A solution to the problem with creatures of people who quit

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 5:32 PM

@lyricgeek So you see, the immortalisation rule didn't even used to be available. So this should not be looked at as a terrible idea! If this idea was suggested before immortalisation, everyone would love it. As soon as immortalisation kicks in, users become less active, saying they'll quit when they haven't really.

@ jazzyleia instead of purging accounts, why not put their creatures in the adoption centre first? That would keep creatures in circulation. 😊

@blackdeathkitty Why not? If they've quit, they don't need it do they? It just takes up space. You look for a user, ian for example, how long does it take you to find his name?? Yonks.

@dionaea So why not five years instead of three? And instead of simply purging, put the creatures in the adoption centre?

@icymuffin Yes, an e-mail can be sent out before it happens. That's a good idea.

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 5:37 PM

@james-bond Here's another thing, what if a newbie found the rare and let it die? That wouldn't help. Also, many creatures were worked for, it's not fair to get something so rare but done nothing but pop in at the Adoption center?

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 5:39 PM

@james-bond My point is that creatures should not be adopted out of accounts just for the sole purpose of keeping them in circulation. Here are my 2 main reasons:

1. Creatures die, accounts rot - that's life. This happens on every site. Users are active, collect some creatures, and eventually quit. The creatures they had accrue rarity and eventually other users want them. That doesn't mean they should -- they weren't around at the time nor did they work for them.

2. Off of my first point, there's probably a reason that the user didn't trade them before they quit. And if they didn't leave intentionally, there is a chance they may return. I don't see any justification as to why users "deserve" creatures they did not work for.

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 5:46 PM

@linpug Thay shouldn't really be immortalising creatures for that reason, more the reason that they don't have to keep using EC. We can make it that the CS creatures can be kept, as I said before. But really, why keep all your creatures when you're never coming back? Why not let other users enjoy?

@ladybugheart If a user is very sensitive about their creatures, they can choose to give them to their friends. This is also keeping the creatures in circulation. If you read the part about purging accounts, wouldn't creatures going to the adoption centre first be better? Why keep all your creatures in your cove, unseen and forgotten, when they could be in active users coves being enjoyed and looked after? An e-mail would be sent out before this happened. And do you not think that account purging will happen in the future? I think it will, try to look up the account 'ian' for example. How long does it take you to find?

hope • 28 May 2012 at 5:47 PM

Sorry @james-bond, I agree with @zac

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 5:50 PM

@meixiaotian That is quite harsh, stealing dead person's stuff. On most sites accounts are purged. You can't call 'putting an inactive user's creatures in the adoption centre' 'stealing a dead person's stuff'. It is totally different, if people think like that they are obsessed in an unhealthy way, looking at creatures like children or dimond rings. If you think it's going against people's ethics, what do you think about sites like neopets purging accounts? Egg cave is a virtual game. That must be remembered. You said "Just because somebody quits doesn't mean they have to stay away." Staying away is the definition of quitting. No one is forcing them to stay away either. They can come on in 4 years time and see how their creatures are. Isn't it more interesting seeing the journey of people you creature has been through and seeing the enjoyment people are having with the creature rather than coming back and your creatures are sitting there, exactly the same, in your cove. If you had to quit for 3years, some reason in RL: Please give an example because I find this very unlikley.

About your rarie dying: If you quit and your creature was immortal it would die anyway. Correct? So it is exactly the same as it dying in someone else's cove. If you were so keen on it not dying, you would have given it to a friend or immortalised it first. Therefore this point is not a point.

If you've quit, you're not coming back, so why not put it in the adoption centre?

mika_milile • 28 May 2012 at 5:52 PM

@james-bond

Oof, James, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The game is created for the users. While it IS based on trading and socialization, nobody actually HAS to talk to anybody or trade creatures XD. It's an egg-collection-and-evolving site. There's a cave where you get the eggs and a way to grow them to a certain 'goal' (immortality?). But everybody has their own goal and their own way of playing. I know I wouldn't like to lose my creatures if I had to or even DECIDED to not play for a while for whichever personal reasons I might have (I'm pretty busy with preparing for finals at the moment, for instance XD). But then again, that may only be me. Maybe a good thing would be for a person to have a setting on their account... 'Delete my account and give away my creatures if I'm inactive for... ~six months / ~a year / ~3 years / ~five years etc. (tick one. Save preferences.).'

Basically, it's a question of choice, and freedom to live your own life the way it best suits you. I'd feel much better about EggCave when I knew my pets would always be waiting for me, at the end of the day, somewhere, a little different world... than having to constantly think about how I might lose that little world if I don't do this and this AND this, after having made a BIG effort to make them, for example, immortal, or just plain "pretty" XD. (yes, I KNOW we have feeding to think about now, but that's why immortality was introduced in the first place, I'd say).

😊?

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 5:57 PM

@zac That is why people can give their creatures to their friends instead if their quitting. Friends are 'deserving' and in a way they have worked for it. If there was this rule that in 3 years all but 5 of your creatures go to the adoption centre, more people would do this. What I don't see is why people would rather keep their creatures in their cove and 'rot' like you said, rather than let others enjoy them? And does it matter that they weren't around at the time? We shouldn't degrade new users just because they're new.

Name one reason the user didn't trade them before they quit. If something that bad happened, I'm sure ian can revive the account for you. There will certainly not be an overload of people asking to come back after 3 years. If there were, it could be extended.

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 6:02 PM

@james-bond Well if quitting is leaving and never coming back, that is like dying, someone online leaves. I'm not saying they are like valuable stuff, but they were that person's stuff, and they might not be worth much, but to that person, they are/were. I wasn't saying something like a diamond ring, but more something like a computer or book. It was valuable to them regardless of if it's worth nothing. And yes I know I am unhealthily obsessed with eggcave.

An example, you were hit with some serious disease (don't ask me what I don't have any idea but they exist) and couldn't come on, you wouldn't even be able say which ones you want to keep. Or maybe if your parent says you can't go onto eggcave. Or maybe college.

"If you quit and your creature was immortal it would die anyway." Immortal means "cannot die." Anyway, that's one of the reasons why Tims can book for 60 days. You could come in every month or two and re-book them.

Again, quitting doesn't mean you have to stay away. You're not using the eggcave version of "quit." Eggcave's version is that you're not really going to be active, but you might come in every once in a while.
Google "quit definition." It says, "Leave (a place), USUALLY permanently."

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 6:06 PM

@mika_milile Okay, thanks Milile. 😉 You're busy preparing for finals. For 3 years?? That's the reason there's a long time you have to have been inactive for. The problem with there being a choice is that everyone would pick the longest one, as people much preferr giving their creatures to friends. So perhaps there could be a setting where you pick the friends, so that when you quit those friends will recieve them? Perhaps that is a better idea. What do you think about sites like neopets purging accounts then? Is deleting their accounts stopping 'freedom to live your own life' which is going against human rights? Yes, you not haveing to feed creatures for imortality is what I think is the main reason for immortality, contrary to what other users have said here. I just think: Why keep creatures in your inactive cove when others could be getting much more enjoyment out of them?

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 6:07 PM

@james-bond I think you misunderstand or, at least, gloss over my main points.

It seems as though your main criticism is that creatures should be recycled so everyone has a chance to own them? I don't believe in that. If the goal of EC was to make owning all creatures easily accessible, Ian could have set up a page in which you could select creatures to your heart's desire. The point of this site is to RAISE the eggs that you collect, not own the older, more valuable ones. (Of course, this is slightly idealized but hang with me.)

Some users, like me for instance, would rather keep select creatures in their cove as a remembrance of the hard wok and dedication they put in this site. But the reasons are far from important, because if the owner wants their creatures to remain in their coves, who are we to ignore their wishes?

A similar analogy to this would be with wills. In a will, what says, goes. If a deceased person wanted all their money and property to sit in account, or even given to their car, it would. Now, there are some exceptions and such but my point is no matter how pointless it seems, too bad.

You say name one reason a user didn't trade their eggs before he or she quit. Here's one: they don't want to.

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 6:22 PM

What you're basically saying is that people quit, so their rares should be given away.
What we're basically saying is they work hard and if they don't want to lose them, they shouldn't.

mika_milile • 28 May 2012 at 6:23 PM

@james-bond

What @zac said. XD. Precisely what I would say, were I more eloquent XD (Bravo, @zac. Summed it up nicely 😊)

bunnyshadow • 28 May 2012 at 6:23 PM

I agree ❤️

xxshadowclawxx • 28 May 2012 at 6:24 PM

@james-bond sorry but my suggestion is that it is a terrible idea, I know its not cool to see inactive users, but there are reasons and if they all just went to adoption gosh the adoption would be full and a lot of hassle 😋

People keep creatures as sort a remembrance of accomplishment on this site, not to mention the money spent on them XD.

How would you feel If suddenly one of your really precious pets was thrown into the adoption center when you were gone for awhile wouldn't you be sad ☹️

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 6:24 PM

@meixiaotian When someone dies, their belongings are given away according to their will (people giving their creatures away to their friends) or sold/auctioned off (Gone to the adoption centre, which is my suggestion except without the EC. If you like, the EC idea could be added but I don't like that idea so much). I didn't mean to imply that you in particular were unhealthily obsessed with egg cave. 😊

You CAN say which ones you want to keep. You can do it whenever you like, and most would do it as soon as it became available, so that is not a problem. If you were hit with some serious disease for three years, what are the chances or staying alive? If you got some serious disease for 3 years, you would most likely be hospitalised for the rest of your life, there fore no egg cave. BUT I disagree with that, because someone can bring a laptop to you. What is the best kind of entertainment for being stuck in a hospital bed for three years? Egg cave. Portable laptop, easy to use, no physical strain. Do you agree? The chances of an egg caver being hit by a serious disease is also very low.

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 6:28 PM

@james-bond I understand where you're coming from. But the question isn't 'Is it possible that a user come back after a long period of absence?' but rather 'Is it worth the trouble of abandoning creatures just so that newer users can own them without working for them?'

@meixiaotian puts it nicely.

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 6:28 PM

@mexiaotian Continued: I meant mortal of course, that was a typing mistake. So answer that point again, replacing 'immortal' with 'mortal'. 😊 Coming in every month and re-booking is not quitting is it? You either have to trade for the EC or spend hours feeding. That is not called 'being inactive'. Wouldn't you rather just get someone to immortalise instead? For the amount of EC needed to book in all of those creatures, you could easily get someone to simply immortalise them. There are even many kind users who do it for free.Collins english dictionary definition of quit:
tr) to depart from; leave ⇒ he quitted the place hastily
2.to resign; give up (a job) ⇒ he quitted his job today
3.(intr) (of a tenant) to give up occupancy of premises and leave them ⇒ they received notice to quit
4.to desist or cease from (something or doing something); break off ⇒ quit laughing
5.(tr) to pay off (a debt); discharge or settle
6.(tr) archaic to conduct or acquit (oneself); comport (oneself) ⇒ he quits himself with great dignity

There is every single definition of Collins Dictionary, one of the most well known dictionaries in the world. Personally I trust Collins more because it is purely a dictionary. Google is not the best dictionary. There is no 'usually' in there.

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 6:31 PM

One thing to consider as well: if there is an option (like the one that you suggested) that completely overrides the purpose of the feature, is it a feature worth having? Personally, I'd like to see much needed features that EVERYONE deems useful implemented rather than ones that only some will use and others will disregard.

EDIT// You seem to be arguing a moot point in the post above. Quitting is a relative term, especially here on Egg Cave where most users use it frivolously.

bunnyshadow • 28 May 2012 at 6:33 PM

@zac @james-bond

Maybe there should be a dating period where older creatures can only go to older users and newer abandoned creatures can only go to newer users? That way it's fair for everyone.

morgana • 28 May 2012 at 6:33 PM

@james-bond I think it could work with a few tweaks here and there. Like maybe the amount of creatures you can keep should be bumped a bit higher.

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 6:34 PM

@bunnyshadow Fair to everyone except the original owner. 😉

They might be 'dead and gone' but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can be disregarded either.

bunnyshadow • 28 May 2012 at 6:35 PM

@zac
Maybe, if an user has problems with families or anything else, none of him/her's creatures will go to the adoption agency if they have PMed a moderator/administrator first?

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 6:36 PM

@mexiaotian The egg cave definition of quit: Posting all over the forums telling people you're quitting, looking for empathy and random gifts from people trying to stop you. You're gone for a week. You're back saying "I'm not quitting! 😃" Haha, good one. Egg cave quitting has come to a point where it almost means nothing. I am not talking about that kind of quitting. I am talking about INACTIVE for 3 years. Which is not the stereotypical egg cave 'quit'.

@zac The point of egg cave IS to own the valuable ones. Why do you think people are always looking for the Onny, Doovoo, Tine? Would you be happier if you revieved a Whoon egg that you can raise yourself, or a 2 year old Doovoo that has already been raised? Of cousre it wouldn't be easily accessible to own creatures. It takes a whole 3 years for creatuers to enter the AC, and if this rule was put in place, it would encourage users to give to their friends instead.
I think it was you who bought up the purging, but do you think egg cave will eventually delete unused accounts? Personally, I would rather the creatures go into the AC then simply be deleted. Isn't it better that creatures are kept in circulation than to rot? Please explain this sentance that I don't get: 'Now, there are some exceptions and such but my point is no matter how pointless it seems, too bad.'

Zac • 28 May 2012 at 6:37 PM

@bunnyshadow I don't believe that creatures should be abandoned automatically. At all.. If a user wanted them gone, they would have done so themselves.

bunnyshadow • 28 May 2012 at 6:39 PM

@zac
But would it matter if the user never comes back?

mika_milile • 28 May 2012 at 6:43 PM

@bunnyshadow

If a tree falls in the rainforest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?

XD 😊

(Just a comic-relief way of pointing out that we've gone pretty deep XD)

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 6:45 PM

@zac @mika_milile You think people need to 'deserve' a creature to get it. Then do you disagree with people giving away their creatures to random people when they quit? Is a random person came up to you and said "Here, take my shaibun, I'm quitting", you would say "No, I can't, it goes against what I believe".
Is 'they don't want to' is a good enough reason? On neo pets you can't just say "I don't want my account deleted in 5 years, so don't". It doesn't work like that.
@meixiaotian Then what do you think about accounts being purged on other sites? Do you think it's inethical?

@xxshadowclawxx Actually, there would be very few creatures in the adoption center I think. Three years remember, and most people would give to their friends. The adoption centre is hardly used these days. It's easier to just let your creatures die if you have a junk egg. It is very unlikely that you come back after 3 years. And about the cost, I've answered that already for someone else.

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 6:46 PM

@james-bond That definition says nothing to do with staying away forever. Google goes with what people normally say. Dictionaries normally get all specific and don't say what people use it for.
Eggcave doesn't follow exact definitions. Like I said, and Zac said, "quit" and "inactive" are usually meaning not really coming on anymore, but still coming on every once in a while.

It isn't saying you'll quit for one week and come back. As far as I've seen that's happened... Twice. It means you'll be inactive, but still slightly active.

"I meant mortal of course, that was a typing mistake. So answer that point again, replacing 'immortal' with 'mortal'." Okay, take away the ""If you quit and your creature was immortal it would die anyway." Immortal means "cannot die.""

Anyway, many people trade away their creatures for a lot of EC, or save up.

You still haven't answered the thing about if you leave for college or if your parent makes you quit, or how you would feel.

You said eggcave is about collecting rare eggs. That sounds greedy. Quoted from the FAQ:
"What is Egg Cave about?

We're about fun for kids and peace of mind for our parents.

Egg Cave is an online game where players can adopt fun creatures from the mysterious "Egg Cave." Players can then take care of their creatures and watch them level up and evolve."

It says nothing about trading and getting rare creatures.

dreamer • 28 May 2012 at 6:46 PM

For one thing, I can imagine several flaws in this feature:

1. You're saying that people always quit and leave their rare creatures without new homes. If they picked 5 creatures to keep, odds are it would be their rarer ones. So that part seems pretty pointless to me.

2. Is 5 creatures enough? If I quit, I'd want to keep ALL of my creatures here in my cove. All of my favorites are full-grown and immortal, and most of these creatures I've had for over a year. If you asked me what my five favorites were, I'd just keep on listing all of the creatures in my cove. Another reason why this is pointless.

3. This has been mentioned above, but what if people left unexpectedy? Computer crashing, parents blocking the site, et catera. It's not fair to punish them for something they have no control over.

4. If people quit and kept their creatures, there's a reason they kept them. People are always talking aboout automatically abandoning creatures if the user leaves for a while. Personally, I think these sorts of suggestions are made only out of pure greed. It's not really your business what others do with their creatures.

But my opinion is worthless. I'm just putting my 2 cents out there. 😋