Inflation on NPC`s - why we need it

[Financebro]

10 minutes ago, Allsmell said:

Name checks out.

 

Pokémon are the real estate/shares of PRO.

 

What's missing from all these arguments is why catching up in money without effort is required.

 

The only real competitive aspect of PRO is PvP. And if you think you can't get PvP able catchable pokes within a month of hardcore playing PRO you are wrong. If you have a GOD or not will matter in maybe 2% of the cases.

Winning in PvP is often a case of getting better or understand which IVs matter more, not I need all of them, and funnily enough often people become better with time.

 

The much harder part for new players to catch up on is legendary rerolls, and these are irrelevant to the cash economy and will go up with inflation. Understanding IVs cant help you with legendary speed tiers/other IV thresholds when you don't have the ability to purchase from the market (because their is no market, just casino).

 

Source: haven't played for 5 years, probably still worth more than most of PRO, inflation would have been my friend even more while not playing.

yeah kinda haha. 

 

i see the point with the pokemons and the comparison to real estate and yes they would rise in price aswell with inflation but pokemon are no source of income. they are just an assets, which doesnt create any revenue and so on become passiv and doesnt increase the scissor, which is happening between pro players. 

 

i would disagree on the second part, because there are mons out here which are highly used in pvp, which are not huntable atm and can only be bought like corviknight and clodsire, which have crazy high usage atm.

 

the legendary rerolls would actually increase in numbers aswell but become cheaper overall (not the price tag, but rather how easy it is to get them), because at the moment, those with money can increase the prices as they wish and kinda dictate the market. 

 

i agree on the pvp aspect and the skill level needed and ofc, skill beats perfect ivs most of the time, but ivs do have an impact in the game, especially on legendarys, as you said. 

 

thanks a lot for your input tho, i really appreciate it.  

[Allsmell]

17 minutes ago, Financebro said:

yeah kinda haha. 

 

i see the point with the pokemons and the comparison to real estate and yes they would rise in price aswell with inflation but pokemon are no source of income. they are just an assets, which doesnt create any revenue and so on become passiv and doesnt increase the scissor, which is happening between pro players. 

 

i would disagree on the second part, because there are mons out here which are highly used in pvp, which are not huntable atm and can only be bought like corviknight and clodsire, which have crazy high usage atm.

 

the legendary rerolls would actually increase in numbers aswell but become cheaper overall (not the price tag, but rather how easy it is to get them), because at the moment, those with money can increase the prices as they wish and kinda dictate the market. 

 

i agree on the pvp aspect and the skill level needed and ofc, skill beats perfect ivs most of the time, but ivs do have an impact in the game, especially on legendarys, as you said. 

 

thanks a lot for your input tho, i really appreciate it.  

Paragraph one: you buy dividend paying index and think your gaining more than a reinvested index. (Actually nvm you probably pick individual stocks, in PRO this is called repel hunting).

 

Paragraph two: 'unhuntable pokes are too expensive'. I see very usable ones in the 500k-2m range, which is 1 week of bossing on your easy entry 4 accounts.

 

Paragraph three: ?? I think you need to read up about how these items enter the game. They are diffused enough that there is no monopoly. Increasing the cash supply would not make these easier to obtain for new players, or matter as you can't compete with years worth of rerolls in a short space of time.

 

Paragraph 4: glad we agree that IVs on legendarys matter and this thread addresses that not at all.

Edited 1 hour ago by Allsmell