Tackling Competitive Accessibility - A Document

[Acedus]

Foreword

Hello,

I am Acedus, some members of the community will recognize me as an older member of the game.
I used to play back when PBO initially released and quit sometime in early 2018 due to a similar bottleneck to the one that will be discussed in this suggestion.
Before we get to the full course meal I believe it is essential to discuss the meat and potatoes, so let's do just that.

What causes a player to feel a sense of progression in PBO?
Is it winning a PvE or PvP oriented fight?
Is it winning an RNG-based competition?
Is it the rush of excitement that is invoked whenever the entire population observes your fortune (or misfortune) as they read the words "Player has encountered a level X Y"?

Well, it's a combination of the bunch, but the main thing that makes one feel a sense of steady progression is obviously the progression itself.
Raw progression in the Pokémon genre (at least at the endgame level) is considered to be the obtainment of a Pokémon with high to perfect IVs, with the right ability, the right moveset, and the right nature.
To achieve that goal at the moment is near-impossible due to the major factor that the game so heavily relies on, in its current state- the RNG.
Personally, my stand on RNG, in general, remains neutral. It's not a bad thing nor a good thing as long as it remains in balance.
Evidently, it isn't balanced which is why I am writing this suggestion to begin with, but we digress.
The main issue I'm aiming to tackle in this post is the IV generation one, what can be done in order to fulfill a sense of progression without ruining the ever-so-praised grind.

Initially, two methods come to mind when tackling such issue. I'll provide brief exposition to each of them:

• Bottle Caps - Oh bottle caps, how original. A linear reward with linear effort, not very interesting and certainly not progressive. For those of you who aren't aware of what bottle caps bring to the table, they basically allow the ability to raise a Pokémon IV to the maximum on a specific stat. The problem with that is that it defeats the purpose of grinding for a Pokémon multiple times and lowers the value of things like swarms for example.

• IV Resets - This one is pretty self-explanatory, you take an item, pop it on a Pokémon of choice and it randomly generates new IVs for it. The cons with this method are pretty straightforward- you're adding fuel to the fire.

Now that we covered the most common banal suggestions, it is time to propose my more elaborate yet flexible solution. A solution that aims to maintain the thrill of the hunt while granting ease of access to the competitive scene of the game.

*drum roll* conversions!

---

Content Suggestion ▻ Conversion
This is a document portraying the concept of ‘shard conversion’ that will be elaborated on in the following sections. The document will provide an objective view over possible solutions provided to deal with one of the game’s core design issues; its accessibility to competitive ready teams, and rewarding progression.

Introduction

1.A. The player will be able to convert Pokémon into shards and then feed said shards to other Pokémon to gain a specific amount of IVs in a stat of their choosing.
1.B. The ratio of conversion will be fixed (i.e UR Pokémon will turn into a UR shard and can be only fed to UR Pokémon ).

Investment Methodology

2.A. Pokémon can only be fed a fixed amount of IV shards.
2.B. Method A - Pokémon will be restricted to two stats which can be fed said shards, chosen by the player the moment they feed a shard into a selected stat.
2.C. Method B - Pokémon will be restricted to 31/62/93 shards or IVs which can be allocated to any stat of the player's choosing.

Value of Conversion

3.A. Shards will have value based on the IVs of the Pokémon that was converted to them. When converted, a shard will be designated with a stat of the player's choosing (i.e Attack Shard [VR]).
3.B. Method A - Shard value will be fixed (i.e 1 Pokémon = 1 IV).
3.C. Method B - Shard value will be divided into 3 tiers:

• 0-10 IVs yield 1 IVs when converted to a shard (i.e Attack Shard [VR] +1).

• 11-20 IVs yield 2 IVs when converted to a shard (i.e Defense Shard [UC] +2).

• 21-31 IVs yield 3 IVs when converted to a shard (i.e Speed Shard [R] +3).

3.D. Method C-1 - Shard value will be dictated by the Pokémon’s IV when initially converted into a shard (i.e a converted Pokémon that was designated to be turned into an Attack Shard had 8 IVs in its attack stat will yield Attack Shard [POKEMON_RARITY] +8) (preferably used with the method mentioned in section 2.B.).
3.E. Method C-2 - Same method as 3.D. but restrict the shard to Pokémon as well (i.e Attack Shard [POKEMON_RARITY] +8 [POKEMON_SPECIE]).
3.F. Method D - Shard value will overwrite the current IV value of the target Pokémon (i.e Attack Shard [POKEMON_RARITY] +21 will convert the target's Pokémon attack stat to 21). (preferably used with the method mentioned in section 2.B.).

Subjective Overview

4.A. A combination of methods 3.D./3.E./3.F. with method 2.C. would be the best course of action.
4.B. Any form of 2.B./2.C. with 3.B. 3.C. will be less beneficial to all parties involved.

---

And that's about it, let me know what you think in the comments, I'd love to hear more suggestions regarding this matter!

 

[crazyping12]

Good suggestion to be honnest there is a need to have access to Better ivs pokemon without the need for endless grind, and the Shards suggestion is much more creative than Bottle caps or iv resets its also more fun.

As for how i would proceed with the methods : for the Investment Methodology i think Method A is better just because with Method B its much eaiser to have 6x31 ivs pokemon which isnt very ideal for an MMO. but Method A should be without having a fixed amount of shards fed, so you can still hit 31 in 2 stats even from 0 ivs. it makes sense as to raise from 0 to 31 would need more grind.

As for Value of Conversion i lean more towards method B mainly because it rewards still finding good ivs mons and is more progressive and it would make hunting much more fun, and trades more livelier as trash URs would hold value specially if they had any high ivs on 1 stat, i would just add more tiers of IVs yield with more than 3 IVs yield at higher ivs maybe something like :

0-10 ivs = +1 ivs
11-19 ivs = +2 ivs
20-25 ivs = +3 ivs
26-30 = +4 ivs
31 ivs = +5 ivs

tho i think this method should still be mixed with Method C-2 with pokemon species being used on the same pokemon species, its just makes more sense to use the same Species, and it also makes it more grindy as it should be for how easy it can be to get URs from hunting and Trading.

what i currently don't like about this is how easy you can get perfect common-uc-rare-vr mons as they are easier to find to begin with which means more access to better overall ivs combined with the shards system, the server will be quickly filled with perfect common to VR mons, so i either suggest to have altered Methods that makes it more grindy towards lower rarities, or making Shards a system for only URs, or URs + VRs.

 

[Andyy]

+1 to IV Resets which changes all the IVs randomly
-1 to single IV changes

Although I'm against single IV changes, your base suggestion seems cool to me with some changes I want to add.

First of all, BIG NO to 2C-3D-3E-3F

I am ok with 2B+3C with some changes:
1. Pokémons will be restricted to ONLY ONE stat which can be fed said shards, chosen by the player the moment they feed a shard into a selected stat
2. Only OT pokemons can be converted into shards
3. Same species restriction: For example, if you want to change a stat of your Ralts, converted pokemon(s) should also be Ralts

 

[Acedus]

Good suggestion to be honnest there is a need to have access to Better ivs pokemon without the need for endless grind, and the Shards suggestion is much more creative than Bottle caps or iv resets its also more fun.

As for how i would proceed with the methods : for the Investment Methodology i think Method A is better just because with Method B its much eaiser to have 6x31 ivs pokemon which isnt very ideal for an MMO. but Method A should be without having a fixed amount of shards fed, so you can still hit 31 in 2 stats even from 0 ivs. it makes sense as to raise from 0 to 31 would need more grind.

As for Value of Conversion i lean more towards method B mainly because it rewards still finding good ivs mons and is more progressive and it would make hunting much more fun, and trades more livelier as trash URs would hold value specially if they had any high ivs on 1 stat, i would just add more tiers of IVs yield with more than 3 IVs yield at higher ivs maybe something like :

0-10 ivs = +1 ivs
11-19 ivs = +2 ivs
20-25 ivs = +3 ivs
26-30 = +4 ivs
31 ivs = +5 ivs

tho i think this method should still be mixed with Method C-2 with pokemon species being used on the same pokemon species, its just makes more sense to use the same Species, and it also makes it more grindy as it should be for how easy it can be to get URs from hunting and Trading.

what i currently don't like about this is how easy you can get perfect common-uc-rare-vr mons as they are easier to find to begin with which means more access to better overall ivs combined with the shards system, the server will be quickly filled with perfect common to VR mons, so i either suggest to have altered Methods that makes it more grindy towards lower rarities, or making Shards a system for only URs, or URs + VRs.

Some interesting points raised.
Personally I think the alteration of method 3.C. is a welcome one and grants a faster way to progress than the original method.
That said all numbers in the original post are bound to change, the idea is to give an objective or at the very least close to objective look on multiple ways to implement the same suggestion.

 

[Acedus]

+1 to IV Resets which changes all the IVs randomly
-1 to single IV changes

Although I'm against single IV changes, your base suggestion seems cool to me with some changes I want to add.

First of all, BIG NO to 2C-3D-3E-3F

I am ok with 2B+3C with some changes:
1. Pokémons will be restricted to ONLY ONE stat which can be fed said shards, chosen by the player the moment they feed a shard into a selected stat
2. Only OT pokemons can be converted into shards
3. Same species restriction: For example, if you want to change a stat of your Ralts, converted pokemon(s) should also be Ralts
4. This system should be valid for VRs and URs (and maybe Legendaries in the future) since finding other rarities is very easy

I made my stance pretty clear on your +1 (and -1 case and point this post), I'd like to hear your reasoning for why you think RNG would beneficial to an already over-saturated RNG-fest.

As for the changes you proposed to the combination of 2B+3C I'll go over them briefly:

1. As said in my previous comment, the post is an objective one, numbers can change, we're only discussing a possible method of implementation so I don't mind this slight alteration.
2. I personally disagree with this one. I think that granting the ability to sell a Pokémon you would otherwise consider useless (either you already have it in its best version or otherwise) would help bring a healthier economy.
3. Neutral regarding this suggestion.
4. I strongly disagree with this suggestion since you have what's otherwise known as exceptions. Let's have a look at Venonat for example. Venonat is officially a UC, its rates are that of a UC but that's only partially true since its only spawning location is in Spring Valley, a place that inhabits 5 other UCs, hence boosting its true rarity to that of a R~VR. Tl;Dr equal opportunity to equal Pokémon, but again, that's just my subjective view.

 

[BRUTTOW]

Aha all nice and pretty, but my question is with all these methods, can you still get 5x31 or 6x31 pokemon?

 

[DevR]

I like the idea of combining approaches 2.B and 3.F to address the IV issue. My reasoning is as follows:

1. Offensive Pokemon rely mostly on their Speed and either Attack / SpAttack. In contrast, defensive Pokemon need good IVs across more stats to function optimally, but in many cases they can make-do with 2x31 IVs and decent IVs on the other ones. Therefore, allowing up to 2 stats to be boosted greatly reduces the barrier to entry into PvP for players who lack either the time or luck (or both!) to get usable Pokemon under the current conditions.

2. Extending the influence of resets / bottle caps / shards to beyond 2 stats creates disincentives for hunting over the long-term, since it becomes much easier to acquire the "perfect" Pokemon via IV-merges / changes. Managing the long-term health of the game and incentivising the grind are also important. I believe that modifying 2 stats achieves the necessary balance between this and the need to allow players to build usable teams within a reasonable timeframe.

3. Compared to methods 3A, 3B and 3C, I prefer method 3F because it speeds up the whole "conversion / IV-transfer" process, while still being more difficult than simply using bottle caps to change IVs to 31 (or 0, hypothetically). Unlike method 3E, it imposes no species restriction, which means that something like a Clefairy with 31 speed IVs also has great value in the trade market because it can be used to get 31 speed IVs on something like Gliscor, Garchomp, Weavile etc. Restricting it to either OT Pokemon or the same species doesn't allow for this additional value creation that is possible when you only lock shard-use to Pokemon of the same rarity.

4. I prefer method 3F over 3D and 3E also because it preserves the value of a "converted / traded / sacrificed" Pokemon having 31 IVs in the desired stat. In contrast, methods 3D and 3E could have a "converted" Pokemon (for e.g. a Clefairy) with 25 speed IVs be of the same value as one with 31 speed IVs, simply because the target Pokemon (say, a Sneasel) already has 6 speed IVs.

5. More broadly, I'm interested in this idea because it gives meaning to almost every encounter a player would have, since even otherwise unusable (PvP-wise) wild Pokemon have the potential to be useful in this "conversion" process. As such, it encourages effort / the grind from players, while also being a lot more rewarding than the present system (and easier to digest than Bottle Caps for the grind-heavy players?).

 

[Andyy]

RNG creates variety
It keeps the game fresh and unpredictable

RNG makes games harder and basically difficult games are better games imo. Difficult games gives more pleasure in the end when you achieve smthing

What is the point of playing this game if we can get 31 IVs easily. Instead, I can play pvp in showdown with perfect natures, abilities and all 31IVs
Lets assume everyone using 31 speed in pvp.. Where is the excitement of this?

I saw some people suggesting nature rerolls!! what?? I quit PRO 2 days after I started playing when I learned there is nature rerolls and you can catch legendaries only for once
Some people complain about the time they spend on the game, saying hours of grinding and getting nothing... If you value your time that much, simply dont play games or go play other mmos to get shiny URs easily.

Briefly, this game is supposed to be hard

-----

For your 2nd comment: I dont think it would bring healthier economy. Instead, useless pokemons would be overpriced

 

[Acedus]

I like the idea of combining approaches 2.B and 3.F to address the IV issue. My reasoning is as follows:

1. Offensive Pokemon rely mostly on their Speed and either Attack / SpAttack. In contrast, defensive Pokemon need good IVs across more stats to function optimally, but in many cases they can make-do with 2x31 IVs and decent IVs on the other ones. Therefore, allowing up to 2 stats to be boosted greatly reduces the barrier to entry into PvP for players who lack either the time or luck (or both!) to get usable Pokemon under the current conditions.

2. Extending the influence of resets / bottle caps / shards to beyond 2 stats creates disincentives for hunting over the long-term, since it becomes much easier to acquire the "perfect" Pokemon via IV-merges / changes. Managing the long-term health of the game and incentivising the grind are also important. I believe that modifying 2 stats achieves the necessary balance between this and the need to allow players to build usable teams within a reasonable timeframe.

3. Compared to methods 3A, 3B and 3C, I prefer method 3F because it speeds up the whole "conversion / IV-transfer" process, while still being more difficult than simply using bottle caps to change IVs to 31 (or 0, hypothetically). Unlike method 3E, it imposes no species restriction, which means that something like a Clefairy with 31 speed IVs also has great value in the trade market because it can be used to get 31 speed IVs on something like Gliscor, Garchomp, Weavile etc. Restricting it to either OT Pokemon or the same species doesn't allow for this additional value creation that is possible when you only lock shard-use to Pokemon of the same rarity.

4. I prefer method 3F over 3D and 3E also because it preserves the value of a "converted / traded / sacrificed" Pokemon having 31 IVs in the desired stat. In contrast, methods 3D and 3E could have a "converted" Pokemon (for e.g. a Clefairy) with 25 speed IVs be of the same value as one with 31 speed IVs, simply because the target Pokemon (say, a Sneasel) already has 6 speed IVs.

5. More broadly, I'm interested in this idea because it gives meaning to almost every encounter a player would have, since even otherwise unusable (PvP-wise) wild Pokemon have the potential to be useful in this "conversion" process. As such, it encourages effort / the grind from players, while also being a lot more rewarding than the present system (and easier to digest than Bottle Caps for the grind-heavy players?).

All very valid points, I don't really have a disagreement with any of them.

 

[Acedus]

RNG creates variety
It keeps the game fresh and unpredictable

RNG makes games harder and basically difficult games are better games imo. Difficult games gives more pleasure in the end when you achieve smthing

What is the point of playing this game if we can get 31 IVs easily. Instead, I can play pvp in showdown with perfect natures, abilities and all 31IVs
Lets assume everyone using 31 speed in pvp.. Where is the excitement of this?

I saw some people suggesting nature rerolls!! what?? I quit PRO 2 days after I started playing when I learned there is nature rerolls and you can catch legendaries only for once
Some people complain about the time they spend on the game, saying hours of grinding and getting nothing... If you value your time that much, simply dont play games or go play other mmos to get shiny URs easily.

Briefly, this game is supposed to be hard

-----

For your 2nd comment: I dont think it would bring healthier economy. Instead, useless pokemons would be overpriced

I'd like to refrain from a back and forth but I feel a need to point something out in your argument.

You claim that difficult games

give more pleasure in the end when you achieve something

and I couldn't agree with you more.

But. The game in its current state isn't very difficult, it's just tedious. The major difference between the two is that former is addictive while the latter gets old very quickly and would deter away 90% of the player base.

I won't delve into the rest of your points as I've already discussed them but I'll ask you a question instead:

What is the point of playing this game if we can get 31 IVs easily. Instead, I can play pvp in showdown with perfect natures, abilities and all 31IVs
Lets assume everyone using 31 speed in pvp.. Where is the excitement of this?

Would you rather that only some people had those 31 IVs while other didn't, and all of that determined by nothing else but sheer luck?