Merse said:
1. Agreed
2. In this case, lower non-members rate to 1/15k
3. Disagreed. This is an MMO, getting max level should be hard.
4. Agreed
5. Improve like make more species catchable, or how?
6. Agreed
7. Agreed. Especially TMs
8. Disagreed. Why should thinks to be made easier? Agreed
9. Agreed
10. Agreed. For a cost of course
11. Disagreed. I don't think you should punish players who keep their assets in money and not in Pokemon. A proportional reduction in monetary assets could be considered (0% under 1m, 5% 1m-10m, 10% 10m-100m, 30% 100m-250m, 50% 250m-990m for example)
2. There's no need for members to have additional money. Removing current membership benefits doesn't prevent us from replacing them with other benefits that don't manipulate or alter the standard and natural progression of game play. Changing it to such a small ratio is frivolous to the point of senselessness.
3. The difference is that you're not leveling yourself up, you're leveling up six different weapons. There's no reason why it should be as tedious (read: not hard, just time consuming) as it currently is to get six Pokemon to max level, as it does nothing but isolate players and make lower level Pokemon exponentially less valuable than higher level Pokemon.
5. As in, improve the system to be more than a click spam time sink. It needs to have some meat to it beyond "buy item --> stand near water --> claim you're not botting".
7. TMs are not a priority. Items such as Great Balls and more practical tools such as Repels are.
8. Lowering the cost of the surfboard doesn't make getting a surfboard easier. It makes it a lower investment, which means that new players will access it sooner, which means players will progress faster, which means that more people will be exposed to the market. All of that directly translates into a healthier environment both for players and the economy.
11. Players need to stop feeling as though updates are punishing them and realize that giving them a clean slate and a healthy environment to grow into eliminates the problem of a "bad economy". Older players are quick to complain about the state of their wallets, but very reserved when it comes to allowing us to take action. I'm against random wealth cuts and random redistributions of wealth (such as what you've proposed) because they don't correct anything. Resetting the economy as the final phase of a sweeping series of updates that would shake it up is logical and rational. "taxing" people is irrational and counter-productive.
Players take things too personally and hold too much personal attachment to obnoxiously broken things and have done so for years. See:
kurtisbmx said:
if this happen alot of players and main donations these older players give would leave pwo.
We're not going to do anything that isn't in the best interests of the entire game. We're also not going to do anything that a loud and childish minority of players is whining about. That's why Shiny Pokemon haven't been completely normalized yet despite the fact that I've campaigned for it for around four years and despite the fact that all of the problems I talked about four years ago have finally reached that breaking point where we're seeing topics pop up discussing how shiny Pokemon are worthless and how there's too many shiny Pokemon and all of that crap. Wake up guys.