I never implied i should be "rewarded" for playinghours a day. Where did you get that? I find it funny how when someone makes a suggestion on this thread it has feedback from people that we complain too often as a way to dismiss us. This is one reason people are hesistant to suggest or share their thoughts at times with safari, because of the attitude that no one should have thoughts and just be happy with it all else we are just complainers. That or what we ask is twisted into you're ungrateful. Ive said how much ive liked safari numerous times. Does that mean i have to be happy with everything, no. does that mean i should shy away from voicing my opinion for fear ill be seen as just a complainer, no.I dont think my posting of 3 points after 5 mo is hardly over complaining. Same token, hopefully people who get overly worked up in tours can realize it is but a game and should see nothing serious at all even when hax. Yet people tend to understand that with tours and not with safari. Its only a game though as well? Shouldn't everyone in tours be grateful someone coded the game and just go with the flow.
1. I do believe that zorua/ditto mechanism is fun but yes as mentioned its really tough for players who play on android so those ones shudnt be allowed to spawn as shiny unless android gets same platform as PC users. 2. The leaderboard event being cancelled is pretty much a blunder,the faction war events giving high prizes few times were limited just because of opposition from 2-3 players and now the lb event is being cancelled apparently due to one guy only,safari isnt made or run for a bunch of selected players ,it consists of a lot of players n its pretty unfair to all those ppl who for some reason werent able to play hard whole month due to maybe exams or stuff n now they have no shot in winning thier choice of shiny,if u guys actually feel like discontinuing anything wudnt it be a lot better if u guys will just make a thread putting out ur points n asking from the players whether to discontunue something or not. 3.Giveaway rule: as someone already mentioned its really tough to set a standard on what actually can be defined as giveaway, there have been trades which can qualify as a giveaway but haven't been termed so ,so if u guys intend to keep the rule u will need to actually specify n assign value to all rare stuff n also to clarify what is "rare".From each players viewpoint the valuable stuff differs too so in my opinion these rule shud just be done away with.
@Elize Lutus Won't talk about the rest because I think I have sufficiently address them in other posts. On the lb however I would like to point out that Safari is a fundamentally different kind of game, so the definition of competitiveness are vastly different as well. Unlike other games, social elements here are not just part of the game, they are the major part of it. So crying foul for your rivals striking a deal with others are indeed childish, if you want a 1 on 1 game go to #Tournaments or even chess, but Safari isn't the place where you can get 1 on 1. So I still find the complain on lb rig extremely childish and that it shouldn't end because one guy happen to have "priorities" and not enough friends. I maintain that the playerbase should not be punished for one selfish jerk's tantrum.
Oak - If you take Joeypals' side as one side of the monthly leaderboard argument, this post is essentially the other side. It isn't overly relevant to the discussion at hand, so it's in spoilers, but it's worth keeping regardless. Spoiler Let's get in the context because people are saying a lot of crap about Zoroark without even knowing the full story. He's been trying to achieve a leaderboard and he played a lot just in order to have a Shiny Zorua. I've personally saw how much he was winning money etc ( I guess he was aiming for money lb) until I got a PM of him saying that ikuntz and another user were having a deal just so they both win lb in the month and get both their respective shiny ( again I don't have any opinion on this as I never aimed lb on my safari time) . I can however, understand, that taking a shiny zorua as gift might looks like as a personal offense to Zoroark since he was putting a lot of efforts into this, add to this the fact he had evidence about ikuntz having a deal with a person who picked ( on purpose or not I don't know and I don't care) the shiny Zorua he was searching for a so long moment. It is absolutely normal to get pissed at this rate ( then again, that exists only because lb is competitive ) and so he contacted safari owners about this because in his point of view ( which you should respect instead of calling him jerk without talking to him) it was unacceptable. His behavior was seen as bad by the authorities and he got warned for bad behavior, which of course you can't even know. So is he the one that made lb disappear, I won't say yes and I won't say no. Since the lb rewards exists, a lot of people were pissed of not winning and he was just the one that actually made the owners take actions. At this rate, you just have to respect owners decision because i'm 100% sure they won't remove the lb because of one single person, that is disproportional and you have whatsoever no evidence to attest that it was solely Sky's fault for this to be done.
Woah woah who told you players at the receiving end of giveaways always have 0 efforts.Sorry but i have been playing this since beta and haven't seen a single one ._. The players who get the giveaways are usually friends of the gifter or in some case,random people who are lucky enough to come online at a mass giveaway.Those who complain are those kind of people who fail to get anything in a giveaway.Iirc there was a /release command and people used to do give aways using that.What was the point of removing that if everyone could get the chance of catching a rare mon? And the fact you mentioned is true.It is common to do giveaways taking some 80-90k and giving 4-5 legends without getting noticed.What's the point in that? Instead cant just allow giveaways? And the thing Joeypals said "auction of give away mons" really ._. Half of safarians are poor and you try to auction those legends.They still want it but cant buy it cause of money.Wont this become a purely money game then?
Oak - This is mib replying to the post by Elize Lutus. As such, it has been put in spoiler tags for the same reason. Spoiler If that's the full story then I would maintain my stance even more. > Was it true ikun had a deal? No clue, irrelevant to me. > Was striking such a deal acceptable? Yes, because Safari is a social game. > Should he avoided from choosing Shiny Zorua? Why would he? He won it one way or another which does not involve multiaccounting/hacking. He should be damn free to choose whatever he wants. Now having others defeat you and then choosing exactly what you wanted is understandably gonna piss someone off. This, and only this, is the part where I would be willing to concede to him. However, contacting the admins leading to an action that punished the entire playerbase is still mere childishness. Sure, I can get how the admins could have generalized and decided the whole thing ain't worth it, but the fact remained that the bad loser that was the trigger here was him. Losing will piss someone off, period. I lost one such lb to Wolf and I was damn salty about it, and I was damn sure given the time analysis of the lb there was a whole lotta strings involved in her win, but ultimately so what? It just means she had more friends willing to help with her project than I did. Did you see me babying off to Rice/Fuzzy that this crap shouldn't fly? Nope, I sucked it up and tried again (without success LEL). So no, I ain't gonna "understand" anything from the full story you presented, unless if there is some clear indication that Ikun did something illegal like hacking. As I could see he just chose to spend his day entirely on Safari and someone with "priorities" got salty over it. EDIT: Anyway I digress. My main concern here is now the giveaway rule because this is more related to the playerbase as a whole so let's just agree to disagree, he's your friend w/e. If you have more to say sure go ahead, I might even response, but I don't want this to distract from the main issue at hand.
At first I was going to post another huge tekst about all my opinions but I'll hold that out until everything becomes more clear and everyone on tilt is dimmed down a bit. The only thing I will say right now is hooking in on the give away topic. Yes I dislike the rule, yes I do think the rule is good. I get both sides because they both have an upside and a downside. My suggestion would be to limit the amount of giveaways per person during a certain time. To control this you might add "free tokens" or something, everything else lending/gifting wise would be punished/warned. This will reward the friendly/newer players because they can actually get stuff from being friendly as a rewards or getting helped to start up among all the legend catches.
Oak - Rice responds to the issue discussed by Joeypals, Elize Lutus and mibuchiha, but I left a bit outside of the spoiler tag as it is relevant to some of the discussion outside of the posts I have already put in spoiler tags. Spoiler No, Monthly Leaderboards reward was not cancelled because the same person used to win all the time. If they did, they deserved it. They put effort for that, nothing wrong there. Was it because of a single person? Yes, it was. But not simply "because of a single person", but because that person had started telling people it's OK to break the rules and even bully other players instead of learning how to lose. And worse, people were accepting his words as if it was perfectly fine. So if it's going to create such a harmful atmosphere at the channel, it would be better to not have it. Can the LB event come back? Maybe, but only if the userbase is mature enough to 1) not bully people just because someone else won and 2) not hate other people for any reason. You don't need to like everyone, but seriously, I saw people in the channel declare some other player as their fateful enemy for the stupidiest reasons. Spoiler If you still think it's not enough, let me also add this: All this issue got to such a bad level that MY personal info got leaked in the chat during all this mess simply because people are bad losers.
Oak - I've deleted 3 posts, and removed some content from this post, all because there was nothing of value added to the thread at all. Wolf, how you're going about this is fine. You're not releasing constant firebomb posts in an attempt to attack people. Your goal was simple -- get issues you saw as issues addressed, and that's perfectly fine. I like how you're going about it. Oak - I've also deleted these comments, as they broke the forum rules. Handle things with a little more dignity next time, Joey.
Ok look, I don't think slinging insults help here. Both players and devs invested a lot of time here and we have an actual improvement that could be made. Bickering will lead us no closer to that. Why don't we discuss the proposals people presented here? I for one am very curious what the general playerbase and auths think about the rule I proposed to replace the giveaway rule in the last page, post #37.
It's not a bad concept, for sure, but I do fear there's one instance that could create a problem for a rule like this -- loaning Pokemon, almost always for Pyramid. I'm not saying it's common, but every once in a while you'll need to loan your partners Pokemon in order to complete desired sets, getting the Pokemon back after the run. Again, not saying it's common, but it'd definitely pose an issue for this rule. Otherwise, I really like it. Oak - quoted a now deleted post, so I removed that
Joeypals: I already responded, mib mibuchiha: oh cool lemme see One eternity later... mibuchiha: i can see why that could be an issue mibuchiha: but tbh it's the spirit of the rule for you to decide whom to trust Joeypals: Right, like I said that's literally the only issue I see with it Joeypals: Otherwise I like it a lot mibuchiha: yeah and i'm against making these kind of compromise because then people would just pull shit like "i was just lending!" mibuchiha: instead let people be fully responsible, if shit goes south for them, suck it. auths only deal with illegal matters like hacking Joeypals: *nods* True enough Btw in case it wasn't clear, I mean with my proposal simply that auths will not interfere with trades made by the player (due to it being impossible to force a trade therefore they should've known better). If they wanna do a trade that is in effect undoing their previous trade that's their business. I am fully aware that if this proposal is implemented, we are in for a rough start but with sufficient warning, even in tutorials dedicated to new players, and as in learning to ride a bike, a few bruises, over time as things will settle down I believe this is for the best for both sides.
Yeah I don't agree with Wavy on everything, but what they're saying is important. Taking their words out of context doesn't help anyone. People are allowed to be critical. And blocking that criticism by suggesting they could lose their auth isn't short of autocratic. Clearly a lot of people agree with what Wavy's voiced in this thread based on likes, so good on them for giving voice to those sentiments. It's better than everyone silently spiting each other.
That was due to a bug, which made it really easy to justify returning your masterball. Safari is a pretty complex game now and making sure everything still functions normally after updates is hard. That's why we rely on the players to report anything we overlooked. When tutorial was added, I ended up inadvertently creating a bug that completely wiped a safari save data under certain conditions. I wouldn't have even thought to test that scenario and it actually took a minute to figure out the cause. ~~~~~ To reiterate what I told Wavy last night: We add stuff -> Negative reaction -> No reasonable suggestions (if any suggestions at all, other than "remove x") -> Only complaints -> ??? Now repeat this dozens of times over the past few months. This is what we have to deal with. It's starting to become a bother to code new stuff because we've been down the road before and at some point it just isn't worth it to code new stuff.
Okay, so I've just spent the last 3 hours moderating this entire thread. If I had infracted every post that deserved it, one user would now be serving a forum ban due to the amount of infraction points he accrued in this thread, and there would be several others that are 1 or 2 points away from a forum ban. KEEP YOUR POSTS RELEVENT, AND KEEP YOUR CRITICISMS CONSTRUCTIVE. I explain this in more detail at the bottom of the post. Now for my responses to most of the thread: THIS IS ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS WITH SAFARI! Yes, it is a 2-way street, but if people do not post their complaints in a civil manner (like Wolf has done with this thread, thank you for the example Wolf), you are not going to have anything be done to potentially fix the issues people have. I'm not saying at all that RiceKirby and Fuzzysqurl are blameless, nor any of the other Safari Auth, as there are times I've fielded complaints that I've received to them, and they've laughed it off or ignored it. However, we need to find a balance between the users and the staff to ensure both sides are treating the other with the level of respect they deserve. @comments regarding quitters: I think we need to change the rules with regarding quitters. Add a command that requires 2 confirmations for a user to be able to wipe their own safari data. Obviously, this needs to be trackable so that people can't just start a save, catch things, give them away and then wipe their own data, and trades done by the user need to be easy to refer to so that it can be determined whether they are cheating for others or not. Is this a good idea, or is there a better way to handle this? All I know is that if you want to quit, just fucking quit! I've basically stopped playing Safari myself, and I might do the odd trade to help out users who are looking for specific Pokémon for their collector quest if I spot them, but I don't see why other users should be entitled to the Pokémon that I EARNED when I stop playing the game. Auctioning my Pokémon off just gives those with more money a bigger advantage. Imo, just let the Pokémon be lost forever when someone quits. I agree that they should be thankful that users are spending their free time playing their game, but credit also needs to be given where credit is due. It's a 2-way street. As for "treating people like they are below you"... have you got evidence of this occurring? Are you sure they are not just responding in the same tone they are being spoken to in? Please note that I'm not defending anybody here, those questions are legitimate. The thread started to get derailed from the 2nd post (which, amusingly, was your own post), so the overall tone of the thread was soured by the time of these posts. I believe the issue stems from giving an unfair advantage to another user. I, personally, receive as many complaints about people giving stuff away for free as I do for the fake spawns, so people clearly have an issue with both matters. To be fair, your post did imply that they don't add content. You say that wasn't your intention, but reasons can end up getting lost when people post emotionally-charged responses. Scenario: You're the scripter of a channel that was recently released, with new features being added as they are created. As soon as you sign onto the server, the 40-or-so regulars PM you nearly every single day, demanding certain features and shouting abuse at you if you do not do so immediately. How does this make you feel? As an administrator of PO, I can tell you that you don't want to be constantly bombarded with people criticising every single thing you do regardless of whether a decision affects them or not, and it really demotivates you to do anything if you're actively trying to improve PO and everything isn't giving you constructive criticism, but posts things like "Your attitude is horrible". I quoted you there because your own wording is not helping matters. If you want to see positive change, constructive criticism is the way to go, not negative comments that do not help to resolve the issue at hand. The wording here is not ideal, but the point puts across your opinion: You think that the fake shinies as normal Zorua are a bad idea. The problem with this is that you don't suggest how you would edit it, preventing them from being able to deal with your complaint. So I thought of a suggestion that could resolve it - prevent Zorua, Zoroark and Ditto from being under the Illusion of shiny Pokémon, unless the Zorua, Zoroark or Ditto themselves are shiny. This would then give people the incentive to throw their Master Balls at the shiny Pokémon, and still reward them, even if it isn't the Pokemon they expected it to be. Any thoughts on this? This is the kind of comment that is more acceptable, and is a suggestion that should be considered. Thanks to all the people that mentioned this as the thread went on, I just quoted mib cos his wording was the best I could find lol @monthly leaderboard ending: I've seen all the sides of the arguments, and I've fielded my opinion on the matter to each respective party. Personally, I feel like ending the monthly leaderboard wasn't necessary, but I understand exactly why they've done it. It'd be nice to see it return in the future, but I imagine it won't return in the same manner. @monthly leaderboard complaints: People keep using the reasoning of "the most active people who play the most get the most rewards, and it's unfair!" Erm... idk about you, but I think the most active person who plays the most contests, wins the most contests and catches the most Pokémon deserves the reward. You want to beat that guy? Play more! It is literally up to the Safari users to beat the other Safari users to get the leaderboard prizes. One guy used to only be able to win one category, so just beat everyone else in another category to win the prize there! The leaderboards literally rewarded the most active users who did the best. That's the entire point of a leaderboard. PokeWorldBW's post is pretty spot on. It brings up an interesting point, and words the points made in a decent matter from which the staff can build upon. Probably my favourite post in the thread at this point. If you have an issue with the attitude of the staff, PokeWorldBW's post is the way to handle it. Ascarotte's post is, overall, pretty good, but I wanted to comment on this. I've seen a few people complain that they should be able to purchase, for example, a Zapdos for about $7500 because you can sell it to the NPC for $5800 (at least), and thus its trade value shouldn't be too much higher. There's other notable Pokémon that aren't legendary, such as Garchomp, Goodra, Aegislash and Swampert that also sell for significantly more than their BST on average. In order to balance this, here is my proposal: keep the NPC selling price as it is currently (BST, or BSTx10 for legends), but add certain restrictions to the trading price of certain Pokémon, including the addition of the Pokémon to your shop. People are complaining about auctions they cannot start at $100,000 for a certain very rare Pokémon, so why don't we actually GIVE a trade/resale value for those Pokémon? I'd try and make something similar to Runescape's Grand Exchange, at least at its heart. Start various Pokémon at a price that people feel is adequate for that Pokémon (a Google form or smth would be a good way to collate this info), and then only sent an absolute minimum price for the Pokémon's resale, at a value that cannot go below its BST. Some examples of what I'd try and do are in the spoiler tag, but comments on this would be welcome. Spoiler: examples of the above Caterpie's BST is 195. It isn't a very valuable Pokémon, and it takes a lot of effort to make it usable, and its fully evolved form is pretty trash too, so its absolute minimum resale price would be set to $195, and most users will agree to a starting resale price of around $250. Pumpkaboo's BST is 335. It might not be very valuable, but its evolution is one that is desireable to many thanks to its stats and typing. Its absolute minimum resale price might be set to $502, BST x1.5, but its recommended sale price might end up being in the $600-800 range due to its potential utility in Safari after it has evolved. Shelgon's BST is 420. On its own, it has some slight utility, due to it receiving Eviolite boosts, giving it a reason to be used in Daycare and other limited BST contests. Furthermore, it evolves into one of the strongest non-legendaries in the game, which has a very good typing and the possibility of a Mega Evolution. Its absolute minimum resale price might be set to $840, 2x its BST. Its starting resale price might end up in the $1000-2000 range because of its sheer potential. Swampert's BST is 535. It is a fully evolved Pokémon, and it has a fantastic typing. It is also one of the best Pokémon to use in various Safari themes, as well as in the older variants of the Pyramid. To cap it all off, it gains a Mega Evolution if a Mega Stone is used. Therefore, it might be made so that the absolute minimum resale value for Swampert is 1605, 3x its BST. I am unaware of what Swampert's current price is, but I have seen Swamperts sell for $4000-5000 at least, so that might end being its recommended resale price. Phione's BST is 480. It is a "legendary" Pokémon. Its stats make it good for the Daycare contest. However, it does not have a particularly good typing when it comes to trying to catch Pokémon, and its stats are lacking when compared to some normal Pokémon. It sells to the NPC for $4800 at least (10x BST), but as a legendary, it could be argued that reselling it for 15x BST - $7200 - would be a minimum requirement. No one really cares about Phione's recommended price, but it is a legendary, so certain people may desire it for up to $20000. Moltres' BST is 580. It is a legendary Pokémon. It has a fantastic typing that allows it to excel in multiple contests. It sells to the NPC for $5800 at least, but it is definitely worth more than that. Perhaps 20x its BST value - $11600 - would be a good minimum for its resale value? Idk, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here lol. Still, I've seen a Moltres go for way over that amount, some pushing from $50000-$60000. Rayquaza's BST is 680. It is a legendary Pokémon. It is basically Salamence, but with more BP, and Salamence itself is a big hit. It can even Mega Evolve. It sells to the NPC for $6800, but it could probably push 30x its BST value - $20400 - as a minimum resale value due to its sheer power and utility, especially when you take its Mega Evolution into account. I've never seen a Rayquaza that was legit, but I imagine it would probably end up selling for way in excess of $100000. Everyone could buy these mons for any amount, so long as it was above the minimum resale value - the guide price would just tell them the average price people pay for that Pokémon. The Pokémon could still be sold to the NPC for its BST value (or more if you have the Amulet Coins). Obviously, you'd take 5x the minimum resale value for shiny varients of each Pokémon, or this could be tweaked in a similar manner also (so Shiny Ray cost about $1million or smth, idk). Don't take these numbers as actual fact or as real suggestions, they were to just get the feel of the idea into your head. And this is pretty much a textbook case of "needs a Poor Posting infraction". This adds nothing to the thread, and adds nothing because you cannot be bothered to read the entire post. If you aren't willing to contribute to the thread, do not post. Allow me to sum up what Fuzzy meant in that first paragraph alone for you anyway. Fuzzy states that it isn't just for people on different alts / accounts, but for people giving things for free to a certain user to help them acheive something in an unfair manner, in a way that can sway the game in the favour of the people who do this. He states that this is the reason the rule exists. This could call under multi-accounting, yes, but then we end up with the complaints of "BUT IT ISN'T MY ACCOUNT!!!" Trust me, that's already happened at least once. I've deleted your post, btw Zoroark, as I've already mentioned to you on the server that I'm not handing out infractions until posts happen after I've unlocked the thread. @giveaways: (22:04:10) 5. Play Fair: (22:04:10) Don't scam or attempt to scam other players. Don't exploit bugs (if you suspect you found one, report to a channel owner by PM). Don't shill bid in an auction. Don't giveaway or lend items, Pokémon, etc. without prior approval from Safari Auth. It literally tells you to ask for approval. If you want to quit and give your stuff away to people, ask the Safari Auth and they may let it happen. Has anyone actually asked the Safari Auth, ever? I think I recall 1 time, and that resulted in a forum giveaway iirc. @"Allow giveaways or completely disallow trades": This method of thinking does not help at all. It does not allow for any middle ground, and it just sounds demanding, not constructive. @giveaways should be allowed because we own the mons and thus should be able to do what we want with it: I give up reading the arguments on this. We'd need to seriously discuss the benefits and the drawbacks of giveaways, because both sides have valid points to make, but neither side seems willing to budge or listen to the points of the other side. You are not entirely correct here, Wavy. You have been providing criticism, yes. However, you have been providing negative criticism. This type of criticism can definitely be seen as a personal attack. The comments above including "If you can't see that..." undermines the opinion of others and makes you come across as a giant dick. As I've said several times, you should be providing constructive criticism. This type of criticism highlights the issues, but also provides alternative methods of dealing with the issues that have been brought up. It also doesn't sound directly like you're attacking everything either. Both the post I quoted and any responses have been deleted, because they continue to add nothing to the topic. ----- From this post on, any posts that are completely filled with negative criticism and insults thrown at each other from user to user will be infracted harshly. There are at least 14 infraction points I did not do when going over the thread, so do not continue to post poorly in this thread. Keep your criticisms constructive, give us something we can work on, and keep all responses civil, regardless of your authority level. Topic unlocked, carry on.
A fresh start is a good idea here. I apologize that my posts seemed combative, they were definitely sharply worded. This wasn't my intention and I wanted to address issues I've noticed with the game with reasoned arguments and sharp responses to what I've seen. So, I criticized rules, mechanics, and attitudes of people running the game with the hopes that maybe they'd be listened to. My negative criticism came with constructive criticism. I suggest their attitude is poor and then explain why, and give ideas for different perspectives. I could have been nicer, but honestly I feel like I'm being asked to approach this with kid gloves. Yes, it's possible to "perceive" negative criticism as a personal attack, but should someone in authority be able to properly parse it? The fact is I didn't attack people, and perceiving it in another way is understandable, but still wrong. That's all I was pointing out. In replying to this thread, I'm responding to a real nastiness from the people running Safari, and it's something you must have been able to observe. You mentioned yourself that they would laugh off suggestions- and I think it's appropriate to call attention to this kind of attitude. It goes deeper, and the people I'm criticizing, Fuzzy and Rice, know what I'm talking about. They get so frustrated and irritated with the players that they lose sight of what they're doing and feel like they shouldn't bother. They would end up treating the people who play this game in a negative way, continuously add rules that I believe hurt the players. I wanted to point out this pattern of behavior and suggest a better way of looking at things. This is constructive. I said their attitude was bad, yes, but I didn't just stop there. I talked about being grateful to players, and how they'd feel better if they looked at things from that perspective. I stand by those statements. Now, for the subject of the post, my ideas (as I have posted before and don't know which parts of them remain), are as follows: 1: Stop trolling players so much and reduce the prevalence of Zorua / Ditto spawns. Remove fake shinies from the game. If you catch a "shiny" you should get a shiny. I think there's a general consensus about the fake shinies - and I know a lot of players are unhappy with the troll spawns. 2: Remove the giveaway rule and allow free trades. I'm seeing ideas for setting minimum trade values and etc., but this is again arbitrary and doesn't accomplish what you'd like to do. It's just an argument going to a logical extreme. There's no demand given, it's just a conclusion you reach if you really go to the extreme of "this game should be fair". I don't think trading should be disallowed, but my argument is that: no matter how many arbitrary restrictions you put on trading, such as minimum values or figuring out what a "reasonable" trade is, that being able to choose you who trade with is the real "unfair"ness in the game. I don't want trading removed, I want the opposite. So, that's the use of that method. It literally is to show that the middle ground people are trying to find isn't going to address the issue they want it to. I personally don't have an issue with that they're trying to "fix", so that's where this argument comes in. 3: Bring back the leaderboard event or find a replacement for it. Please don't take things away with a brief, insulting message about how people are childish. I thought this was a pretty mild response to somebody insinuating that I should be de-authed because of criticizing people and whatever other insults he had in that deleted post. I suppose I did want to undermine that kind of talk, because it was just insulting to me and had no place in this discussion. Also, I do want to say, thank you to RiceKirby and Fuzzysqurl for working on this game. You guys deserve it, and you've given people something fun to do. It's just hard for me to come at this from a "great job" perspective when I see your treatment of the players: I think if you came at this from another angle, you could have a great time interacting with people. I do understand what it's like to only get negative feedback and not nearly as many suggestions, but you really shouldn't rely on players for ideas. It would be nice, yes, but you shouldn't hold it against people for not helping you with that sort of thing. You do get people thanking you and wanting to simply enjoy your game, but you end up letting the negatives overshadow it. And one form of positive response that you often don't realize exists is just simple player enthusiasm for your game's content. For example, people love playing pyramid and will arrange runs all day. They may not constantly say "hey this is great" but it shows in their behavior. Enjoy that.
Due to the recent scams and the cmods not doing anything much about it, I think we bring a stop to this. User Mibuchiha suggested to impose a set of notes to the newbies who decide to trade their rare pokemon for x reasons. If User x does not read these notes and decide to do trade anyways its none of our concern anymore. After all, no one is really there to even look into the situation with more detail. Unless the mods have enough moral sense to make sure that the rule of scamming is as exact to real life scams, I don't think this would be going anyways better. I still have things to say about user Aaditya 01 and have him suffer what he scammed for but thats a later issue we can deal with if it continues even after we impose these new notes to educate new players about the rare things they caught. (Not to mention the current rule has people taking advantage of it) This is from yasuo not me so please dont hurt me xd
I think everyone has tried to give constructive criticism. I think there are some misunderstandings. The attitudes of how critiscm is responded to has undoubtly prevented even more people from adding to the discussion in the past. Anyway my thoughts: in regards to oaks comments about no longer having fake shinies ~ 1. Several of us here are in agreement on this and have been discussing it here. It is especially difficult due to the inability to memorize all of their bst.. and while im unsure how fast people can search on pc, it's way too difficult to look of up while catching on droid. Personally i dont like the fake legendary spawns. I feel the frequency is too high, ie 3 in around 10m from bait last night. Solution in my mind: remove fake shinies... (unless its a shiny spawning as another shiny) -decrease the occurence of fake legends... particularly so with baited ones 2. The giveaway: i agree with what wavy, mibuchia, and others have said. Let us do what we want with the items we earn. I dont agree with : Forced auctions (please read my previous post why) Forced delete/not allowing to share with who we want: Again, we worked for the stuff. If we want to give what we have to particular people we should be able to. It doesnt hurt anyone nor their gameplay experience. No one should feel entitled to our stuff because they dont have it or we dont give it to them. It wasnt theirs to begin with. I do understand not wanting people repeatedly saying their quitting in chat and making a huge deal of it. SOLUTION: I say if people want to quit and giveaway their better stuff(shinies/legends) to anyone let them. This can be easily done without chat disruption. If they have excess stuff their specifc people dont want then put it on the thread up for grabs in some way (maybe drawing) this way it doesnt bother the chat or draw attention to people quitting. (This is in response to Asc's post that lists drawing attention to quitting as one of the reasons.) When people quit or are thinking of doing so they are goingto give their friends priority to buy anyhow,,, and they should be able to. Might as well let them have control of whar theyre doing. 3. I think even with other points having various opinions, there are many many people that want the return of the lb event. Solution in my mind: bring it back. If people are excessively rude and mean spirited about it, ban them from participating in the leaderboard. Or even punish in some other way. Dont punish everyone though. Also, ive s aid countless times in chat i like safari and im very addicted to playing it. Ive even gotten several of my friends to play that planned on not doing it. Those are forms of positivefeedback.
Some of my thoughts ~ 1.Well i agree with Oak that if fake shinies spawns then the disguised pokemons (i.e. ditto/zorua/zoroark) should also be shiny.It would be good that way,even if people throw their master ball they would still get something. I played safari on some other 1-2 servers and they implemented it really well.One other thing,not so important though,was Mew disguised only in Other legends with Proper BST.As far i know mew spawns only in Ceruleon Cave,So if a dialga pops out in that with correct BST everyone would know it's a mew. Regarding fake legends i personally have no problem but the main thing is many people get deceived and throw their master ball.Of course safari staff try their best to limit these but if it happens during bait then the player is responsible.I have thought some mesasures to prevent this~ A) Maybe Buff Prescholler Costume or introduce a new costume that could Warn us if a Fake Pokemon spawns and tell its real identity. B) Generally new players do this kind of mistake so can this code be made-Players who have caught less than 1000 Pokémons get a warning about not throwing Master Ball. 2.Regarding Quitting and Give aways yeah its our decision whom to give or not.But if someone gives away so much amount of thing to just one person that he would become overpowered.Again Oak's idea was good-A limiting price for everything. Its a good idea that could give the quitters a chance to give some of their mons but it looks a bit.... Suppose the limiting price of 580 BST legends are 200k.People would surely buy moltres off that price but would they buy Regice on same price.There comes the Rarity factor.Everyone knows moltres is rarer than Regice and no one likely would try to spend so much on it. I don't know the purpose of mythlog but IF ever this limiting idea happens can you code it such that rarer Pokemons have higher limiting value.This seems to be a rough idea but still ._. 3)~~No comments~~ :)
I requested proofs every time this has been brought up and no one gave them. If you are going to accuse someone of something so grave, then at least show evidence about it so we can look at it.
(19:54:46) Aaditya 01: You gave your Magneton, Machamp, Escavalier, Gardevoir and Kabutops to the Collector and received $15,165! People are giving their valuable Pokemons like Gardevoir and Machamp. So I request for not removing Monthly event LB
...I'm not entirely sure what that post exactly has to do with anything in this thread lol People are free to give their valuable mons to the Collector for the quest, that's the reason the quest is there. If that was a log to show Aaditya was scamming, there is no evidence in the log provided of this lol
I have no idea what he actually means with it, but from my understanding he is trying to say that people invest their valuables Pokemon for this quest to not only gain money but also get the extra prize from the leader board. (Because individually you could sell those Pokemon for as much or maybe even more than the collector) So when you remove the leaderboard, the quest would become more obsolete because selling to players would be as valuables or even more than the quest. Of course this is all speculation and I might be totally wrong
Hijacking this thread because I don't want to make a new one and I don't think the suggestions thread is the place to post this. What is the deal with the situation with the 9999 coin legend in /buy? I just want clarity because it has currently been removed and there are rumours like. (16:02:48) +JaneSaw: Well apparently rayquaza was meant to be obtained by two users only It would be insanely shit to have put in months of effort to gather coins only for the goal to be removed.
After so many days i and more others users need a definitive answer, what better moment than now when someone reached the goal of 9999? The Rayquaza still isn't restocked and I need to know, did i dreamt for nothing? Did i wasted my time with silver coins (Arena Record: 312-112)? Did i really challenged 400+ times the arena for something now disappeared? Removing it was the biggest mistake of safari. Even if people wasn't happy in the first place, removing something after 3 users got it, why 3 users have Rayquaza now, with silver coins, and new users or just who like me had not enough coins at the time. So why silver coins of 3 users were just infinity times more worth than others? Why everyone except 3 users can use their own personal Rayquaza? Just because they started before? Is really that the game you were looking for? A game with huge disparity? I'm between the sadness of wasting time and the madness, i currently have 2000 coins (just 1/5 of the goal) and that's my opinion. I feel sense of fury for Fitzy that have 9999 even if we are not good friends or something just know each other. So let we all know if everyone that farmed coins just wasted a lot of time without words like "maybe". Maybe that's comment looking like harassing but i'm just honest with what i think. @IceKirby @Fuzzysqurl