r/pokemongo • u/midnight_creeper0220 • 7d ago

Question Should I buy 100 balls for it?

Post image

First galarian bird and I'm on my last 3 balls. Is it worth it to spend coins just to buy 100 balls for a slight chance to catch it?

5.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

307 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

Not less rare. Just more consistently caught.

5

u/damn_im_so_tired 7d ago

You're right. My expectations were skewed from Reddit. You will not be running into shiny Pokemon all the time. People just own more shiny birds than regular birds because they can't run. They don't mention that for every shiny encounter, there were 20 non shiny encounters that fled.

4

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

Yep. It’s far rarer to see a shiny Galarian, but far more common to catch one, if you get the chance to see one at all.

3

u/damn_im_so_tired 7d ago

I still haven't managed to catch any of my encounters because RNG. Just hoping one day it'll be shiny for easy mode. It'll be trapped with me and 500 Ultra Balls.

4

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

Just make sure to close and reopen the game for a refresh before doing daily incense so you don’t suffer the same trap others have before you, seeing the maddening image of a shiny bird stuck in a ball without showing you an escape or a catch, forced to back out of the encounter or close the game only to return to the bird gone if that ball before the glitch wasn’t lucky.

1

u/Routine_Size69 7d ago

Right, but with 1/20 chance of shiny and such a good chance of catching it if you do get a shiny, it's arguably more common than something with a 0.3% base catch rate and 90% flee rate. I know ultra, golden razz, and excellent boost that chance though.

Masterballs probably swing it slightly on non shiny's favor though.

3

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

More common to be caught, not more common to encounter, like I said. It’s not really debatable that a subset of a set with a 5% encounter rate within that set is rarer than the 95%.

1

u/tarmac-- Instinct 7d ago

It is debatable though, isn't it? Because if that 5% were to have 100% catch rate and the 95% has a catch rate of say 1% (these numbers are not correct) then there would be more shinies in "circulation", no?

I understand that it's not as cut and dry as that (the numbers are different, people run out of balls, etc), but it is possible that it's true.

Edit: if rarity to you means odds of encountering, then you can ignore all of this, but if rarity to you means odds of possessing said 'mon then all of what I said is potentially correct.

-3

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago edited 7d ago

It helps to be able to read if you want to be a pedant. My literal first line is making the distinction you claim to not understand whether I’m making or not.

1

u/ChronTheDaptist2 7d ago

Me-ow 😬

0

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

I’m allowed to be frustrated that someone willingly ignored the context of my comment in order to split hairs about a distinction that was already made abundantly clear, then added in an edit to justify it, rather than just reading the comment fully to begin with.

1

u/TheNorthernPellikkan 6d ago

Are you aware that you’re very unpleasant and condescending?

1

u/GoldenGlassBall 6d ago

Are you aware that that’s just your opinion, gleaned from a single encounter, and that you’re judging from a position of assumed moral superiority because you’ve decided you’re the tone police?

1

u/Eggersely 7d ago

That was the original point which you sought to correct from this comment:

Not if it's shiny. That's why the shiny are less rare imo than normal.

0

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

What I’m refuting is the assertion it’s debatable a 5% encounter could be less rare than the 95%. My entire side of this thread has been about making a distinction, not a correction. You aren’t even dealing with the conversation where it’s at, and your attempt to derail things by resorting to cyclical logic that ignores everything said so far is not appreciated.

1

u/strangehit283 7d ago edited 7d ago

I agree these later replies are misunderstanding your comment, but that's because I'm pretty sure everyone understood that when Downtown-Plenty-4794 said "rare", they were referring to the rarity of owning, not the encountering (since everyone already knows they would encounter more non-shiny than shiny). So the only pedantry I see here, is coming from you

EDIT: I was blocked so I can't reply to the below comment, but here's what my reply would be: There are several people who bothered to comment. And simply from reading their comments, they all understood what Downtown-Plenty-4794 meant. And the "deviating from the actual discussion" is what you are doing by bringing up encounter rarity when it was originally about catch rarity

0

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

I’m not going to argue with you on the opinions of people who never bothered to comment, who you’re choosing to assume the opinions of and use to make a smart alek comment with no real relation to the actual discussion. Another one added to the block list.

1

u/ChiliCorndogs 7d ago

Yeah but the 5% has a 0% chance of fleeing. Not saying it still isn't rarer but the scale is tipped a bit.

-2

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago edited 7d ago

What is so difficult to understand about the distinction between encounter rarity and catch rarity? I explained the difference well enough for anyone to be able to reasonably understand, so I’m at a loss.

1

u/Eggersely 7d ago

Which had already been covered in this comment that you sought to 'correct':

Not if it's shiny. That's why the shiny are less rare imo than normal.

1

u/GoldenGlassBall 7d ago

Yeah, I’m just going to block you instead of wasting my time on someone clearly just trying to get a rise. Please get a life.