They don't take their time and end up beating the game within a week.
I played White and spent months. My reward? A deserted forest. Really Nintendo???? You reward me for spending my time exploring the game, catching every pokemon along the way.............. with the worst status forest?
in my honest opinion, the longer you take should make it a bigger forest. not only does that make more sense, but it helps gamers enjoy the game more.
So don't complain if you are a rusher. I know some out there spend their times on the games and still don't get shinies, but the majority of those who have never had one? The answer lies here
TC's post: Extremely low probability of a shiny appearing, which is per encounter rather than cumulative, is determined by how fast you get through the game.
Flawed logic is flawed...
no it's not. let's assume the longer you play the more grass you encounter.
if you play 1 hour and go in one grass
or play 2 hours and go in two grass,
you have better odds of seeing a shiny by not rushing.
i addded in that some unlucky people who dont rush still donttget shinies. but theemajority of those whh odnes get shinies arre rushers
Your flawed assumption is, in fact, flawed.
I will grant you that, the more encounters you have, the more likely you are to encounter a shiny. However, your assumption that the majority of those who have never encountered a shiny are simply rushing through the game is, in fact, flawed. It has no basis. It is purely speculation. It is equally possible that the opposite is true. It is just as possible that the majority who have never encountered a wild shiny have played without rushing, while those who rushed have also encountered shinies.
You provide no evidence to support your assumption. Therefore, your assumption is unfounded. Thereby, your logic is flawed.
Founder - IRDC AND Fluffy the Friendly Deathclaw Fanclub ULCE#: 9,426 of 53,160; Misty is mine!