Daycare Update 2024 plans

This is kinda what I'm getting at in my posts as well. People already did the work and now the work is gonna get undone =/

So personally I would prefer for the potential +14 from natures get redistributed to the type matchups/body type/stage in family/size in the base compatibility ratings, and then have natures replace the originally proposed V-wave bonus as a new dynamic modifier where slightly compatabile natures (shares dislike or like) get a 1.1x boost and identical natures get a 1.2x boost. This would help better preserve the compatibility of many of the original breeding pairs that people already have made, preserve the original chance of getting twins as outlined in the original post Niet made, and would also keep natures as part of the equation. Respectfully, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion? The concerns I have seen echoed regarding natures is that, unless you are a nature or a preference hunter, most of your near-optimal (95+) breeding pairs will become sub-optimal. I'm not making money off of breeding pairs - I quite literally give them away for free - and most breeding pair shops in general seem to sell them quite cheaply. I don't mind if people can make them easier, since now I can make a lot of mine easier too! I just wish that the fields and fields of breeding pairs I already have aren't going to lose so much compatibility simply cause I wasn't caring about natures at all when I put them together originally. It's not that people are upset because other people won't have to put in as much effort, or that they were hoping to make a ton of credits, it's that it feels like the effort spent on already existing pairs was for nothing/wiped out. Yes it'll be easier to remake each pair, but when you have a lot of pairs (I currently have 388 personal pairs, and 81 free pairs) it's still a lot of time needed to not only find a replacement for one mon in the pair, level them up to the same/similar level as the other one, and get them to the same evolution stage.

to further elaborate for those that STILL dont understand. Lets change terms abit. Imagine you are playing a game for a long while and get to a Great point where you have a decent amount of things. Now, something happens. A Reset. the File Corrupts. You Forget To Save. and you Reload... And you are Back at Square One. Thats 'essentially' whats happening with No Pref Pairs. we have to start over. but, at this point im resigned that this is how its going to be. Eh.

Well. Yes, but also no. It's not that nobody understands that you'll "lose" progress. But you also aren't playing a "complete" game either. PFQ is noted to be in beta in a few places, which means things can (and will) change. I have 12 fields of pairs plus another 13 fields of overflow that I only have one "half" of the pair to. This will make pair making so much easier for everyone that I'm willing to redo all the work I've already done so that it can be more approachable for everyone in the future. I'm only one person, but to say this is equivelant to your save data corrupting (happened to me on multiple occasions as a kid, so I'm well aware of what it's like...) is a bit of hyperbole. Your pairs will still be plenty good, and may even be over 100% without worrying about the natures matching

This is a really good way to put things into perspective ^^ I have roughly 36 fields of max percentage pairs, each field holds 20 pairs, so in total i have roughly 720 pairs which I spent months getting to be the best they can be. I’ve accepted that this is the way it’s going to be but it still kinda sucks that i’ll be spending ages getting them to be max% and the best they can be and before anyone says it, yes i know my pairs will “still be good” but I made my collection for the sole purpose of being max.

ok, i never said 'Nobody Understands', but there were still Some that didnt. Changing words and descriptors can help people understand better, at times... and i guess Confuse Others. I Understand its not a 1 to 1 comparison, hence "Essentially" is written the way it is. Either Way, Thanks, i guess, Yet Again for someone telling me "Your pairs will still be Good!". i understand that. when i made the pairs, i made them to be at Max%. just like most people. Hence Starting Over. It'll be nice that its easier, because hundreds and hundreds of pairs will need to be remade. Now, Again. I Am Resigned that this is going to happen. I understand why its going to happen. I understand what Happens, when it happens... I was just trying to make it easier for Other people to understand. Thank you for... Your Response...

Okay so I have now had chance to read through Niets post properly. Firstly, thank you Niet (and all the mods really) for all your hard work on this site. I am someone who knows nothing about coding so my mind boggles when I'm seeing all your posts on this stuff. With a user base this size you are never going to please everyone so I know some updates aren't going to suit me, but I wish others would see that to. Balancing and changing things up should be a part of every game. Now I am someone who has made it their goal over the last 2years to get all pairs, and am a pretty big chunk of the way through so hearing that all progress will be reset is a little disheartening. However, reading that the randomness is being taken out of matchups is great. I don't know how many togepi evos I had to go through to get that pair, was in the 30s I think! So hopefully that will make getting my pairs matched back up should be so much quicker (if I'm reading it right that is) I am also a quirky nature collector so hearing that I will get boosts is great. From my experience there are a great number of nature collectors on sight so helping them out for once sounds great to me :) those that don't necessarily 'care about natures' can still make pairs that match. With the rng taken out of pair making I don't really see why taking that extra time to find a certain matching nature is that difficult, especially with removing the need to find 2 Pokémon from different trainers. With the number of adoption limits, I kind of like how at the moment the number is a multiple of 5 AND 6, so you can chose how you want to go, so seeing it is being raised is nice, but also sad that 50 isn't divisible by 6 (just minor though!) I guess we will have to see when everything goes live what actually happens, but I am looking forward to it with some optimism :)

With all due respect, this makes no sense at all. - What part of Natures, a static and unchanging aspect of the individual, could be considered a "dynamic modifier"? - How would making it a dynamic modifier anyway, do anything to alleviate the issue that people want to maximise their overall compatibility, which would still require the Natures to match for absolute best results?

I guess maybe dynamic isn't the right word to use in this situation - the way I was thinking of it would be like a "bonus" to help boost pairs over 100% but not part of the base compatibility, kind of like how happiness boosts pairs over 100% but isn't part of base compatibility. I called it dynamic cause all of the other extra modifiers were called that, but you're right since it's static calling it dynamic wouldn't be the correct terminology. Idk maybe I'm not explaining the idea right? I was just trying to figure out a way that maybe the base compatibility of optimal pairs could be preserved better, but also keep the natures in so that way the nature and/or preference hunters who are really happy about the natures being added in wouldn't lose the buffs their pairs would get. Just was trying to propose a compromise in response to Seshie's post since they're right that people (myself included) weren't proposing an alternative to natures to use

Yeah I'm still really struggling to see where you're coming from. It's like you've forgotten that (A x B) x C is equal to A x (B x C)... It makes absolutely no difference when the Nature modifier applies, it will have the same effect on people trying to maximise their odds.