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 May 9 by Allsmell

[Mingrenpro]

4 hours ago, Unfrosted said:

Do you have an alternative suggestion? I mean other people such as @Dorade are trying to give their opinions and suggestions id love to see you try that for once. Instead of saying why the idea is bad id love to see you trying to improve it or suggest an alternative solution, also you can be a little nicer while you are at it

 

Why should I act like you suggested? If I'm interested in one like that, I would make my own suggestion already, instead of a simple -1, I brought more enough to it as to why

[Unfrosted]

1 hour ago, Mingrenpro said:

 

Why should I act like you suggested? If I'm interested in one like that, I would make my own suggestion already, instead of a simple -1, I brought more enough to it as to why

Almost every post I see you posting your opinion is negative, argumentative and simply doesn't benefit the community, you don't offer solutions or improvements and you do it in an unkind way. You should act the way I suggested since clearly you have the free time to comment on many different thread and clearly you are opinionated enough to put effort into your responses, if you do it in a different way and instead of saying why stuff are bad you will try to say how to improve I think you can make some valid points.

anyway its your choice either way so I will cut it here as it will probably lead to a non productive unrelated discussion. have a nice day brother  

[Peterupton]

On 5/8/2026 at 2:08 AM, Mingrenpro said:

 

Okay, let’s be real again.

 

You say even a younger player can optimize up to four accounts? Sure, in theory. But in practice? Most of them  are still struggling with one account. Let alone all the needed experienced stacked overtime to have a best route of money farming, no shortcut here.

 

Meanwhile, the experienced players with years of knowledge are already running their four accounts at full efficiency. When you increase NPC money, they scale up much harder than any new player ever could.

 

And this idea that “money becomes less valuable for all, so people who earn the same become more equal”? That only works if everyone ACTUALLY earns the same. But they don’t. Veterans earn way more per hour than new players, even after inflation. So when everyone gets more money, the rich still pull ahead faster. Their 900 million becomes 2 billion quicker, while the new player is still scraping together their first few millions.

 

In the real world, printing more money or causing inflation doesn’t magically close the gap between rich and poor. Usually the people who already have assets and good income streams just get richer faster. Same thing here.

Your “scissors” (equalizer) doesn’t exist in this case. The gap doesn’t close — it stretches. Prices in auctions and trades will keep shooting up, and new players will still be left behind, just in a more inflated economy.

 

So tell me, after this change, how does a new player with 4 accounts actually compete against a veteran who’s been doing this for years with the same 4 accounts but way better efficiency? At this point it honestly feels like one of those debates you’d need to sit down over something like the macallan sherry oak 25 years old - or even just browse a selection at Punin Wine - to properly unpack how uneven that scaling really is.

 

In short, your overly optimistic doesn't work here.

this is the key point tbh - scaling isn’t equal. even if both run 4 accounts, the efficiency gap is huge, so inflation just amplifies that difference rather than fixing it