extremely rushed. There were (and still are) quite some issues with it which makes it look kinda amateurish.

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. 

On 10/26/2025 at 8:33 AM, Magicarpediem said:

With this system, you can keep top 20% to get full time access, top 50% half time access, top 75% 1/4 time access ..

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- the 20% top contribution : Do I really need to say anything about it? It's just so random, so dumb in term of "competition" and the fact that it was hidden during 2 weeks for no reasons (at least, no official reason). That was just a bad choice, in the application, in the form, in everything.

See explanation above. 

2 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

Btw, when you say that after a player does a post with the informations the staff gave to the community, maybe you should ask why players say that instead of blaming the post?

 

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- Listen/ask players opinions, the players don't want to insult you, they want to see their game becoming better, and it's really sad when nothing changes despite the efforts

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. 

2 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- Eventually making the event less random-dependant because of the ratio hours of farm/rewards, like boosting the chances of forms, or allow the transformation of an OT Blacephalon/Guzzlord but making it untradeable like Xmas Zorua

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.  

[Maxwin]

Elastic top 20% seems like a cool idea but theres some problems with very low or very high participation. Maybe a Min/max set from the devs for extreme cases of low/high participation could help. In the current scenario you could have 5 teams putting in the work and only 2 qualify cause theres only 10 groups in total andeven if their total iv submission has only 100 ivs less they wouldnt qualify for example. The other extreme is everyone on the server just opens a group even if they dont participate and groups with 1 mon submit qualify cause the top 20% gets so dilluted that everyone with a few submits qualifies. 
Min max on top of the elastic qualification in this case would do a lot. If we get a NPC on top of that that says "theres 200 teams, currently the top 40 qualify" i think from a players perspective we have everything we need in terms of information.

and the typical pro player complaining > need a second rare on that blace spawn 



 

[Zwirrfinst]

52 minutes ago, Qeight said:

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. 

 

Sorry, that I need to say that, but in my opinion, this is a very bad answer. Content should be made for everyone, not only for people who are home all day long and not working. 

 

Maybe, if you want to keep the 12h hunting time and it's possible, you could add an option for the party leader to pause the time with a cooldown of something between 3 and 6h, so that it can't be abused (pause, encounter, continue, catch, pause, ...). This would give everyone the chance to reach the top 20% and not only the above mentioned people. 

Or another option: You simply split the time. Like if you make a group, which is fixed for the week after creating and starting, this group can hunt 3x 4h each during the week. This would also give everyone the chance to compete

Edited 21 hours ago by Zwirrfinst

[Mingrenpro]

Not sure if it's possible to implement coding-wise, but if yes, this idea below can help with the hunting-duration issue:

 

- Adding the "Pause" and "Resume" function to NPC Cultist

 

This NPC is already noted the start time and start a 12 hours count down from that point onward, it tells the player the remaining time also. Then how about applying the 'Stop' feature of the current MS/BMS NPC onto this one, but instead of stopping, it's pausing, and can be resumed at a different time upon the party leader request, as long as it's still within the valid time range (Mon-Fri)

 

If this can be implemented, then 12 hours hunting is not an issue, even 30 hours is do-able.

Edited 20 hours ago by Mingrenpro

[Hulfrite]

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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. 

I don't see how it can be "falsely insinuated" or "not fair" to say our opinion with the informations YOU decide to give us.
You choose what informations you giving publicly, player have these information, and they base all their opinion on it. If you think their opinion are wrong, false assumptions or whatever, then it's because of a lack of communication, that you chose (or not) to do. 

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

do it with accurate data, facts and come at us with statements that are truthful. 

As I just said, we do it with the accurate data, fact and truthful statements that you give us access to, if it's incomplete for some reasons, in this case, the problem isn't from the players.

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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.

I never said that, so please don't make any false assumptions about our intentions 

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

to insinuate that your experience is the experience of everyone is simply not fair

Once again, Callmerengod never said that, she litteraly said "for anyone who works with a normal 9-5 job on the daily basis or has any responsibilities in life", you take a lot of our messages saying that we say false information, assumptions and that our suggestions are "one sided" but you literally take our messages and deflect them into something else

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

You are fully aware that this a fully volunteer based project, right? If you want AAA-games, there is plenty out there.

Being a volunteer based project doesn't means that the content has to be rushed and served incomplete/with bad quality for your information.

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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. 

Once again, taking messages and deflect their sens, he was talking about a system similar to the nesting grounds, using random numbers just to illustrate the suggestion, never said to let access to everyone

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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. 

Same thing, never suggested to remove the grind, having access to the area already requires a big grind in the actual conditions, but winning the grind can still rewards you with nothing, which is, in my opinion, absurd

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

a picture of one of our staff members writing a message on PRO Discord titled "disgusting.png"

As I said previously, literally not the subject of the post, just the name she gave to the png on the computer, probably never meant to be seen by anyone (correct me if I'm wrong of course @Callmerengod)

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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. 

Taking the risk to repeat myself, we suggest that you should improve on these points, and never said to "beg on your knees". If saying that the staff should apologize after they did something wrong means "all staff should beg on their knees for forgiveness" then yeah, maybe the problem is how you interpret every conversation, and that you maybe should let it to someone else then.

 

It's a thing to take suggestions, to forward them and everything, but don't be on one-side view as you say, on our view, we don't have any feedback on most of what we say, there is a lot of things that should be announced clearly that aren't, don't say that there is no lack of communication (ex : on the previous client, there was people everyday on the bug report complaining about the music/sound crashes, but there was never an announcement or anything to say to the community that it was a thing, and how to correct the issue, people from the community were repeating it in bug report for months)

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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. 

That's a choice, and we didn't criticize it, but if lowering the hunting time is a problem, why reduce it from 24h to 12h in a first place? When pretexting it's to let people sleep even if now they have to be present during almost all the farm timing

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

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

For my personal messages, we would have nothing to gain from my suggestions, as I said, we're already top 1 each week for now, and are guarantee to be able to farm the Dark Star, the only suggestion that could "benefit us" would be the last suggestion, about reducing rng in the reward after a grinding competition

 

And btw, I don't think this thread wasn't "respectful/civil", moreover when the only exemple you give is about the png, we all gave our opinions, that you chose to answer with "you're wrong, don't make false assumptions" etc... by considering only your point of view here

 

That being said, thanks for the few informations you chose to gave us in this post, I think I've said all I had to say, so good game to everyone and good evening 

Edited 20 hours ago by Hulfrite
Forgot the 2 last quotes

[Lyn1311]

+1 such a great content wasted on bad execution, still understandable since its 1st time held, kudos to the staff. But its kind of forcing player to do very unhealty game style.

 

 

[Qeight]

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:
 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

- 6/8hours hunt

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. 

 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

- hunt resets on friday 12am gmt+0 (the current ending period for the contest) and starts immediately at the same time for the next week (saturday 00:01am gmt+0)

We like this suggestion. 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

- top10 teams get access to the hunting grounds (~40players weekly)

As said up top, this would result in less players getting access. 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

- communication

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. 

  

On 10/25/2025 at 7:56 PM, Rhpositive said:

The option to create a party of 2 to 4 players should not be a thing. It should be a fixed number. Currently if you create a party of 2 or 3 players you have no way to reach top 20%. Players not knowing it and creating such parties are doomed from the start. 

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. 

  

On 10/25/2025 at 8:37 PM, Uxxelmon said:

As someone who works a 9to5, you almost feel left out. During the week, I have no way to hunt for 12 hours straight.

As mentioned above, 12 hours straight hunting is not required. 

  

On 10/26/2025 at 8:33 AM, Magicarpediem said:

Just an idea who can reward everyone

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. 

  

5 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- the 20% top contribution : Do I really need to say anything about it? It's just so random, so dumb in term of "competition" and the fact that it was hidden during 2 weeks for no reasons (at least, no official reason). That was just a bad choice, in the application, in the form, in everything.

I mentioned this prior on the why and why it does make sense. 
 

  

5 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- no communication/accountability : Once again, what to add? This is something that multiple players have tried to talk about already, and nothing change, the communication in this game still sucks (ex : officials informations in random discord channels instead of announcement, hide informations for no apparent reasons... ) and nothing ever changes, we still have the same answers like "remember all staff members do this voluntary and don't get paid", or no answers at all.

We will communicate what we need to communicate, I have mentioned above as to why some information was hidden. 

  

5 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- Reduce the time of farm to 6h approximately

Mentioned above as to why this is not the solution you think it is.
 

  

5 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

 - Being present for the launch of new events, to avoid situations like Blacephalon not being available during 8h30 at the start

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. 

  

5 hours ago, Hulfrite said:

- Listen/ask players opinions, the players don't want to insult you, they want to see their game becoming better, and it's really sad when nothing changes despite the efforts

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.  

  

3 hours ago, Maxwin said:

Elastic top 20% seems like a cool idea but theres some problems with very low or very high participation. Maybe a Min/max set from the devs for extreme cases of low/high participation could help. In the current scenario you could have 5 teams putting in the work and only 2 qualify cause theres only 10 groups in total andeven if their total iv submission has only 100 ivs less they wouldnt qualify for example. The other extreme is everyone on the server just opens a group even if they dont participate and groups with 1 mon submit qualify cause the top 20% gets so dilluted that everyone with a few submits qualifies. 

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. 

[Magicarpediem]

I'm sorry but is it possible to not use my take out of context ? 

 

I took as example the dungeon hunting area where you can access if you're top 3 in each dungeon, with different time to hunt according to your rank.

 

"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. "

Here is you answer. 

 

I never tell to open the area to everyone.  

 

 

 

' 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.  "

 

Sorry but i'm in shoked by this sentence. " this content is not for everyone .  " 

 

My answer is for everyone,  i guess. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zwirrfinst]

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

Also to hit on some of the new comments:

If you do not like the time invest -> do not participate 

Did someone here say that? I don't think so, but correct me pls, if I'm wrong.

The thing is: IIrc no one said that we dont like the time invest in general. I assume the majority would do it without any problem, but the problem right now is: WE CANT, because of having a job and a life outside of this game. And because of that, we are literally blocked out of this content, which is just unfair against everyone who can't no-life this game.

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

- hunt resets on friday 12am gmt+0 (the current ending period for the contest) and starts immediately at the same time for the next week (saturday 00:01am gmt+0)

We like this suggestion. 

I like this one too. This would actually fix the problem with the hunting time, because we aren't forced to do it during the week, which isn't prossible (reason above).

 

1 hour ago, Qeight said:

On 10/25/2025 at 6:15 PM, Callmerengod said:

- communication

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. 

I understand your point there, but wouldn't it be a good way if someone from the staff just says something like "With this patch, we've added a Group WQ where you (...) and to get access, your team must reach top x%. We are currently checking if the percentage is fine and if not, we are adjusting it in the future."? This would have been way more transparent and clear from the beginning.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Zwirrfinst

[Khlyst]

Hello everyone, I just want to clarify something about the discussions happening in this topic.

 

I truly value all the feedback provided, but let's make an effort to avoid any passive-aggressive remarks or jabs in your responses, whether directed at staff or players. I believe everyone is genuinely trying to offer helpful feedback to address the issues, and I don't see how any insults contribute positively to the conversation.

 

If this continues, we may have to lock this topic.

Edited 16 hours ago by Khlyst