Forum Thread

So, when I saw that "Lowest frequency" for Pokemon, and I saw the lowest was 17, I still thought it was too much. That's why I thought it'd be good if there were Shiny frequencies too!

If you support, please give a reason.
If you do not support, please give a reason too.

---

I don't think it's necessary.

If the lowest frequency for a Pokemon is 17, it's safe to assume that the shiny frequency is zero or a user got pretty lucky with a super easy chain. So your lowest frequency shinies would be "1" since you can't have zero (if you could then it'd just be legendaries and such on the list), and even then it's rare for a Pokemon to only have 1 shiny for long, so your lower frequencies might end up being 10 or 20. So, you'd still have the same problem of "I think 17 is too much" but with shinies instead.

The lowest frequencies I could think of would be for genderless Pokemon such as Porygon only has 1 shiny right now. But seeing a bunch of genderless Pokemon on a list for lowest frequency shinies isn't surprising and it doesn't motivate others to get those rare shinies since you need a ditto to obtain them or know someone with one. So it'd mainly be ditto owners trying to get these low frequency shiny Pokemon.

---

Bump.

---