1 hour ago, Matoka said:

"Monetary Value" from things which are not yen itself cannot be generated in the same way as the raw currency, their monetary value adjusts based on how many of something there are perceived to be. Yen is different because it is tied to things directly, for instance 200 yen can never be worth less than 1 Pokeball because you could just turn the 200 yen into 1 Pokeball.

 

1 hour ago, razimove said:

Problem is, the second isn't being done with player-player transactions, but player-npc transactions, generating a new cash influx. Buying RP forces you to directly interact with players in order to sell your items

Yeah, fair point, I got that mixed up. I understand that the distinction is that it's the item(assuming it's consumable) or the pokemon being sunk in this scenario, the money is just being redistributed.

 

What I was mostly alluding to though is that nerfing berries straight to 0 would tank the berry market altogether and possibly cause a deflation.

50 minutes ago, Matoka said:

I'm sorry, you seem to have failed to understand the difference between player-player trading and player-NPC trading.

My point is that both of these extremes, one being buying items from the gift shop, second one being selling berries to an NPC, both create monetary value out of 'thin air' using a 3rd party in the first place and both can be used in player-to-player transactions on the market.

52 minutes ago, Matoka said:

Items being traded to other players and pokemon themselves involved money moving from one player to another, a completely net neutral transaction for the amount of yen in circulation.

Yes, but if the amount of yen in circulation becomes static or drastically lower, everything will fall in value, as yen becomes more valuable, thus causing deflation. The money has to come from somewhere in the end.

1 hour ago, Matoka said:

Berries are problematic because players have the option to trade them to NPC's for a fair price per unit and receive many individual units.

In the end it's just money generated, similar to gym runs, farming nuggets or paydaying, this one is just more efficient in regards to time spent, which is why further nerfs wouldn't be unjustified to preserve fairness.

 

If there wasn't this baseline set for each berry, most of them would be straight up worthless, I guess Nintendo is to blame for their poor individual design. If this baseline got removed, there would only be a handful of berries farmed and they would all tank in price very quickly as you mentioned earlier, whether this would be good or bad for the game is hard to say.

1 hour ago, Matoka said:

Player-Player trading does not generate any yen from thin air, in fact trading through the GTL for pokemon is 100% yen removal from the economy because of the listing fees etc.

I agree.

1 hour ago, Matoka said:

Purchasing any item with RP generates absolutely 0 Yen in the server, nothing from the Gift Shop has an in-game sell price to NPC's, and is not comparable to berries.

That's not what I said. I said that purchasing a trade-able item with RP generates millions in monetary value, not yen. I can understand why someone would think that it's not comparable to berries as you said, but I think there's a distinct connection.

One thing people are not taking into consideration is that this whole 'generating yen from thin air' goes both ways. The same way someone can print money into existence through berries, the same way someone can create value through items and/or caught pokemons. This then goes to the extreme when someone drops a big amount of money on RP and creates millions in monetary value in form of gift shop items in seconds - and this honestly happens a lot(mostly in the chinese community). This is why completely nerfing the berry yen generation is not optimal either and I firmly believe that if NPC sell prices went to 0 we would just shift into a severe deflation, some might say that they wouldn't mind this but I disagree.

 

I think the best solution is to look at the empiric data of average yen created from all sources and compare it to the average amount of value created from items from all sources over the same timeframe. If they're balanced the prices should be stable and if they're not the prices will reflect that. If you look at the prices over the months all gift shop items went down, meaning the current yen generation couldn't sustain the item generation @ their previous prices.

 

If your goal is, however, to stabilize the old limiteds, this will indeed do nothing.

1 hour ago, KaynineXL said:

So what is the point?

There isn't one.

Relevant

Spoiler

Atleast Jon issued an apology.

 

17 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

Another faithful believer!

 

  Hide contents

1

 

1

1 hour ago, razimove said:

No people dont hate you. Just hit them cold.

I would be very careful, no one is safe until the list goes public.

Lmaooooo I am dying.

 

4 hours ago, Snailbot said:

nobody does anything about it, I care about the game, If I don’t complain, who will?

Don't worry, we have dedicated 12 year olds on the job, look:

23 minutes ago, BoltBlades12 said:

Though keep in mind, that post from @Kyu was posted back in March, and since then; silence.

From what it’s looking like, we won’t get it until 2025.

 

7 hours ago, Matoka said:

but if everything was infinitely easy to catch every pokemon would become worthless as you wouldn't need to spend time taking turns to false swipe + spore

But over the course of the last several years breeders didn't become worthless and people are indeed taking turns to false swipe + spore?

8 hours ago, Matoka said:

Look at Scyther on the GTL (currently 20k+), then compare that to Larvitar (7k+), and then compare that to Timburr (1k+).

These are all incredibly prevalent OU Pokemon families, so their demand is arguably equivalent yet their prices on the GTL are drastically different. Scythers are 2,000% the price of Timburr.
Why is this? Because Scyther is "Tedious" to catch by comparison to Larvitar, and Larvitar is more "Tedious" to catch than Timburr as it is rarer.

You're ignoring crucial details such as difference in availability and obtainability, nobody really hunts scythers in safari for profit, because of the inability of influencing the outcome other than by using rocks or bait, which both have a downside and don't guarantee anything. Scythers also technically have an artificially fixed 25k price tag on them by the game corner, so their minimal market value won't fluctuate much from that point downwards.

8 hours ago, Matoka said:

If you want to turn around and tell me that the Timburr market is "Flourishing" you are free to do so of course, but I am free to disagree and say it is a dead market that will never feasibly hold value.

Most of individual's pokemon value comes from it's IVs, nature, egg group, gender or a combination of these factors, if a catch doesn't fit any of this criteria why should it hold any value if there is none to begin with? It feels to me like pushing value onto a worthless market for the sake of pushing value.

2 hours ago, Munya said:

but as he has also said the ball rates are modified here so using the vanilla ball rates in the formula may not net you accurate results

2 hours ago, Munya said:

It was broken, however, we weren't aware that it was at the time, and since we weren't, we couldn't exactly inform anybody that there was a fix in the works

3 hours ago, Matoka said:

As I said before I am very confident Dusk Ball has been intentionally nerfed, along with the other Pokeballs. If It hasn't and this is a mistake I will return and address this, but I am quite confident on my memory regarding this.

I am confused, so were the balls such as dusk balls intentionally nerfed or was the catch rate broken since 2012?

17 minutes ago, Matoka said:

Please do mention examples which you believe to be incorrect in terms of catch rate calculations, just remember to factor in any catch rate multiplier changes to Pokeballs and the fact that we use the gen III / gen IV catch rate calculations (last I checked, could be misremembering).

If you find discrepancies while taking these both into account I'd be genuinely interested to hear them.

For example according to gen III/IV catch rate calculations catching a 1HP/asleep ditto with a dusk ball should be pretty much 100%, which is not the case.

 

https://gyazo.com/1abd128dd18453aa3c2fb6303de755d3

17 minutes ago, Matoka said:

And to anyone who complains that a Pokemon-themed MMO has MMO style changes I don't know what to tell you, we don't exactly hide the fact this is an MMO. It's in the name.

I wouldn't have a problem with this change if it was simply explained to be altered from the original games in order to make it harder since it's an MMO. The whole argument about it being 'broken' for several years is my personal issue and I suppose that's why others are debating this as well.

3 hours ago, Fixedgaming said:

it was a cool movie, but they shouldn't have made the feature to pick another option instead the one you chose in the first place on the end.. It became confusing and I didn't know what I picked and what not xD

Most choices branch out into new and/or alternate outcomes so it had to be done that way.

1 hour ago, TJXD said:

I feel you, the only episode that had promise was the uber one.

I agree. I also saw potential in the Ashley O episode , but it ultimately turned into a very cliche and predictable story, none of the episodes really did it for me or gave me the usual 'black mirror' experience. The first episode also felt like a dumbed down version of the episode 'Playtest' from season 3.

1 hour ago, TJXD said:

Shut Up and Dance is still on top for me - the one where the kid gets text prompts to do stuff

Interesting, not my personal favorite but definitely a good episode.

7 minutes ago, Matoka said:

Too strong, as they are not in line with hand-held catch rate multipliers anymore

Meaning in line with the most recent 3DS hand-held game(s)?

12 minutes ago, Matoka said:

Going through the old updates this is all I could find written about currently, so me thinking Dusk Ball was nerfed may have been a fever dream of mine.

Yeah those were nerfed too from 3.5 to 3.

1 minute ago, Matoka said:

I know that there are intentional changes to certain Pokeballs, however off the top of my head I don't know specifics of how much each were changed.

I know that there were intentional changes too, I am asking if the reason behind these changes was the fact that they were too strong like you just said or if they were 'broken' like darkshade said a few months ago, because that was the explanation we got when all those 'pls revert catchrates' threads started popping up.

7 minutes ago, Matoka said:

You're right it's not you can achieve 100% catch rate on pokemon with easy catch rates (e.g. Magikarp, Caterpie, etc), but some pokeballs were nerfed (Including but not limited to Dusk Balls and Repeatballs iirc) because they were a bit too strong.

The answer I seen not that long ago was because they were 'broken'. So which is it, were they too strong or broken?

12 minutes ago, Tyrone said:

They did a d100 roll, implying the numbers were squashed before the roll. So they converted the list before rolling, otherwise they would've done a d250 roll.

In that case I also wonder what would happen:

1 hour ago, KaynineXL said:

if I picked 7, and you rolled a 7.... Despite me having number 7, you give it to "Kira" because of how the numbers were squashed

@Bearminator ?

3 hours ago, Goku said:

They probably already mailed the prize to umbra and taking jt back from him would be unethical. The only thing that can be done now is that they maybe change the rules of lotteries in the future and state them before a number is drawn.

I don't disagree. I am also hoping for updated rules that will be more clear and consistent.

1 hour ago, KaynineXL said:

Say if I picked 7, and you rolled a 7.... Despite me having number 7, you give it to "Kira" because of how the numbers were squashed.. I would be completely pissed if I'm honest.

In this case you would have won, they only resorted to converting the list by squashing it because nobody picked the ticket with the number 9. This information was however poorly communicated at first and should have been properly explained like bear did instead of just locking the thread. I still don't understand why this was chosen over simply re-rolling though, as the amount of tickets sold wasn't so miniscule that squashing the list was necessary in my opinion.

1 hour ago, OrangeManiac said:

This all being said, it baffles me that a lottery that is worth somewhere from 70 million by bought tickets to god-knows-how-much-Umbreon-is-actually-worth, that the rules weren't being clearly established. Furthermore, I think that raffles/lotteries of this magnitude should be done in some kind of more transparent way (livestream of multiple staff members, etc.) instead of just one staff member posting "lol this guy won gg" because cases like this are inevitable.

Full transparency should absolutely be the standard. Still, all this effort just to enable gambling isn't worth it in my opinion.

59 minutes ago, awkways said:

If he had decided to do 9th from the bottom it would've given everyone who selected a lower number an MASSIVE advantage

This, the fact that staff members think that 'mathematically it doesn't make a difference' frankly concerns me, because it's simply incorrect. You can't just come up with a different illogical and unfair drawing system out of the blue and act as if it's ok, even saying that 'it was consulted', when it clearly wasn't. I also love how the thread got locked ASAP to prevent any form of discussion.

 

@Bearminator Please redraw this lottery properly and then establish one consistent and logical drawing system(not Xth person from the top/bottom) to prevent this from happening again... or just get rid of lotteries altogether as bilburt suggested.

1. Have people pick their numbers.

2. Resort to a completely different drawing system, rendering the whole picking process irrelevant, instead of just re-rolling.

3. ???

4. Profit.

 

I liked it, the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept works really well with movies as a whole and I hope it's not the last movie to use this idea. But man season 5 was weak.

Legend says your pokemon will be returned multilingual.

3 minutes ago, Noctuar said:

A what now?

I am referring to this:

On 6/3/2019 at 5:17 AM, Noctuar said:

The good people will be my Idols whom i will look up to,

The bad people will be my targets, which i hit cold.

Will you make your list of idols and/or targets(which you hit cold) public at any point in the future? And followup question, at which temperature are you planning to strike exactly?

@Noctuar Could you make your cold/hot list public?