Make use of the useless low IV'ed pokes

[Guest drvirus]

As you can see, the market is dying because no one is willing to buy a pokemon unless it was perfect, so all of these pokes are gone to waste, so here is a good way to make the market growing and the rich players will be buying from the poor players making the market much more active, and can be a good sink hole as well for the game:

 

 

add a shiny meter:

lets say you have a great dragonite for example, if you feed that dragonite 100 drago's it becomes shiny, each drago you feed you need to pay the npc lets say 2k so for 100 dragonites and 200k you can change your dragonite to a shiny form.

 

this game is an MMO and not a normal pokemon game, you need the market to be active and stay active with this move you can have a new sink hole for the game, and rich players will get the shiny they always wanted and giving all the new/poor players enough money to buy their preferred pokes without causing any gap between the rich players and the poor players.

 

what do you guys think?

[Crimson]

Make use of useless pokemon? Am I the only one that sees a problem in here?

 

About the shiny meter; Do you have any idea how many dratinis are found every single day? If this ever gets implemented (highly unlikely) everyone will be running around with a shiny dratini in a matter of weeks.

 

All in all, horrible idea in my opinion.

[Guest drvirus]

for the first point yes, useless pokes, people are trying to sell dratinis and bagons for 10k and 5k and no one is buying till they reach the point to either throw it in the pc for ever or release it.

 

as for the second point using 100 pokes is just an example, the admins have access to how many of a certain pokes is caught, and based on that change the amount accordingly. the 100 was just an example, and whats wrong with having shiny dratinis in game? they dont do anything special.

 

At anycase its a suggestion, because in the other game they were facing this same problem, and were planning to do something like this.

[Sangkujung]

Giving players ability to create shiny ingame is a bad idea..literally a bad idea.

Rather than making the market active it will flush shinies in the market making shinies worthless.

Wths the point when evryone has shiny dratini?

[Serena]

This is such a bad idea, plus I have a question.

 

How will this make the market more active?

 

Mostly of the players who are rich are mostly Hunters, means they hunt and catch a lot of pokes, from which at least 60-70% pokes will not have good ivs. So, they don't need to buy useless pokes from other players, they'll simply use their own.

 

So, i think it'll only make the market more worse by adding a lot of shinies to the market and make them worthless.

[Guest drvirus]

as i said before, the amount needed to make a shiny can depend on how many are caught per day, if for example 100 dratinis are caught per day, make it that you require 1000 dratinis to make a shiny dratini, and not only 1 will be wanting it, multiple rich people will want to buy the dratinis, making it harder to actually get 1000 dratinis, and same goes to the rest of the pokemons. and so what if the game has more shinies than there is now? in my opinion having more shinies in game is bette rthan having a point where the top players have all the money and will keep it for them till someone finds a rare siny to buy, like the other game where the poor gets poorer and the rich gets richer.

 

the game needs an economy where the money recycles back and forth between the rich and the poor, if this games economy stays like this, it will become the same as the "other game" and the market dies.

[Thor]

The issue would then be there would be a way to get a shiny other than hunting. Which is a bad idea. The market wont stagnate anytime soon. As soon as we fix the server stability issues we will be adding the auctionhouse in. Which will give players an avenue to get rid of pokemon cheap (new players would be able to buy them, or at least with more than 1 badge anyway

[Emperior]

When is the auction house going to be implemented then?

[Orihara]

When is the auction house going to be implemented then?

As soon as we fix the server stability issues we will be adding the auctionhouse in

 

 

No ETA can be given at the time.

[Naero]

@drvirus Thank you for your suggestion. Regardless of disagreements on its practicality, you have volunteered interesting outlooks and well-thought-out viewpoints, which is all we can ask users to contribute when posting suggestions. Regardless of its (im)plausibility, it does raise interesting concerns for the economy which can segue into other solutions if needed, which I would be interested in discussing.

 

Now onto addressing your issue: the biggest issue is that your suggestion is geared towards changing how the current system operates when the current system isn't even causative of it; rather, it exists mainly because we are working with a sample-size of the long-term economy as we speak. I will explain more on that later, but I will start by addressing why this issue isn't glaring enough that we need to make drastic changes to the landscape of the economy, which your suggestion would do.

 

It appears that the underlying concern is the growing disparity between rich and poor players; how problematic is it when we contextualize it? PRO's economy is incomparable to real-world economies, which changes the entire complexion of the issue; unlike real-world economies, you do not need money for livelihood. All expenditures made with Pokemoney serve nothing more than to buy resources with one's self-worth, not because the failure to obtain those resources would have grave ramifications as they would in a real-world economy—indigent inability to afford food, shelter, and so on.

 

It's always possible for there to be a colossal gap between the rich and poor classes in any economy, but whether or not it's an issue in PRO's economy depends on how that disparity was formed to begin with. The economy in the game you are likely referring to indeed had the gap, but that in itself was not an economic issue; it was merely an aftereffect of an inequitable economic system, and the causal factors of it served their own, discrete issue—whether or not there was parity of opportunityp and resources in achieving the same wealth.

 

In that game, the socioeconomic differences were centered around the pay-to-win potentiality of the game; donators gained a tremendous advantage over non-donators, simply because they had means of obtaining enviable resources (UC shinies, etc.) that not everyone had the monetary resources to donate for, and it thus became a bigger determinant to wealth than a player's gameplay efforts did. We've taken counter-regulatory measures against that issue by not making any economic assets available as much as aesthetics and cosmetics—resources that serve only to enhance the appearance and elegance of the user without making any splash in the economy.

 

Broad rich-poor gaps may exist, and while there will never be equality for the wealth, there will be equality for the opportunities to obtain that wealth. Everyone is is put into an equitable to obtain the consummate Pokemon that are highly coveted as long as they put forth the effort and have the luck in hunting that Pokemon. To make landscape-shaping changes to the economy would be totalitarianistic on the staff's part, and that is oftentimes what causes inequities and undermines the players' role in jumping into the economy to begin with.

 

As for your suggestion to remedy that supposed problem: even if there was a necessity from it (will explain why below), it would only be a short-term solution at best; such stopgap solutions are not wise or prudent to change the landscape of the economy over—especially when it poses imbalance to other aspects of the economy, such as the diminishing of shiny-Pokemon values. Pokemon may be high-cost on-paper at this time and thus more unaffordable to newer players, but those prices are dynamic and changeful enough that it wouldn't be imprudent to try to create a system to stimulate change when it's inevident that the exact change is even going in a bad direction.

 

If anything, time will only make those covetable Pokemon more affordable. With all the money sinkholes that exist with the variety of purchaseables and services (transportation systme, per se) and limited moneymaking methods in comparison, the economy is in a disinflationary position; as such, the total amount of Pokemoney in circulation will (theoretically) remain fairly steady.

 

Pokemon on the other hand? They will accumulate in the economy overtime and will only cease to circulate if they're locked in an inactive/banned account or released, and all the ideal Pokemon will increasingly accumulate in the economy's circulation. As Pokemoney will not be pumped into the economy at the same rate, you can theorize that the amount of Pokemon in supply will eventually outbalance the demand with Pokemoney, which will make them more easily affordable as there are more Pokemon to buy.

 

Bottom line is that the issue you're addressing can very well be solved over time through economics dynamics, more money sinkholes, and more stimulated allocation of Pokemon with the advent of the Auction House, and it would do more harm than good to try to make radical changes in the economic system when the issue itself is negligible enough—remember how it differs from a real-world economy—that chances do not need to be taken to immediately fix it.