A more forgiving token store.

[Zooks]

Okay, so this isn't going to concern a large portion of the community, but after first hand experience I feel this needs to be addressed.

The token store is obviously used by a lot of the player base whether it's for membership, selling/buying tokens for some quick cash, or trying your luck at a pokemon, and at the same time keeping our game running! At a low scale point of view, this appears to be just fine as everyone gets what they donate for, and when you decide to buy a few pokemon using the shiny chance, it doesn't really matter THAT much as long as the investment is low, especially when that small investment has a small chance for a huge payoff.

I feel this is the exact opposite at the larger end of the scale, where if players who are truly dedicated to the game decide to make a sizable token purchase, even with considering the fact that it is still a gamble, can be unlucky enough to end up with absolutely nothing. This is where I think something needs to be done. I have my own experience on both ends of the spectrum. Gambling only for 6 feebas in the past ending up with a shiny on the 6th one. If I had not received a shiny in that instance, it wouldn't have been a huge loss, however the payoff was immense for very little risk and it made me very, very happy. Recently after a chain of 35 squirtles, 362k tokens spent (not uncluding the 10x chances), I have been left with nothing, not even any normal squirtles worth selling. Does this seem right? I know luck plays a huge factor and the chances have to remain low to avoid shiny influx, however after that much support you provide to the game.. being left with nothing is truly heartbreaking.

Rigaudon conducted a few tests which I am grateful for, but it only proves how polarizing and unforgiving it can be, I won't write those statistics down unless I get permission to, however I'd like to say that the current system has the potential to make a player either extremely content, or absolutely miserable.

Now I'd like to talk about solutions to this problem. I don't think anything needs to be changed at the low scale, as low risk and high rewards is already as good as it gets on that spectrum. But if there were some mechanic that detects the more you try, the better chances you have (as long as the 10x shiny chance bundle is in effect) at getting a shiny ts pokemon, in more specific terms maybe a chance boost every 100k tokens spent, capping out at a certain amount. But without an actual hard cap in place, the problem continues to exists where someone can become extremely unlucky, and after over $1000 spent they can still be left with nothing (which is a very real possibility). Imagine the poor guy that shows that much support to be left with nothing. I love this game with all my heart and will continue to show support far into the future, and I'd much like some feedback by staff on this topic, as well as the players who continue show their dedication year after year.

 

[Mike!]

You know, i completely agree. There have been times where ill donate 100 Euros (Over 100 US Dollars) to get nothing worth selling. I Always make sure i have shiny chance as well. I can say, however, that ive been lucky enough to buy two Pokemon and get a shiny one... but i feel as though its because i donate so much. Im sure the staff can look up how much money ive spent on tokens. I've only gotten lucky enough to get 3 Token Store Shinies out of all of that.

As Zooks said, i love this game and will continue to donate but i would absolutely LOVE to see some sort of boost in chance as he said.

 

[ohlssonpower]

I agree with both of u, and u all know ive donated plenty . Dont get me wrong, ive been lucky and gotten quite alot of ts shinys. But there are times where ive donated 3-400 euros without getting anything, which really makes u feel abit sick.

i'll probably keep donating even if nothing is done, cuz i love the game and want to support it, but maybe thats just me .

 

[Poisonivy]

Its a fun game and donating is good for the game. but complaining about the outcome of token store....well i guess thats fine to. But you guys might want to leave out "continuing to donate". Now im not saying dont continue to donate, im just saying you should have left that part out.
If i was in charge and seen someone saying all this then seeing "continuing to donate" at the end, i wouldnt show much attention to it. I think Shinys should be left the way it is.

Then again might just be me and this is just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Electrofreak]

The only issue is this directly makes the game more balanced/swayed towards the people who pay. Honestly the token store pokemon should never have existed in the first place IMO because all that did is hurt the free player, barely help the donating player, and only really benefit those who donate large amounts of extra income to force the RNG in their favor.

Rather than see a relaxed rate on shinies, I would much rather see more external implementations like special sprites, larger hideout rooms/castles (when implemented), special guild features, and the like. This way there can be an advantage as all of those would be available to resell to other players, but not in such a way that it directly floods the market with assets that take a long time to circulate out of the system.

I don't know about you guys, but a costume box that has a small chance of awarding gym leader/elite4 customizations sound pretty sweet to me. Then the others like Ace Trainer, Lass, etc could be resold into the general population. This would benefit everyone for their customization and not just the donating player. It could also become its own collection game of sorts to get all the outfits. Everyone wins in this situation without really having the negative economic downturn that the token store currently has.

I am probably the single most addicted person to battling shinies within PWO, so as much as I would love relaxed rates to be able to trade for those things from you large-sum donators, it does not make it better for the game itself and for the majority of the other players.


However, again, I would like to emphasize that I do believe you guys should be given something worthwhile for your donations as they are appreciated since not everyone can do so. I just think shiny pokemon are not the way to go about it.

 

[HitmonFonty]

You haven't stated exactly what you are asking for. A 5% increase in chance? 10/20/50%? And when should it kick in? $100? $200? Maybe again at $1000 since if players that spend hundreds should be rewarded more, surely thousands even more? Then what happens when someone spends $1000 and still doesn't get what they want? Or are you asking that at some point the chance becomes a certainty?

PWO staff are strongly against pay to win, and increasing the odds of shiny pokemon is really heading that way.

What we really are looking for is other ways to reward donators- not just more of the same thing. We are heading in that direction but game development needs to catch up with ideas for the most part where additions to the token store are concerned. And as with most other parts of the game, patience will be rewarded in time.

 

[Zooks]

The thing is when you donate in attempts to obtain a shiny pokemon, based on my experience at least, you usually lose way more than what you gain by gambling. If I wanted to truly be after profit, I wouldn't risk that gamble in the first place and sell tokens, which is what Sylpharionz used to do and is much, much more profitable. Now I already stated that the chance is supposed to be low to avoid shiny influx, but while this system is still in place, it only seems logical that if someone has donated a very large chunk of money to the server without getting anything in return, it would be nice for staff to acknowledge this by giving a chance for the donator to at least make "some" of that back. If you donate half a grand, those tokens are much better off staying as tokens than being gambled away. If people are truly worried about seeing too many token store shinys after a change like this, why not make that shiny chance increase cap only work once a year for that person? Big donators seem to be players that stick around for the long haul, and that kind of dedication should be appreciated.

I am definitely not for "pay to win" by any means, but this is at an extreme. Never in any f2p game have I seen a system that can potentially leave you demoralized after donating so much, I can't be the only one who sees this issue?

 

[Electrofreak]

The "once per year" thing is easily bypassed and abused. The person could setup another paypal, use a prepaid debit card, or countless other options to hit that limit multiple times.

Ultimately, yeah it sucks for the people who want to spend that much money, but it also does not warrant any special benefit either really. Not every type of company rewards people who are willing to spend large amounts of money. To call that logical is in itself a leap in logic. Would it be a nice thing done for those relevant people? Yeah, it would be. However the cost of treating players differently based on the amount they spend is also something the staff want to avoid entirely as Fonty stated. You would have to defend that subjectively since that is a normative claim rather than an objectively true claim. How would the benefits outweigh the detriments?

As far as the feeling demoralized from donating thing, I can understand what you mean by that, but really that is no different than the gambler feeling sad when Las Vegas slots took his money. The only real difference here is that casinos have the odds located on their machines. That being said, I do think rather than raising the shiny chance, they should have a transparent ratio displayed for the shiny chance. This way people at least know what they get in to before doing it. Some kid spending his birthday money in the token store for the first time as well as high spenders equally dislike the mystery of what the rates really are.


I think we can both agree that more variety in the token store as well as transparent ratios for the shiny chance are definitely in order here. People are not entitled to higher rates, but they are entitled to knowing what the rates are in the first place if they are to spend their money on it.

 

[Zooks]

The "once per year" thing is easily bypassed and abused. The person could setup another paypal, use a prepaid debit card, or countless other options to hit that limit multiple times.

I don't think this is very easy to do, considering the player base of PWO, and how easily it becomes detectable if it's personally done by a staff member.

Ultimately, yeah it sucks for the people who want to spend that much money, but it also does not warrant any special benefit either really. Not every type of company rewards people who are willing to spend large amounts of money. To call that logical is in itself a leap in logic.

As much as I can agree with this, the truth is.. even without the shiny chance or the token store in its entirety, the fundamental transaction of money for tokens basically "specially benefits" anyone who is willing to donate. By your phrasing, it sounds a bit like that doesn't exist yet, when in fact it has been (now to a much lesser extent than the past), and it's a good thing too... but the high potential of low in-game player profit through token store shinys still can be achieved with a change like this in place. Someone could have sold those $500 in tokens and made a better profit than gambling it and make up half of what they lost in token sales through a shiny pokemon that isn't worth what they donated for, but at least they have something to show for it, and at the same time contribute to the game. While I also agree that not every type of company rewards people who are willing to support its cause, it's ultimately the staffs personal decision which direction they'd like to take concerning donators. To call this thought process "illogical" is honestly a bit pretentious as it's more something you obviously don't agree with.

As far as the feeling demoralized from donating thing, I can understand what you mean by that, but really that is no different than the gambler feeling sad when Las Vegas slots took his money. The only real difference here is that casinos have the odds located on their machines. That being said, I do think rather than raising the shiny chance, they should have a transparent ratio displayed for the shiny chance. This way people at least know what they get in to before doing it. Some kid spending his birthday money in the token store for the first time as well as high spenders equally dislike the mystery of what the rates really are.

To compare a Las Vegas slot machine to a donation system for a minimally staffed ground-up mmo is a bit dry and deadpan. For me personally it isn't a slot machine that I dump tokens in hoping for that brand new car, but it's a community I've come to love and choose to support in a larger way. Many player communities that follow a f2p model that feel this way aren't typically against the same odds, as I have played many of them in the past. I do agree with transparency though, as something that concerns real life money should.

You would have to defend that subjectively since that is a normative claim rather than an objectively true claim. How would the benefits outweigh the detriments?

Obviously the big concern here is seeing an influx of token store shinys. From what I see your biggest contradiction to my proposal is that people can manage to bypass rules for a once per year model, and that is something I feel can be negated. Other than that, I don't really see any major detriments to said suggestion. Benefits? The benefit would be to show some "small" gratitude to players who decide to show support. I honestly don't see whats wrong with someone getting a 8 minimum iv shiny after spending enough money to buy 3+ of the ones that are already in game by selling tokens, once per year.

 

[Electrofreak]

Again, I am fine with the concept if you have an idea as to how to avoid abuse, but that still needs to be explained. However I am sad to say that you have not actually addressed my argument but rather avoided it without explaining further how you expect people to not abuse the system. You just mention that it should be easy to detect but also need to realize that each account has its own rates. We are allowed 5 alts within the same main account so the person could do it 6 times all while within the terms of use from the same e-mail as it stands and they can't be condemned for it. To fix that would require a reworking of the playerdex. Then you also have VPNs that change the perceived location alongside prepaid debit cards. Not to mention that they would need to dedicate more time to actually look for perpetrators of said problem when they are already pressed for time in the first place. It would literally be creating more work for staff just to accommodate a few players who feel they should get something more for their purchase.

What I called illogical is the statement you made earlier that " Now I already stated that the chance is supposed to be low to avoid shiny influx, but while this system is still in place, it only seems logical that if someone has donated a very large chunk of monever without getting anything in return, it would be nice for staff to acknowledge this by giving a chance for the donator to at least make "some" of that back." That is not being pretentious, but rather using the technical definition of the term logical as intended within philosophy. The reason why it is a leap in logic, is that you have not explained the premises as to warrant behavior of another party. The concept of what someone "ought" to do in the case of normative issues can be subjective. The thing is you HAVE gotten something in return for what you have donated. This is not me trying to throw out ad hominem because I disagree with you but rather you are presuming something false as your premise and reasoning. There are 2 major differences between the person who uses tokens and a token seller. Difference 1 is that the token user willingly and knowingly gives up a consistent return for the chance at a higher alternative reward. Difference 2 is that token sellers are at the mercy of the current economic system, and are not themselves creating new assets within the game. You either avoid the market and gamble for something great or you hope the market is willing to sell you something with the money acquired from token selling, and we both know that has gotten a lot harder recently.

To further elaborate, you forego the ability to acquire amounts of money/another asset in game people sell for money, whatever case you prefer, to take a chance at an entirely new asset that is not within the current system. That being said I do not appreciate being told my statement is pretentious and that I merely disagree with you, but rather your entire premise is based on the false assumption that you get "nothing" and a gratuitous assumption that it is "logical" you should get a higher return and one that requires more work from another party whom has already stated their plate is full multiple times no less. Gachapon systems in most other games are far worse than this. The issue here is entitlement. You want to throw the dice rather than acquire a fixed asset then want a safety net for when you roll snake eyes. That is hardly me being pretentious.

You are literally getting what you pay for here, so if you want to try and argue for a change I'm not against it honestly, but the way you are going about it is not linear and has false/undefended premises within it. You would need to explain further that instead of "nothing" you are getting a highly diminished return comparatively to the token seller and then try to explain why you feel the gambler should be entitled to a rate closer to the consistent seller. At that point, then you would be making a positive (positive as in forward moving) argument towards what you believe to be a better system.

Just to be clear, I get what you are saying and I'm not trying to be offensive here, but rather I am just trying to point out some inconsistencies in the current presentation given. If anything I actually want you guys to get a return on what you donate as I stated before, so please don't think for one second that I am trying to cause a divide here. You can call it dry and deadpan, but emotional appeal doesn't get very far in current staff and it honestly shouldn't if it goes against what is reasonable/ethical for the rest of the population.


Why not suggest a token store event that every once (once or twice a year?), the token store would have a mileage or rewards system where if you use X tokens in Y time you get something specific at the end of the period? This way it isn't something staff would need to look around for alternate/suspicious users throughout the year but only need to check a few times over the course of a few weeks. It would also be transparent when it is, so that other players could sell pokemon for tokens or save up tokens over the year in order to take part in it themselves. This would be a lot less work on the GM side of things while still accomplishing the general idea of what you want. This also avoids the general idea of serving just a few players and replaces it rather with something everyone can technically partake in since it would be directly related to the amount of tokens spent and not whether or not you donated them in the first place. This might be something more unilateral and effecting more than just a handful of people since it allows the opportunity to everyone. This may be a more helpful presentation than the current one as it involves the community. It would also create a higher demand for tokens generally throughout the rest of the year. Don't take the above as an actual suggestion but rather just a thought about approach methodology.

Ultimately it is up to you, but many people have tried the approach you have and it has been rejected for good reason. I'm not here to nay say but rather to say that there are better ways to approach the obvious disappointment given, which again, is entirely understandable. You just need to get creative because there are ways to do what you are suggesting without creating a pay-to-win environment. I would like to emphasize that again, I would like such a thing because then that gives me more people to buy things from, but I am only arguing about the current presentation. I do not disagree with the CONCEPT, but I do disagree with the reasoning and presentation as it is not that substantive at this point.

 

[Zooks]

While this is a suggestions sub-forum, an explanation that may require more in depth technical solutions to a system abusing problem where someone can "cheat" by donating multiple thousands a year in anonymity and having me provide a answers that may or may not even be needed in the first place, it seems like that is more up to staff whether it's doable. Maybe it would just create too much problems to try and prevent bypassing someone determined enough, for me this is speculation as I do not have training in this field. I also don't like viewing donating as "purchases" and prefer it more as supporting a game and receiving a thank you. In fact I even "feel" that as long as we are providing donations, staff shouldn't even be obligated to give us anything, but it only "feels" right that we get some sort of thank you. This is where we fundamentally disagree on not just viewpoints, but philosophically as well. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I am not asking anyone ought to do anything about this at all. What I am saying is that for me personally, having a system in which large donators have the potential to be left with nothing, doesn't seem respectful. It's kind of like dangling a treat in front of a kittens face and pulling away repeatedly until they give up. While I don't see this as intended by any means, it is a real possibility that just creates an unpleasant atmosphere to someone willing to show support.

The thing is you HAVE gotten something in return for what you have donated

This is true, but that is nearly meaningless when (I'm speaking for the unlucky ones here) the loss greatly outweighs any gains comparatively.

The two differences of token sellers and buyers are true descriptions of what entails of said choices, however even in PWO's economic climate, selling tokens will always remain the safer route and more often than not, more profitable strategy. Your "difference 1" is what I have a major problem with, I'll say it again, I'm not talking about people who get lucky, but the other end of that spectrum where the simple concept of losing so much for practically nothing in return.

My suggestion here is not one that is out of greed, and I do not want, nor expect to gain more than I've spent. Once you've donated a certain amount and become unlucky enough, there is basically very little to nearly no possible way you're making that up regardless of what you gain. What I'm asking for is "some" consolation for these unlucky supporters. This is hardly a safety net when you are still losing way more than what you can ever possibly gain.

My proposal was merely a thought process of what the true problem that exists within a gambling based donation system. However this issue can be approached, the basic problem within said system is all I'm trying to bring to light. I'm not after vast riches or to gain a willingly intended edge over the rest of the playerbase, I'm just honestly trying to make the game more enjoyable in all aspects, including the pokemart.

 

[Rigaudon]

I see actually two legitimate points that can't really be met halfway.
On one end you have people spending a lot of money and just feeling miserable from it, when really a Free2Play game should make people feel happy to buy something, not regret it. I believe that is just a terrible thing to have in a game irregardless of circumstances. Period.

On the other end we have the fact that Shiny Pokemon and Strong Pokemon in general can really mess up the market and give too much power to people who put real money into the game. This is exactly why the first issue can't just be quick-fixed/catered until the system bent up enough that it becomes satisfactory to those people in the above situation.

It's needless to say that a guarantee of "after spending [x] dollars you will definitely get something good" would harm the game and actually encourage people to put several hundred dollars into the game, which is something we don't really want as an unpaid staff. This is primarily because selling Pokemon at all is a flawed concept. But, now we get back to limited time and manpower; having a staff that gets no benefits or motivation from the donation system means that we have ended up neglecting it. Neglecting it has lead us to problems like this, but it's still a strong and vicious cycle. Do we add natures and abilities, a system that adds to the game while also taking away a lot of its problems for all users, or spend several months revamping a system we don't benefit from just to remove the negatives it creates despite such a revamp not adding many positives? It might even end up being a risk to do so, even if our only goal is "get enough to pay for the server."

Long story short, the Token Store is just going to become such a pain that we'll eventually have to drop whatever we're doing and just flip it on its head entirely.

 

[Zooks]

I agree with a change being needed nonetheless, the concepts of those changes are the important part. But I think every one of us can agree that it must be approached patiently, carefully, and intelligently.

 

[Electrofreak]

I agree with a change being needed nonetheless, the concepts of those changes are the important part. But I think every one of us can agree that it must be approached patiently, carefully, and intelligently.

Bingo. That is the only point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to swing at you bro. (o.o)b

 

[I.Am]

What market ? All i see is ded market. Plus pokes dont belong in token store, they belong in the wild .

 

[Electrofreak]

p...p....pu...PUPPY PICTUREEEEE. -pets the puppy-

 

[I.Am]

n..n..nerrrddd. -pets Electrofreak-