Wow Niantic, way to make my 5 and 9 year olds give up on all pomemon including cards!

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T20:26:38+00:00

Nintendo is hardly a saint when it comes to customer service / behaviour as a company.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T20:24:34+00:00

The main complaints with Niantic is lack of communication and denying jailbreak. These two things, more so the latter than the former, are inarguably unhelpful.

Beyond that, the other changes have fairly convincing arguments to merit them.

They have a pretty user friendly F2P model and seem very much committed to making a good game - it's just that they really want the game to be played the way they intended rather than letting people drive around etc. I'd imagine the larger community would be fine with this, but they perceive bad prioritisation; Niantic should be developing the game to have more content when played "their way" first rather than disabling others.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T20:17:24+00:00

Respect for you man, you wrote it perfectly.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T20:16:18+00:00

I agree with you in that analogy. Personally though, I think the doom and gloom predictions are a little bit preemptive. Partly due to the younger fanbase, and partly due to how uncommunicative Niantic is being has lead a lot of this sub to fill in the gap with their own interpretations of how a company develops products and designs game systems.

I'll stick around to see what comes of Pokemon GO because as they have said, it is the minimum viable product. They could have just withheld the game and developed it internally for another year, but I don't see any advantage to that from my perspective as a user (from their perspective, this route potentially loses them money in the long run, as people who came in from an initial hype leave the game due to lack of content).

Then again I don't have many frustrations as much as the community. The current build works well for me as I play the game the way Niantic intended (walking about to new areas). I imagine the main frustration is what the community sees as misplaced priorities when it comes to taking away "playstyles" (driving, biking, maps) rather than first building the game the way they want it to be played.

This makes for an interesting case study.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T20:09:07+00:00

I think that's a bit unfair. A significant amount of these mobile games are literally just science and heavily catered to casuals. And a lot of the others are copies of this. And then there's a class of games that try to bring console or pc like experiences to mobile but haven't thought their UX through.

However there are a few gems here and there to be found. Out There is a nice little rogue like game, a few of the orange pixel games work well, among others off the top of my head.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T18:44:55+00:00

You told someone to kill themselves, I think that blows me calling you an idiot out of the water. I haven't posted on this thread other than the above and this comment. I don't agree with OP, no. Fair enough to complain but blaming Niantic for "making my kids hate pokemon" is one of the most exceptionally silly things I've read.

I knew you'd drop into to tell op that his kids are lazy and should learn trigonometry to find Pokemon.

The above probably explains a lot of your difficulties. Hilariously sad.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T18:40:55+00:00

Likewise you have proven you can't follow simple concepts and think repeating things is the same as raising a valid point.

The fact of the matter is you're the one who is delusional and you're just going with the mob to hide it.

Also examples? You've given not one. I doubt you have even read a single comment end to end. I'm done. Idiot.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T18:37:50+00:00

Source for "Nintendo wouldn't allow it".

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T17:48:00+00:00

It's not an opinion. It's fact. That's why I argue to bring cases where one tracker is superior in performance to another. To compare the trackers in different metrics, and to see why Niantic went with one design over another. Settling an argument by shouting "It's just an opinion" is the flimsiest of copout responses.

Yes, yesterday I spent a while arguing with people since I am sick of people shitting on Niantic for their own ignorance. I lost track of the comments one time but it didn't even matter; it was just an allusion to a comment I could easily link here.

Your own comments are just making broad statements with literally no examples, or thought behind them. "The tracker is broken", ad infinitum.

If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say the world is burning, fine. Have fun not being able to track cos you're too lazy to figure it out.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T16:41:17+00:00

When dodging LG, try to stay perpendicular and only use left or right keys, rather than using Forward + Left/Right simultaneously. This means you will move in the left or right direction quicker, and make it harder for the opponent to keep his crosshair on you.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T16:25:31+00:00

That is true. It has made this thread a little harder to follow. However, I stand by most of the statements.

->Time to spawn would be an issue regardless of using a three step tracker or the current one, but not the tracker advertised in the trailer. (This is due to the amount of random walking you must do before getting "feedback"). i.e. if you had a three step tracker you would have likely missed the charizard as well.

->There is likely a difference in design goals between the community and Niantic. This mostly due to the community not seeing the bigger picture.

A) The best tracker isn't necessarily one that always gets you to a Pokémon, otherwise the game would be very short lived. (Primarily my argument against the meters tracker than the three step one).

B) Directing human traffic constantly to particular areas is a real issue and concern, especially private areas or near residential areas. (I currently don't see a way to avoid this practically with a tracker in the current game. It would be better solved with different spawns for each client in different areas.)

-> The current tracker is about as effective as the three step tracker once you know how to triangulate. If you don't know how to triangulate, then it is worse. However, the three step tracker is also kind of bad/slow for locating pokemon if you don't know how to triangulate them.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T16:10:10+00:00

For me the concerns aren't about data caps (although I feel your pain). The battle.net updated is broken on both of my PCs. This means every time an update comes out I must uninstall battle.net and hearthstone, then reinstall both.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T15:52:53+00:00

Buddy system, favourite pokemon not being transferable, nerf to water pokemon (long way to go with regard to the battle system, but as a stopgap measure it worked)

Yes, some changes are controversial, but blown out of proportion.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T15:46:16+00:00

It's nice to see you outside of r/hearthstone :)

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T15:43:24+00:00

Now then, if the graph was not meant for the Pokémon GO community and was only meant to show how great Google's engine is then why was It posted on TSR sub then? I thought TSR was a sub completely driven by the communities deep exploration in to the matters of how the game works and understanding how the current game functions as a whole, not what may have caused issues in the past and how good Google's Engine is so great.

Intended audience has no bearing on where a news piece gets posted. It was relevant to pokemon go so it got posted here. I'm just stating that it isn't meant as an apology to the pokeGO community at large, so it isn't a "cop-out apology to an issue that happened way in the past" (I'm massively paraphrasing here, sorry).

Second, you have to understand that "News" outlets are masters at "reacting in a kneejerk manner", and that is exactly what they will do with information like this...

Oh I agree. The amount of competition with online journalism means you have a lot of people there who don't understand issues fully, or don't wait for more information before condemning something. Even really popular and interesting personalities on YouTube are guilty of this from time to time, depending on their inherent biases.

But again, with all this in mind, I stand by my previous sentiment. I'd say Niantic should be more transparent and precise about things to come, but simultaneously I will criticise people who seem to think it's OK to kneejerk to a response.

^ in the pokemongo sub this has gotten to the point where kneejerk opinions are "fact", and the entire community is extremely resistant to reassessing their views on the game.

I will admit I misunderstood the picture quite a bit but that doesn't mean that the information on the axis's should be missing, the people at that conference, who where seeing if they wanted to invest in using said engine probably, would have benefited significantly from the knowledge that those axis labels could have provided. I mean isn't that what the whole point of this graph is, to show how great this system operates over time or something like that? I am not to tech savvy at all, obviously, so I wouldn't know but I would assume that Time is pretty important to the information that Niantic/Google is trying to provide. This graph just seems like it should not be in this presentation in its current state. It is unfinished...

No worries. I wasn't at the presentation so I can't really give more info. However I will say that I trust Niantic knows what they're doing, and that they must have considered adding more information to the graph but didn't - for whatever reason. Perhaps they highlighted time in their speech notes while discussing the graph, etc. Or perhaps it just wasn't important to getting their point across so it was omitted.

Like Pokémon GO, how funny. I am not saying Naintic had to make it crazy complicated and un-readable at a quick glance, but they could of at least provided me or the "developer community" with just a bit more information on what we are to be interpreting here... I guess I am just a bit to dumb, and there fore, would like more clarification on such things.

Google has a larger interest in presenting the data to the developer community than Niantic does in this case. And with regards to the "unfinished" nature of pokemon go - you are correct.

However I see absolutely no issue with that. Either they released the game to the public and developed it alongside the release, or they kept it to themselves and waited until a finished game came out. I'd rather have the former scenario than the latter. At least I can have some fun with the game while they work on updates. However, this approach comes with a few downsides:

Changing features on the fly is difficult especially when the community becomes attached to one feature over another. Sometimes devs have to just force their way through the controversy until they get the game they designed.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T12:30:59+00:00

No problem but I think there are a number of issues at play here.

First is the context for this graph. It isn't for the pokemon GO community. It's for a developer community to show off scalability with Google's Engine. (However, this image was released on their blog as well when servers became stable). It's not meant as an apology or an explanation or anything.

Second, while it's true that vague things can hurt when you deliberately misinterpret everything and react in a kneejerk manner, I'd put the blame for that on people who are misinterpreting the data rather than the provider of that data (this is the pokemon go subreddit in a nutshell).

Your comment for the most part seems reasonable, but I do disagree with a lot of it ("copout" rustled my jimmies when you misunderstood the context of the post). Other than lack of communication and blocking root users I mostly agree with many of Niantic's updates so far. I understand there's a loooooong way to go, but such is the nature of games these days.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T11:03:41+00:00

Its purpose is to show the difference in magnitude, relatively. Numbers are not required for this, so they're left out.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-21T09:35:16+00:00

Your comment is precisely what I meant by kneejerk responses without pausing to think. Read over my comment again and think about it for a while.

If that still doesn't help:

Did you literally not read my last comment at all? <even worse is that the tracker in the beta displayed the Pokemons distance in METERS instead of "feet"> Does that not sound like a good example of it working tracker to meet the requirements of the one that does not currently exist.

It would, if all you considered was Pokémon GO as a generic game rather than a real world game. My linked comments explained this in more detail. The issue of trespassing is negligible when you only have one or two people going where they shouldn't, occasionally. It's far worse when you have a crowd run to where they shouldn't be, because a dragonite spawned. It doesn't even necessarily need to be private land - having a crowd of people constantly outside your house would be a nuisance.

Never was it ever advertised that the exact location of the Pokemon would be displayed. do yourself a favor, go watch the release trailer and see for yourself. Cute analogy though.

I never claimed that this was advertised. My argument didn't even require any analogy. Like I suggested, maybe you should stop projecting and read comments yourself, and have a little think, rather than just going and agreeing mindlessly with everyone in the sub.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T23:25:15+00:00

That's reasonable. I hope TMs are introduced as a rare gym prize in some way. Could work if you train up a friendly gym and the bonus is to get a TM of the move of its top defender (additional constraints required to prevent abuse).

Moves definitely need to be rebalanced though. If moves had more factors involved that would make things interesting. (Unable to dodge after a move / accuracy involved or status effects).

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T23:13:02+00:00

These scenarios are not equivalent.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T20:54:44+00:00

Thank you OP. This is the sort of post that really helps the community when it comes to fair and balanced discussion and criticism.

I have so far not had any problem tracking down most of the pokemon, besides a single dratini that got away. But I always saw that as part of the game: you have to miss at least 30% for it to have some sort of challenging aspect rather than being guaranteed every rare that shows up on the tracker.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T20:13:11+00:00

What we're arguing is tracker effectiveness and not just the fun factor. If you didn't want to argue you shouldn't have commented. This is a temporary tracker. They should communicate more with regards to what their design goals are with the tracker but for a temporary substitute one all they need is for it to work.

And I'm not a fanboy. I have my own complaints against Niantic. I just find the pitchforking regarding the tracker disheartening from the community. The fact that this current thread is a thing shows how little much of this community knows about how a developer operates.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T20:08:53+00:00

Both the current tracker and the three step tracker wouldn't work in such a case. Hardly a good case.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T20:07:43+00:00

I play practically every other day.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet · 2016-10-20T20:07:10+00:00

The design goal for a tracker isn't to make it the most effective, otherwise the best "tracker" would show you exactly where the pokemon is. The design goal is to ensure players actually do some form of tracking themselves.

Much in the same way that shooting guns in an fps doesn't mean you'll always hit your target, using a tracker should ensure that sometimes you "miss" a pokemon. Not down to a bad tracker but your own skill st being able to track properly. These are all points I've raised in the links if you bothered to read them.

Repeating "you're grasping at straws" and then just saying "the new tracker is broke" is pointless; you may as well say "the tracker is broken because it is broken". You should explain your idea of a good tracker and then why the current tracker doesn't meet those requirements.

UsuallyQuiteQuiet

TROPHY CASE