Shiny IV change.

[Peace-Enforcer]

When it comes to natures: If it's going to be implemented, I think making all natures random and final would be the best idea. People who already have a big advantage in terms of owning great pokémon would retain that advantage simply because randomizing would turn out approximately the same percentage of beneficial natures for everyone. Therefore everyone would have the same percental increase or decrease of the total value of their 'pokepool', so it would not "punish" anyone. Making natures changeable would strongly favor those who already have near-perfect teams. They would just quickly change the nature of their entire team to be beneficial and they would be back at a perfect team.

However that is really beside the point, the main benefit of making natures random and final is that it would make it ridiculously hard to find "prefect" battling pokes, to the point that there would actually not exist any player with more than one or two such pokes (that is to say with a beneficial nature, max speed and sufficient other IV:s). That would open up the playing field for common pokémon which could more easily be found close to perfect, and it would diversify battles.

I really hope that in PWO:s future, more or less every max-evolved pokémon will be equally useful in battle, which would mean a much more fun and diverse battling scene.

I agree with mostly everything in here but if you think about it, HR pokemon wouldn't be used at all. They would be just a collectible and nothing more. Point of most HRs at this time is High cost (time or money) high reward. there should be balance.
How ever, updates on moves, natures and EVs in it self would make most pokemons useable in battle.
Some players even suggested that there are far to many commons dominating battling today.
So I think we shouldn't take balance of commons and higher rarity pokemons usefulness in battle into consideration at all at this point. Meta of battle will change with updates on moves, EVs and natures. How easy some nature is obtained on a common pokemon isn't even important, at least in my opinion.
But should shiny get 2% boost as in +12/-12 or get +10/-10 is something to think about cause our shiny is something that makes this game unique.

 

[Krowaz]

So what about the Shiny IV's, will it change or not? I've seen the topic change completely, i'm relatively new to PWO but i have to say for some reason i feel ok with 22+ ivs without taking into account all the natures and stuff like that. So long as they don't lower the Shiny encounter rate, i've literally encountered thousands of poke since i started if not more and have yet to come across a shiny I guess i'd better hurry while it's still 28+

Also i'd find it like strange if you were to change the existing shinies iv because of it, kinda godlike behaviour. Older players worked hard getting their teams, it's only natural their teams would be better than a newbie right? Anyways shiny IV will it change or not?

 

[HitmonFonty]

I like the idea of an item that can change your pokemon's nature. If that were the case then it would be less of a drama to randomly set the natures of current pokemon ingame. There's what, 25 natures? Maybe a low drop rate on 25 different common pokemon ingame?

 

[MasterOfTheHunt]

Alright so from what I take it players arent against the 22 to 31 range while leaving the current pokemon alone. For future natures the plus 12.
This seems like a fair change for the future of the game.
There has been way too much back and forths between some of you though so please put that to an end.
As for how natures will be chosen I dont like the idea of doctile natures or randomization. I like what I have heard from quest ideas and items but I would like to see all future pokemon caught with a random nature at the same time.
Im on my phone so hopefully I didnt typo to hard

 

[Puar]

My views on a change in shiny ivs
Pro
Closing the gap between rich and poor. Making the game more approachable for new players.
Making the cool shinies everyone wants more available due to lower price (weee!)
Bigger divide between battlers and collectors.
Cons
Lesser rewardfor new players who catch the lower ip shinies
The players who have rare shinies right now will enjoy having thier pokemon become even more valuable. Thus less accessable to new players.

Biases
I have always been a collector and lower ivs is a bitter sweet idea to me.
I have some rare shinies so the idea that they would be worth even more is exciting. Also the idea that svrs and shrs would be cheaper is cool.
I am upset because I like to use my shinies in battle to show them off. So the idea that they will be less likely to be useful in battle is... disappointing.

I don't hate the idea. but generally I don't like it.
I think the change would have a negative effect on my experience.
But* I think the change would make the game more enjoyable for more people than not.

Tldr
I dislike the prospect of change personally, but view it as better for the greater good

 

[CheckeredZebra]

I am upset because I like to use my shinies in battle to show them off.

This is the only thing I would not appreciate (thus I agree with Puar here). I love using Xatu, Golduck, etc. in battles. It's fun to have something potentially deadly AND rare/cool looking on the battlefield.

Think of shinies as rare MMO equipment drops in other games. Rare lategame gear in those games can look wickedly awesome and deal out damage. That's halfway how I feel about shinies. They're definitely rare "drops," and it's even better that your blind luck or hard work pays off during a competition. No matter what happens or how this goes, that is the one thing about shinies I want to preserve.

 

[Orean]

Anyways shiny IV will it change or not?

While most signs point to an eventual change in the stat-determination formula (whereby IV randomization is determined for the shiny Pokemon, within a specified range), it's also one we're not looking to add in at an inopportune time, if a feasible compromise can be devised. As prefaced in the thread, we're looking for the most compromisable addition that can be augmented to the battle system, which would soften potential backlash for this change.

On-discussion thoughts about natures: Should natures be added with no changeability, or at least constraintive changeability as illustratively suggested with nature items/quests, I believe this will heighten the PVE challenge in prospecting viable Pokemon—beyond IV-prospecting a Pokemon, players will look to complement it with a nature that additively tailors to its most consequential stat.

This will require players to play with a multi-encompassing die, for both the optimal natures/IVs for the stats, to get ahold out of the best-statted Pokemon for pvp deployment. While it is true that, especially for HRs/UCs, it will elevate the difficulty in finding the perfect stat-attribute composition for a Pokemon, it also means that these Pokemon's value may soar, as the maximal totality of favorable stats will be harder to come by. Even HRs/UCs with slightly submaximal IVs may have a redeeming quality, if their nature is favorable enough.

Long-term, more of the favorably-statted Pokemon will be build up in the economy, by production of what there's a neglible outflux of—Pokemon, which can't be expended, and really only drop out of circulation if they're locked in custody of an inactive/banned account. Overtime, it's easy to project that more Pokemon on this tier will be more economically obtainable. However, it should be expected that there is a PVE challenge, economically or productively, in obtaining top-tier material; it's a fundamental difference between an MMORPG and a battle simulator, the latter whereof customizability for your Pokemon is readily available, allowing you to assemble all the attributes you want to your Pokemon immediately.

I am not disagreeing with nature reselection, however, and I believe a constraintive option should be given (allowing to alter it after overcoming another PVE challenge, such as obtaining an item), as mentioned earlier; I just don't believe it should be too fluid of a changeability, as PVE endeavors are meant to have some level of challenge imposed on them.

Apology for the long-winded verbosity, but I only sunk myself into the most recent course of discussion just now, after having much to recap on.

Shiny's prestige: Even with the IV-range reduction, it is worth repeating that shiny Pokemon can have unique perks in new rights as well. I am most curious to discuss how a shiny's own unique nature, as Tecknician alluded to, can still give it a niche that players want for shinies, if their alternate coloration is considered merely supplementary. However, I just don't believe near-maximal IVs alone should determine if the shiny Pokemon is constituted as uber; and if shiny Pokemon were to retain 28 IVs, while being boosted by a nature, it would too easily remove one dimension from stat-hunting Pokemon.

tl;dr outline:

• A new element will be added to a Pokemon's value, as players will have the challenge of obtaining a Pokemon with an optimal nature, complemented by its IVs. It will diverge more market tiers, rather than IVs alone.
• Should natures be given changeability, it should not be completely irrespective of PVE/economic challenges in obtaining it.
• Another point of discussion I'm interested to delve into is how shiny Pokemon can still be unique with the additional battle-system features that are being discussed: natures, namely. It's what I ultimately to be discussed, since the over-appraisal of IVs started, IMO, due to a lack of these other features; and it's why I believe players would find the IV-reduction more neglible if they were added.

 

[Puar]

Could everyone please include a "tl:dr" section on your posts.
Following the discussion is... dawnting. Especially when every post is so long and winded.
Don't take offence creobis all the kids are doing it.
I just got mostly caught up and read many long posts and don't want to be left behind because people cant take the two seconds required to summerize their thoughts.

Tl:dr
Summarize your ideas into nuggets I can handle. Please.

 

[Hionn]

My views on a change in shiny ivs
Pro
Closing the gap between rich and poor. Making the game more approachable for new players.
Making the cool shinies everyone wants more available due to lower price (weee!)
Bigger divide between battlers and collectors.
Cons
Lesser rewardfor new players who catch the lower ip shinies
The players who have rare shinies right now will enjoy having thier pokemon become even more valuable. Thus less accessable to new players.

Biases
I have always been a collector and lower ivs is a bitter sweet idea to me.
I have some rare shinies so the idea that they would be worth even more is exciting. Also the idea that svrs and shrs would be cheaper is cool.
I am upset because I like to use my shinies in battle to show them off. So the idea that they will be less likely to be useful in battle is... disappointing.

I don't hate the idea. but generally I don't like it.
I think the change would have a negative effect on my experience.
But* I think the change would make the game more enjoyable for more people than not.

Tldr
I dislike the prospect of change personally, but view it as better for the greater good

It's not making VR and HR more avaible, who has them won't sell for a cheap price >It's VR/HR!!< changing ivs only makes new players go away preparing the land for a wipe and encourages players to try shinys at token store as it'll be near a shiny found in-game

 

[Puar]

I disagree Hionn.
A basic economic principle is the idea of supply vs demand.
You are correct in thinking that supply will remain relatively the same regarding new pokemon with lower ivs.
But demand for them will go down due to the already existing pokemon inthe market which will be considered superior.
So since supply is the same and demand is expected to go down, it is safe to say that the new pokemon with inferior ivs will be more available to poorer players due to the lower price.

 

[Tecknician]

I am starting to see a trend. Players keep wanting to try to get away from "catch a pokemon see if it's too their liking if not catch another one" to "catch a pokemon and know its decent and just make it better".

This bugs me, a lot. Most MMO's you keep trying to find the perfect loot. In pwo, we don't have loot but pokemon. Feels like to me this would be the equivalent of finding a 4 star loot object out of a bunch of 1-2 star loot,which should be useful but in pwos case no one wants, and turning it into a 5 star loot object instead of continously looting for that 5 start loot object.

Note: using stars for more clear on value. In this case, common, rares, very rares are 1-2 stars, hrs 3 stars, shinies 4 stars, near perfect pokemon 5 stars.

 

[EcoWOLFrb]

I'm not sure I'm getting this right but i'll describe what I think you're trying to say and you tell me if I'm right on:
At first people wanted to keep their 28-31 iv shinies because we were being selfish, but we generally agreed to your idea of around 22-31 or so.
Then Natures were brought up and people wanted to choose theirs so we came up with ideas for how they could be implemented correctly.
Now we're in agreement over natures and are generally compromising on things in a good way but we're manipulating it so that we can take the easy way and make even the 22-31 iv shinies perfect with Natures instead of trying to catch another shiny with better iv's... which is annoying?
Let me know if I got that right, because it's late and I might just be confused.

 

[Tecknician]

I'm not sure I'm getting this right but i'll describe what I think you're trying to say and you tell me if I'm right on:
At first people wanted to keep their 28-31 iv shinies because we were being selfish, but we generally agreed to your idea of around 22-31 or so.
Then Natures were brought up and people wanted to choose theirs so we came up with ideas for how they could be implemented correctly.
Now we're in agreement over natures and are generally compromising on things in a good way but we're manipulating it so that we can take the easy way and make even the 22-31 iv shinies perfect with Natures instead of trying to catch another shiny with better iv's... which is annoying?
Let me know if I got that right, because it's late and I might just be confused.

Not quite, each suggestion on how to deal with natures try to avoid having to catch multiple pokemon to find one with the correct nature, while also making sure shiny pokemon stay relatively the same in strength compared to other pokemon with this update.

For example, what If I was just to add natures without changing the IV's at all? Would the players then be Ok with having to hunt for a pokemon with the right nature?

 

[Peace-Enforcer]

For example, what If I was just to add natures without changing the IV's at all? Would the players then be Ok with having to hunt for a pokemon with the right nature?

I believe they would be OK with that. Problem is with old pokemons. If all of there natures aren't randomised or if there is no alternative to change there nature. There wont be a single good battler in game left. that would be like wiping the slate clean and starting all over.
And there is still an issue of how hard it is to catch a good battler, shiny or not. Cause at some point it does get too hard.

That's why i suggested nature reset. It would solve this problems. And if you are limited by time in a way of time period of quest to be reseted and in nature isn't picked but randomed again. It might be hard enough to get pokemon you want. for example if there is a time period of 2 weeks for that quest and only few natures that fit your game play with each pokemon you want reskilled. You would be on average able to reskill 4 pokemons to the right nature annually. Doesn't that sound hard enough? Player will still hunt for the right nature no matter how harder it is but there will be a fallback if it is too hard and solves problem of making old pokemons useless.
Also it might bring depth to trading as well. There will be pokemons who have a possibility of being EPIC if you decide to invest in them and actual EPIC which are complemented with there nature.

Just to add on another note. I'm pro EVs stacking up and you using them when you are finished leveling you pokemon. If not that at least some way to reset EVs so you can start again after you are done with leveling

 

[Merse]

Turning back to the original post, the basic question was if the IV range of shiny Pokemon should be changed. I think the general opinion by now is that they could be changed, but there should be some kind of compensation, which, at this time seems to be to implement natures and/or EVs, with the possibility of changing the first if wanted by a quest/item/whatever.
I pretty much share Teck's point of view about Pokemon shouldn't be "upgradeable" by changing their stats back and forth, other than their training via EVs. But what I have realized is that with introducing of more and more variables of a Pokemon, the less we'll depend on IVs. So why don't we lover the IVs of wild shinys to 15-32 or so and remove IV cap for token shinys, and
- add slight boost to their EVs
- create special natures only possible for shinys to have and which are slightly better than "normal" natures
- make them able to learn certain attacks via TM that their non-shiny counterpart couldn't
and so on. Of course it's only an idea for the long run, but the basic point is that more features means that we could distribute the "shiny advantage" to many areas, which would finally mean that shinys are still better than non-shinys, but not because they get a massive boost on one feature but because they get a slight boost on many.

 

[Tecknician]

First: just check in the database, all shiny pokemon can have an iv of either 28, 29, 30, 31. 4, not 5.

Randomizing natures for old pokemon would be about the easiest thing in pwo I have ever done. I am currently un-sure if that is something the people in this topic is ok for or against. Infact I just had a discussion with a few players and that is the default thing I would do. The only thing I could see to keep everything fair and balance between pre-change pokemon and post-change is treat them all the same. This includes IV change. Personally I am against keeping current pokemon the same IV if we did the change because they would be different. What instead I would do is scale them down relatively. See the spoiler below on how this would work:

Spoiler

The suggested new range I most would want is 22-31. This is a range of 10. The current range is 28-31. This is a range of 4. Statistical stuff now so might get technical. I would break it down by a quarter percentile range. For the current range of 4, have it even across the board. 2 for each percentile. For the 22-31 have it broken down into a 2-3-3-2 format. So starting from the highest. 31 in the current range would translate to either a 30 or 31 in the new range (both in that top range). Current range 30 would become either 27, 28, or 29 in the new range (second to top range). Current ranges 29 would become either 24, 25, or 26. (Second to worse range). Finally current ranges lowest possibility, 28 would become either 22 or 23.

Now, if we did either 24-31 you would have a smaller range but a 1-2 displacement.
If we did a 20-31 We would have a larger range of 12 but a 1-3 displacement.

Where the iv would fall in the new range would be random to make it fair.

So if your pokemon was 31, 29, 28, 30, 31, 31 in the current system a sample of what It could be in the proposed system would be: 31, 25, 22, 28, 30, 31. or Worst case senario: 30, 24, 22, 27, 30, 30. Best case: 31, 26, 23, 29, 31, 31.

Another thing I have became unsure of, is these quests for all pokemon forever? Or just for old pokemon? If so I can't justify putting in a quest that will limit a few pokemon past the initial use. Also, this quest would be specific for players who played prior to this change, any player who joined after would have no use for this quest.

Plus I myself am limited to what I can do only with the server or database. Anything client related not possible is just that, not possible. Anything playerdex related would rely on bluerises cooperation.

With re-assigning natures, It sounded like it was going to be a very common thing, but 4 a year is a very reasonable number, and could be something unique to pwo people would enjoy.

 

[Peace-Enforcer]

I thought that quest would be available to everyone. Four poke per year isn't that big of a deal and I still think despite of everything its still a good addition. I also wouldn't mind having all (S) reworked in order you described. Well to be honest I would mind but I see logic in that course of action so no point in getting sentimental about it. How ever I would like to see 31 being separate category and would like an explanation on how would this change effect 32 IV shiny pokemons.

 

[Merse]

The community surely would accept a complete IV overhaul, if in case of multiple choices, like in Teck example, there are many possible outcomes, the already caught shinys would be granted to have either the best possible outcome, or at least not the worst one.

 

[HitmonFonty]

First: just check in the database, all shiny pokemon can have an iv of either 28, 29, 30, 31. 4, not 5.

Randomizing natures for old pokemon would be about the easiest thing in pwo I have ever done. I am currently un-sure if that is something the people in this topic is ok for or against. Infact I just had a discussion with a few players and that is the default thing I would do. The only thing I could see to keep everything fair and balance between pre-change pokemon and post-change is treat them all the same. This includes IV change. Personally I am against keeping current pokemon the same IV if we did the change because they would be different. What instead I would do is scale them down relatively. See the spoiler below on how this would work:

Spoiler

The suggested new range I most would want is 22-31. This is a range of 10. The current range is 28-31. This is a range of 4. Statistical stuff now so might get technical. I would break it down by a quarter percentile range. For the current range of 4, have it even across the board. 2 for each percentile. For the 22-31 have it broken down into a 2-3-3-2 format. So starting from the highest. 31 in the current range would translate to either a 30 or 31 in the new range (both in that top range). Current range 30 would become either 27, 28, or 29 in the new range (second to top range). Current ranges 29 would become either 24, 25, or 26. (Second to worse range). Finally current ranges lowest possibility, 28 would become either 22 or 23.

Now, if we did either 24-31 you would have a smaller range but a 1-2 displacement.
If we did a 20-31 We would have a larger range of 12 but a 1-3 displacement.

Where the iv would fall in the new range would be random to make it fair.

So if your pokemon was 31, 29, 28, 30, 31, 31 in the current system a sample of what It could be in the proposed system would be: 31, 25, 22, 28, 30, 31. or Worst case senario: 30, 24, 22, 27, 30, 30. Best case: 31, 26, 23, 29, 31, 31.

Another thing I have became unsure of, is these quests for all pokemon forever? Or just for old pokemon? If so I can't justify putting in a quest that will limit a few pokemon past the initial use. Also, this quest would be specific for players who played prior to this change, any player who joined after would have no use for this quest.

Plus I myself am limited to what I can do only with the server or database. Anything client related not possible is just that, not possible. Anything playerdex related would rely on bluerises cooperation.

With re-assigning natures, It sounded like it was going to be a very common thing, but 4 a year is a very reasonable number, and could be something unique to pwo people would enjoy.

I think this would be the best way to go forward, not leaving the current shinies OP compared to new spawns and yet still giving those wither epic pokes the chance to keep them that way.

 

[barcelona1991]

Dont touch current shinies.