Field Type Changing

This has already been accepted & implemented, but I felt Niet didn't really add one of the major needed things. The fee is a major problem, as it causes you to lose potentially huge amounts of credits. The old suggestion, https://pokefarm.com/forum/thread/306746/Field-Type-changer/post/6123036 contains many users unhappy about having to buy a different field and lose credits for no reason. This is not exploitable, as you would still need to buy more fields to store pokemon. It may slow down field purchases, as you would no longer have to buy a field for your leafeon, kitwurm, glaceon If it is too much of a problem, then maybe a 1/3 fee would be appropriate. The current field type changing is just as expensive as buying a new field, except you don't get more storage.

Could you please explain what you mean by "This is not exploitable, as you would still need to buy more fields to store pokemon." The change was made just to switch fields without have to go thought process of : empty field sell buy new field move pokemon again So technically you don't need to have extra field to temporary store these pokemon just so you can change the type of the field they were in from say normal to ice if you are short with credits but in dire need of ice field. The change is only supposed to be a quick switch, not meant to give you extra space, make purchasing fields less costly or reduce the need to buy more field. You are essentially buying new field, just without the extra steps.

It's not? I just checked on my own fields, it would cost me 9,000 credits to buy a new field and 4,250 credits to change type. The fee to change field type is slightly less than half of what it would cost to buy a new field. So this statement is just factually inaccurate and can't be used to support your suggestion.

I believe what DanielTheCake was trying to say is that it is just as expensive as the old way of switching, which is selling a field, then buying a new one of the desired type. That was the cheapest way to change a field type, as if you did it in the reverse order (buying a new field and selling the other one) it'd be significantly more expensive. Niet's programmed it to match the price of the first process, as DanielTheCake quoted previously. I have to agree that I'm not completely satisfied with how this suggestion was implemented. My issue with changing field types was not that it was inconvenient per se, it's that it's extremely expensive, especially with those of us with many fields. It may cost you 4,250 credits for you to switch field types. It costs me 1,579,000 credits. I cannot find a justified reason for users with large fields needing to pay more to change a field type than those with less fields. We are not obtaining more storage in the process, nor gaining an advantage over those with less fields, so I struggle to understand why we would need to pay more. I would prefer the service to be a flat rate equal for all users.

Scaling, so that early game is accessible without having 250 fields cost just 25k. For the same reason, the type change is the same cost as sell+buy. If it were a flat fee, it would have to be 50 Credits so that users trying to change their first and only field type get a sensible price, whereas Veteran users who can afford more, pay more. See also: money sink.

Doesn't this site have enough money sinks? Especially given they aren't really necessary, in my opinion? I won't spam the thread and get into that type of conversation, but it just feels completely unnecessary. New fields get increasingly more expensive, that's a money sink Everyone recently got reminded while trying to regain Arceus, Colress Shack is a huge money sink, and somewhat unavoidable Stacking boxes could be considered a money sink Badges are technically a money sink This is just for credits, there's more money sinks for the other 2 currencies as well, and there's more than the examples I just listed You already have to purchase the field, which as mentioned get increasingly expensive. Gumshoe gave a wonderful insight into those prices. They get ridiculously high. Just because a veteran user can supposedly "afford more" doesn't mean they should be expected to do so solely in order to house a favorite pokemon, or while working on badges, or for any other purpose/reason they have. Personally, I don't really find much merit in the original justification of no longer needing to "empty out the field and then put the Pokémon back in the new one." If you're already looking to switch your pokemon to another field, this is just an unavoidable step isn't it? It's not overly inconvenient in my opinion, the only inconvenience is the price of that new field you need just because you're seeking a different type. I was rather glad to hear about the field type change, but upon seeing the feature has a paywall of sorts it feels redundant, the only reason I can think of for wanting a specific type field is personal opinion on the backgrounds or evos/happiness, that's the only point of them really. Even then, why shouldn't that just be a free thing? Happiness being passively raised/lowered shouldn't have a price on it, evos are time consuming enough and there's many other options outside of field type specific ones, really at that point it's more just for aesthetic purposes, changing a field type. Do we need a price on aesthetics that affect nobody outside of the owner of the fields? Obviously the feature is still better than buying a new field, it's cheaper than buying a new field, but it just feels unnecessary for there to be a price at all on it. It'd be a lot more convenient/preferred by a large amount of the community I'm sure if this was just a free thing, or at the very least something much cheaper. Obviously I don't expect it to be free, not given it was implemented with specific price scaling already, but it would have been nice. At the very least though, I'll have to agree with Gumshoe in that I'd prefer the price to be equal for everybody, regardless of existing field count or veteran status.

While I understand having the price scaling is ideal, I suppose I feel as if it becomes much too steep that it becomes unfair to those with larger farms. I am alright with the scaling being so steep for the fields themselves as that is a direct upgrade; I am paying for the new space I'm getting, which is an upgrade that is actively giving me more and more advantage. But for changing a field type, it just feels...extremely uneven for the amount of actual gain I'm receiving from it. You seem to be concerned about new users getting a "sensible price", which is good, I don't want new users to pay too much! However, I personally do not believe it is a "sensible price" on the other end; it really does not feel balanced. The amount of effort a new user has to put in to earn 50 credits is nowhere near the amount of effort a "veteran user" has to put in to earn 1.5mil; especially for something that is not a direct upgrade. I understand I am biased as someone with many fields who has been in this situation for a long time, but it's my honest opinion. I also wonder if the "price sink" reason would be more effective if switching was cheaper; encouraging users to change field types more often. The field changing is so expensive I have never even considered doing so, but if they were less expensive, I would be more inclined to actually put currency into doing so.

Bump Niet, you get more gain from moving pokemon and using those credits than changing the type, which should cost more like 1/10 of the price since you don't get any space.

bump

reading this thread, i'm in agreement with the others if your reason for making the price of changing field type scale is preventing new users from having to pay full price, then make it scale in reverse. set a price that's fair, then reduce that price by a certain amount for each field not owned below a certain threshold. or just make it free, because honestly, it's not a feature anyone should have to pay for. this site is nothing but money sinks. i can't use most features because everything is a money sink. besides clicking, where are the taps? i can't even sell anything because of the up-front cost (that was going to be a link to my suggestion on removing the up-front cost but i can't find the thread) money sinks exist to solve the problem of "too much money" i really don't think that problem exists to the degree it is being solved