Sliding scales of rarity.

[Kalika_Had`ke]

The time frame for the sliding scale and just how big that percent should be is probably going to be the hardest part, and likely very hard to get right until the game is live and some data is collected on server population and other factors like how much time is spent in the individual areas, how many pokémon are caught in a day/week/month, how long areas are at their max 'rarity', and potentially other things.

Adding time of day and seasons would certainly make things even more realistic, but would make the tables needed for each area quite large and complex. Determining how those percents move across time-frames would be important as well. And if the change from say day to night were computationally intensive then it could also incur server stress/lag every time that changes, which if there were three time types and four PU days per RL day would be every two hours.

Deciding which pokémon to exchange for which isn't so much hard, as it is complex, and time consuming from a design standpoint. Each area would need an ecology that makes sense both from a lore and world standpoint and is sane from a mechanics standpoint so as not to put too many powerful pokémon in the same area (though being evil to the trainers that have to go through there is another matter entirely, go-go status effects).

Thinking a bit more about the initial timescale...if each PU day is 6 hours, making 4 PU days/1 RL day...then increasing or decreasing the rates every 2 RL days should provide a balance between rapid swinging changes, and irrelevantly slow change. Each RL day seems like a good idea on the surface, and it does allow for rapid growth in rarity levels, however it also makes for an equally rapid decline in those levels as well. Making the chance of finding 'hidden' pokémon, especially those two or three deep in the list ridiculously small, especially if you're away for a couple days.

[LeoReborn]

The time frame for the sliding scale and just how big that percent should be is probably going to be the hardest part, and likely very hard to get right until the game is live and some data is collected on server population and other factors like how much time is spent in the individual areas, how many pokémon are caught in a day/week/month, how long areas are at their max 'rarity', and potentially other things.

Adding time of day and seasons would certainly make things even more realistic, but would make the tables needed for each area quite large and complex. Determining how those percents move across time-frames would be important as well. And if the change from say day to night were computationally intensive then it could also incur server stress/lag every time that changes, which if there were three time types and four PU days per RL day would be every two hours.

Deciding which pokémon to exchange for which isn't so much hard, as it is complex, and time consuming from a design standpoint. Each area would need an ecology that makes sense both from a lore and world standpoint and is sane from a mechanics standpoint so as not to put too many powerful pokémon in the same area (though being evil to the trainers that have to go through there is another matter entirely, go-go status effects).

Thinking a bit more about the initial timescale...if each PU day is 6 hours, making 4 PU days/1 RL day...then increasing or decreasing the rates every 2 RL days should provide a balance between rapid swinging changes, and irrelevantly slow change. Each RL day seems like a good idea on the surface, and it does allow for rapid growth in rarity levels, however it also makes for an equally rapid decline in those levels as well. Making the chance of finding 'hidden' pokémon, especially those two or three deep in the list ridiculously small, especially if you're away for a couple days.

+2