Zach Writes a Novel

Part One: Context

The main reason I'm so surprised by the possible addition of natures to the base max percentage, is because it would invalidate a lot of people's hard work to put together hundreds of pairs. And... I thought Niet already knew that we didn't want to do that. I thought he was on board with the idea of "yeah, that's not ideal." We actually talked about all this already, albeit much less in depth, in "2024 plans: Round 2!" starting around this post. The whole conversation is long and winding, but I was getting the impression through the discussion that Niet wanted to help us preserve our pair collections. The post I linked before as the start is made by me, and is as follows: He begins the idea of a compromise here, with no indication of responding to anyone specifically: Afterwards he continues to discuss with what pros and cons would be, nothing ironed out yet: At this point it seems like he hasn't completely grasped the main concern about people losing their max percentage pai collection, so I try and explain it: So after some more discussion with players, he offers another compromise post: This proposal discusses what we see in this current thread, where the RNG portion is dropped. This had a really positive reaction from most people and was highly upvoted! After such positive response, it is then added to the FAQ post: It is realized that any cross-species pairs will be hit due to being different species, as this user points out: & Niet acknowledges this as an intended impact.

Part Two: Expectations vs Reality

Anyways, what was the point of all that? That was to give you the context of how I approached this update. I believed that pair collections would be left in tact, with only a handful of issues surrounding species difference. I thought that Niet had read & understood the primary concern that I, and others, had about users losing their pair collections. I thought that he saw these concerns, and flexed the plans to accomidate for us. However, with the this thread's introduction of requiring natures to match to provide a base maximum percentage pair, we are starting over at the beginning, and it leads me to wonder. Were Niet and I ever on the same page? Did I convince myself of that due to wishful thinking? What was the point of removing RNG, if not to help people preserve their pairs?

Part Three: I am Confusion & Frustraite

Now I watch this thread unfold: Mostly gut reactions to the new V-Wave proposal and the Red Gigaremo changes. That fire gets put out. But in putting out the fire, something else is mentioned: Something I forgot about... Wait a second, natures? I have to go back and read that one. Won't that one mess with no-nature-preference user's pair collections? ... Did I misunderstand Niet's intentions with the previous discussion?

Part Four: Oh My God Are You Done Yet (TLDR)

The reason I am surprised and disappointed with pairs requiring natures to hit max base percentage is because it re-creates an issue I thought Niet had already agreed to help the userbase avoid. I added all the quotes and context so that everyone could see how I came to the conclusion that Niet wanted to help us avoid losing our pair collections. Even if he never explicitly said that, it felt like that was the point of the compromises he provided.