A solution to the problem with creatures of people who quit

james-bond • 27 May 2012 at 6:44 PM

When someone quits, they get their creatures to level 2000 and leave. Those creatures are the rare ones like the Onny, Gobbler, Valgrun, Pixgog, ect. Some point in the future, will we get to a point where all rare creatures are stuck in quit people's coves? Perhaps there can be a rule where there is a munimum of maybe 5 creatures you can leave in your cove. If you're not active for lets say 3 years, all of your creatures except the five that you choose get transferred to the adoption centre. There can be a setting/button that lets you pick those 5 creatures whenever you like. If you don't pick any creatures, all of your creatures will go to the adoption centre. (If any of the 5 creatures are mortal they can still die). They will recieve an e-mail before this happens.

If you see any flaws in this, please let me know and I'll try to solve them. 😊

whispers • 27 May 2012 at 8:48 PM

@james-bond
What if you can't get on for a while due to issues in RL?
Then you come back after that long time from being gone - then all your creatures are gone? I don't like this idea. And what if you're on a hiatus on a year - come back, and your critters are gone...
This idea isn't right :/

james-bond • 27 May 2012 at 10:50 PM

@whispers
That's why you can access the settings and pick those 5 creatures whever you like. So if you can't get on for a year (Very unlikely) those creatures will still be there. I'm not sure what hiatus is, but the length of time could be changed. If you're on hiatus or whatever it is, you can still access egg cave right? Then lets make it three years. It's highly unlikely that you're coming back if you've been gone for three years.

harrypotter7y • 28 May 2012 at 3:23 AM

@james-bond I think thats a good idea because I see lots of dead coves with immortal or Rare eggs and they quit or something.

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 3:42 AM

@harrypotter7y yeah, I've heard other people talking about this problem as well.

cricket • 28 May 2012 at 4:30 AM

People can do whatever they want with their creatures and EC account. If they want to quit and leave immortal rares or non-immortal rares on their account that's their choice, and you have no say. They can do whatever they want with them. And no, they aren't being greedy to keep rare creatures even though they aren't playing anymore, YOU'RE being greedy to take them away from them when it's clear they didn't want to trade or adopt them out in the first place.

sunshinecat • 28 May 2012 at 4:37 AM

@cricket Calm down. No one is accusing anyone else of being greedy, it's just a suggestion to keep rares in circulation. Sure, people can do whatever they want with their account. However, there really is no point if they don't *want* to do anything with it (if you don't play, then why does it matter?). There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep your creatures for yourself, but when it's been so long before someone has been online, it's unlikely they'll come back. Besides, if someone wanted to keep their cove, it's not hard to log in once every three years or so. Even without internet, you can go to the library.

I agree with this suggestion, as long as there is a reasonable wait (say, three years) so if someone wanted to come back they could. It's unlikely someone would be away for that long.

lyricgeek • 28 May 2012 at 4:50 AM

I dont really support this idea because some people who quit eggcave purposely immortalize their cove so that if they decide to go back, they dont have to start from scratch. Also, some people quit because of RL problems and when those are fixed- they might want to come back.

I would support it though if the time length is 3 years though ^^ That allows people a lot of time to come back. 😊

mastergemma • 28 May 2012 at 5:45 AM

I would say don't do anything
In primary school I had an account on a website
Couldn't go on for 3 years when I went into highschool
Account was deleted

I was mad
If you log on after a long time and find out that your eggs were all gone, wouldn't you be angry?

dionaea • 28 May 2012 at 6:08 AM

I don't see how this would help your cause of freeing up ultra rares, people would just pick those to be their 5 remaining pets :/ I know Miffy would be on my list. PLUS everyone can have up to 4 accounts, which totals 20 remaining pets, even in my case that's enough to cover my most desirable pets (Onny, Tines, Nyms, Yukis etc.). I also don't like the fact they'd be put into the adoption center, they'll end up with some random person who's lucky enough to pass at the right time, in that case I'd prefer them being auctioned off or something. :/

EDIT: I think limited rereleases or rereleases in different colours would be a much better solution to prevent extinctions than this. I agree with what people have said before, what right do you have to take other people's pets away? They often paid for these pets or invested a lot of time to get them. Who are you to say they should be given away for free? What's next? Taking pets from people who have too many rares since they're not willing to trade the pets they often paid for?

whispers • 28 May 2012 at 9:53 AM

@james-bond
But what if I want my whole cove - not just five critters?
Cause I have a lot more than five that I could never part with :/

Deleted • 28 May 2012 at 11:38 AM

@james-bond not a good Idea cause what if they had medical issues that cause them to be away it would not be fair cause they took the time to raise them

On the other hand maybe they should have a feature that lets them close the account like neopets where u deactivate it and when u wanna come back send them an email stating username pass etc

Deleted • 28 May 2012 at 11:48 AM

I'd support this, but what if they don't have internet access unexpectedly?

I'd be pretty mad if I took a break on Eggcave, and came back to my Tines, or my Paret, or my Shamrue, or whatever creature gets put in the adoption center, gone.

Some people spend REAL MONEY on their creatures, so they don't want to trade them when they quit, and I think they have that right because it is their creature.

If I quit, and I really felt like I wasn't coming back and I didn't want my creatures to be abandoned, I would give them to a close friend, not any user that happens to be stalking the adoption center.

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 11:59 AM

I disagree. Some people might come back after a long time. If they come back that would be bad. Even if they do, still, sometimes they keep rares because they like them. It would be wrong to take them.

The problem with the old rares is that they will just become near-impossible to get in the future. But people will live. More rares will come.

zafeyrysecret • 28 May 2012 at 12:01 PM

@james-bond
I disagree, basically for a bunch of reasons that have been posted before. Sorry.

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 12:37 PM

I'd have to agree with @cricket. Yes, it sucks that sometimes you'll come across an abandoned cove with uncommon creatures. But at the same time, just because they aren't 'using' them doesn't mean some other user should have them. If anything, EC should just purge accounts to free up space.

jazzyleia • 28 May 2012 at 12:38 PM

I agree with @zac that EC should purge accounts that way the creatures go to nobody, the names are free and the account name is free

Deleted • 28 May 2012 at 12:40 PM

@jazzyleia
@zac

I think that EC should not get rid of the accounts, unless the user wanted it to be like that :/

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 12:51 PM

@blackdeathkitty I was being facetious, to make a point. 😋

But account purging is something that may occur somewhere down the line. Many sites do this. It may not be 'fair,' but it's not fair that server space be used up by inactive accounts at the expense of active ones either.

Deleted • 28 May 2012 at 12:52 PM

@zac Eventually they should delete the accounts, but it should take a long time. A REALLY long time.

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 12:54 PM

@blackdeathkitty Well, yes. Which is exactly why accounts aren't being purged at this point in time -- Egg Cave itself isn't old enough. 😋

But I digress.

cqpkytty • 28 May 2012 at 1:02 PM

@zac
I think it should be at least five years before an account was purged. Or maybe ten. 😋

dionaea • 28 May 2012 at 1:04 PM

@cqpkytty

From what I've heard 5 years would be about the same as it is on neopets, so that seems fair 😊

icymuffin • 28 May 2012 at 1:08 PM

You'd at least have to send an e-mail first, wouldn't you...? o^o

Either way, Egg Cave isn't even all that old compared to Neo & their purging ^^"

linpug • 28 May 2012 at 1:16 PM

I disagree with this idea. As stated before, people immortalize creatures for this reason, if they quit, then come back. Also, people pay real money for their creatures, and it would be unfair if they weren't active, and their creatures disappeared. Overall, I think it is too complicated.

ladybugheart • 28 May 2012 at 1:23 PM

I agree with @cricket.

I'm not really sure how to put this, but I personally don't see any good reason for people's creatures to be automatically abandoned if they've been inactive. People work hard to obtain creatures and many pay money for these things. It should be up to the user to decide what they would like to do with them if they happen to quit or become inactive. Additionally, it seems that your solution for "what if we can't get on?" is the option to keep up to five creatures if this does happen, when a much more simple option is to avoid the entire concept. I understand that this was meant as an aspect to improve the idea, but I think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. While I see why you want creatures to be dispersed instead of stuck in the cove of an inactive person, I don't believe this would be a good idea to solve the problem if it involves abandoning users' creatures without their consent.

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 5:07 PM

@whispers If you can never part with them, you wouldn't quit. Quitting IS parting with them. This suggestion would also help users SATY on egg cave. How many people these days complain about people quitting?

@cricket Yes, I agree with sunshinecat. Calm down! It's only a suggestion! No one has even mentioned the word 'greedy' so I don't know why you even brought that up. Explain to me. One reason why you would want to keep endangered creatures in your cove when you're never coming back?

@lyricgeek I find it weird how you use 'quit' and 'come back' in the same sentance. Quitting means not coming back. Does it not? Yes, there will be a three year gap if you think that's better. 😊 The one year was just a suggestion.

@mastergemma That's the thing. They wouldn't be all gone. There would be five, and only if they're immortal.

@dionaea Some people have many many very rare creatures. It would still keep the LEs and Valgruns and Pixgogs and Shaibuns in the running. I agree with you on the CS creatures point. If there was a rule made that CS creatures would be kept, then yes, the LEs would be kept in circulation.

lyricgeek • 28 May 2012 at 5:21 PM

@james-bond
It's just, I quit once and then a year later came back and all my creatures were gone and I just felt that I didnt want to start from scratch and I nearly gave up on Eggcave altogether. I just dont want anyone else to go through that.

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 5:23 PM

@pupcat Youe could close the account and never come back. That defeats the purpose. I think you would be able to get on or get someone else to get on in the space of three years. It's hard to believe not being able to get on for three years. :/

@dawnfur unexpected internet loss for three years? Highly unlikely. And That's why you can pick those 5 creatures whenever you like. So if something like that happens (Very unlikely), everything isn't gone. So people will actually hand around their creatures to present users, keeping them in circulation! You see? Which is the whole point. The point with money, yes I agree. If there was a rule that CS creatures were allowed to be kept, the LEs would be in circulation which is still goo. 😊

@meixiaotian People will live, more raries will come. Yes, egg cave is just a game so are you suggesting that it's okay that you get to keep your favourite creatures and the rest in the adoption centre? Why would it be wrong to put them in the adoption centre when you've quit? It doesn't make sense to keep them where they will be forgotten.

@zafeyrysecret I have returned answers to all of those above.

@zac purging accounts is not keeping their creatures in curculation is it? Which is the whole point. Why shouldn't users not 'using' them mean some other user should have them? They've quit, not coming back.

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 5:32 PM

@james-bond Yes, I am saying it's okay to keep super-rare favorites and give/trade the rest away. What you suggest is like stealing a dead person's stuff. They won't use it again, but it's still bad and goes against a lot of people's ethics.
Anyway, what if someone really does return or at least check in? They keep them for sentimental reasons. Just because somebody quits doesn't mean they have to stay away.
If you quit because you had to, some reason in real life, would you like to only be able to keep 5 of your favorites? What if the problem unexpectedly cleared up and you could come back, and did. It wouldn't be fair to only have 5 of your hard-worked-for eggs, wouldn't it?