A solution to the problem with creatures of people who quit

meixiaotian • 28 May 2012 at 9:00 PM

Yes it was one of your points.
But not the point I was trying to make with the other one. I asked how you would feel, not why you would leave.

""College. Some tragedy." All these examples you are giving me are still not valid. If you're at college you will have a minute to log on to egg cave and renew the time. Tragedy: What do you mean? Family member died? Why would that stop them from loging on to EC."
Yeah I know I lost all muse for the reasons why and please stop arguing with me I've lost all muse, have a lot of homework, and am getting slightly annoyed now.

Edit: Aand you're continuing...

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 9:10 PM

@blackdeathkitty That's okay, it's just that this forum is pretty much just put downs. I didn't expect it.

I am only going to reply to posts that haven't been repeated now, since so many are being repeated.

@whispers is someone able to get a laptop to you? Can you tell someone your password so they can log on and renew your time? Are you really un able to get on for a whole 3 years? People can still work for something if they want. You don't HAVE to go to the adoption centre and adopt.

@balletninja Yes, it pretty much is just a bunch of waht ifs. Very unlikely what ifs. The thing is, that in every decision in the world there are implications that can not be avoided. Thank you so much for helping me I am not alone! XD

@lizardfeather Your point, similar to someone else's has been explained. 😊

@icymuffin All of your points have been explained. The money, attic, all in slightly different forms.

@linpug no. 4 is a good point. It's like wanting the lolly one day, and after a while you haven't thought about it much, and not you no longer want it.

@yogurt yes, the CS creatures is a problem, and I have suggested earlier that CS ceratures are allowed to be kept. This will still keep the LEs in the running.

pebblestar-nightclan • 28 May 2012 at 9:22 PM

Hm...
I disagree, but I'm too lazy to write the reason why.

twilight_raptor • 28 May 2012 at 9:23 PM

@james-bond
yes true, I agree it is unlikely that they would be returning after 3 years, but I have to say it is not impossible. I also have to consider Dreamer's and Icymuffin's suggestion on a user returning to the site after a long time out of sentimental reasons and nostalgia. And like Balletninja said, this problem would be better handled if Ian agrees to replace the lost creatures or something if a user returns. There could be hidden issues and problems with that that I am unaware of though xP

EDIT: Having the CS critters kept would be good. But then the tine isnt a CS critter xD
And I am not rebelling against you in this. Don't get me wrong, I'm just stating the issues that would be faced. Therefore I am open to your suggestions =)

james-bond • 28 May 2012 at 9:23 PM

@meixiaotian yeah, I'm continuing because you're continuing 😉 This isn't so much an argument, more a debate. Although the one I answered below this one isn't so much. As for "How would I feel" Of course I would feel great , knowing others are getting enjoyment out of my old creatures. I suggested this, so why would I suggest it if I feel bad?

@dreamer If nothing will change your mind, I suggest you stop posting on this forum. Yopu say yourself that you couldn't care less about the issue. There is actually no issue, this is just a suggestion, and you have hammered it with all your might. This is what you have said: "I couldn't care less about the issue. But I have an OPINION, and I'm going to defend it no matter what the consequence and no matter what the subject, don't think otherwise."

Good for you. I actually don't see the point of answering your retaliations so I will not.

yogurt • 28 May 2012 at 9:27 PM

@james-bond
Well how about Tines? They are LEs but they can go for about 20 dollars. And in your 1st post you did say "Those creatures are the rare ones like the Onny, Doovoo, Gobbler, ect" Most of the rare and most wanted ones are the CC creatures. o-o There are more LE than CC so I don't see why we need this if there is already plenty of these LEs around.

dreamer • 28 May 2012 at 9:30 PM

@James-bond I could say the same. Oh and I don't usually take suggestions. ^^

No issue? How many users are in this topic? I don't know. Several? And we all have opinions. Like I said, I have mine as well.

No one is hammering the topic, but there's nothing wrong with arguing if someone feels differently. This goes for everyone.

However, it's your lucky day. I WILL back off for now, I have better things to do than just sit here and continue to reply to you. I still need to print my homework and I have a life to get back to.

But just because something doesn't matter to me doesn't mean I don't have a right to defend my view.

balletninja • 28 May 2012 at 9:33 PM

@dreamer Me thinks you are just posting to argue. Not to actually accomplish anything.

sunshinecat • 28 May 2012 at 11:40 PM

I read through the thread and feel the need to repeat something I said earlier.

Calm down.

It's been established that this idea probably won't be implemented, so it's all just up for discussion now. Don't argue, debate ^^

On the topic of debate, most of the arguments against this seem to be based on rhetorical questions such as "how would you feel if you returned and found most of your creatures gone?" or based on how people feel about their own creatures.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if my account a website I hadn't been on for 3 years was deleted, let alone if I lost some pixels because of that carelessness. No one is trying to steal anything from people who really love EC or anything, it's just something for people who are no longer interested. If you love your creatures, then wouldn't you log on once in three years? Even if you were banned, you could probably spare a library trip or ask a friend.

There has been discussion on circumstances in which you can't get on, but it's highly unlikely. 3+ years is a long time. And if you've been, say, in the hospital for 3 years...you probably have a lot more to worry about than some pixels on an adoptables website.

Note: Just an observation, but how on earth did this thread reach 129 posts in a day? o-o

jubjubloversboy • 29 May 2012 at 12:01 AM

@james-bond

I have to disagree with this. First, if a REALLY rare creature was sent and not picked in the five so they went to the adoption center, ANYONE could get it! EVEN A NEWBIE.

metaphor • 29 May 2012 at 12:34 AM

Thing is with me, the creatures that mean the most to me aren't very rare at all. :/ I would never part with Elvis in a million years. Or Fable. And neither is a rare creature. But that doesn't mean I want to part with my Tine or Blu or Clous.

I am not completely against freeing up inactive accounts, but I prefer the old-fashion purges over the finders-keepers kind of approach in this suggestion.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd prefer my account to be purged and the names freed up rather than my creatures just end up in random people's hands. But that's just me.

plookle • 29 May 2012 at 1:36 AM

I agree with @zac, and @metaphor, to an extent.
If a user had wanted their creatures going to random people, or even to friends, they would have distributed them thus, prior to their departure. They were privately owned and privately acquired creatures and they don't belong to the egg cave community at large just because an arbitrary amount of time has passed.
As Zac said, account purging may or may not become a practice in the future, but this is still fundamentally different as it simply deletes the creatures rather then redistributing them.
People are saying that a user's choice to keep their creatures in a "rotting" account is greedy or selfish, but the hypocrisy of that statement is really quite striking. What is the purpose fueling this entire suggestion if not greed? Although I would like to believe that topics like this were beacons of Arcian socialistic diplomacy, users do not want rare creatures back in circulation for the greater good, they want another shot at them themselves.

metaphor • 29 May 2012 at 1:56 AM

You know, I'm going to go with what @meixiaotian earlier. Lots of this drama could be eliminated if people weren't so against releases of rare creatures. It doesn't even have to be an annual thing; release a small number of, say, Tines into circulation and there you go! A greater a supply, with the demand still there.

But no, people had heart failure when Florns and Foos and Roos and such were released at Christmas, which really wasn't a huge deal. People still want these creatures. They may not be forking over their souls for it, but does that really need to be the case for a creature to be considered "rare"? 😋

Again, just my two cents.

dionaea • 29 May 2012 at 2:55 AM

@james-bond *finally found the ping* I just think it's wrong to give someones pets away. The only way I think this should be allowed is by simply purging the accounts. After purging the account a new egg of each of the deleted rare species would be auctioned off at a special auction. This is the only way to do this without trouble, since the new pet would have no name and a new egg number and completely belong to the buyer. This way the extreme rares end up with the people who want them most and you get no drama with returning users looking for their 'stolen' eggs using the name or egg number. I'll never support giving away the pets of people the exact way they were when they left them, that's just too cruel, nobody should come back to find THEIR pet in someone else's cove. This way the old users pet is deleted and a new one is created to replace it, the old pet simply doesn't exist anymore. I think @plookle explained why you shouldn't give other people's pets away better though X3

Well anyhow, that's my two cents on this... I actually think @metaphor is right though, limited rereleases are a better solution to extinctions.

nousernamesleft • 29 May 2012 at 2:59 AM

@james-bond
Great idea. I think that maybe the 5 chosen creatures should also be put in the adoption centre after another 3 years because after that length of time it is highly unlikely that the owner will return.

bunnyshadow • 29 May 2012 at 3:10 AM

@nousernamesleft No. I disagree, I personally like this idea but if all the creatures go to the adoption agency it is absolutely unfair.

cricket • 29 May 2012 at 3:14 AM

@nousernamesleft Well if that would be the case then why allow people to choose creatures to stay on their account in the first place? That just undermines their decision.

nousernamesleft • 29 May 2012 at 3:24 AM

@bunnyshadow
How about if an email was sent out asking whether they give permission to let the creatures be put in the adoption centre? That way if the user plans to return he/she will still have some creatures left.

@cricket
If they plan to return within six years they can choose their favourites. Like I said to bunnyshadow an email can be sent out asking permission for the creatures to be put in the adoption centre. That way they get to choose whether they stay or go.

@james-bond

magenta • 29 May 2012 at 3:27 AM

@James-bond If this was in action in 2009 I quit then and I came back 3 years later which means now :\ So whats this impossibility that eople can't come back after 3 years ??? :\

cricket • 29 May 2012 at 3:35 AM

Honestly I think that the whole idea is needlessly complicated. If I'm going to quit/go on hiatus I shouldn't have to go through a bunch of 'paperwork' to ensure that my creatures will be where I want them to be. I should just be able to leave them and trust that they will be there if I get back, not worry that I'll have to start over and have a very difficuly time getting back the creatures I once had. 'Cause you KNOW that only a certain amount of people will get the rares and they will not be willing to trade them(I know I will never trade my Onny), and really, how is that any different than having a rare on an inactive account?

lilliana • 29 May 2012 at 4:00 AM

i kinda understand what @james-bond is trying to say.

not that i disagree with what you guys are saying, but i feel kinda unfair sometime.

not with the quitters who love to keep their beloved pets as a memory.

but with some certain disadvantages...

(i might be quite off-topic)

some people know how to immortalize the creatures in few days~week.

and some people just come here often, try their best keeping their creatures alive, waiting patiently to get to immortalize

i think whats behind all this problem is NOT the pound and adoption center and stuff.

!!!!ITS THE CLICK EXCHANGE!!!!! XD

seriously. most of the people killed all the rarities.
having rare creature in this egg cave is part of the fun thing in here.(or keeping recent LE for quite long til it become rare)
but most of the people nowadays are killing all this LE fun thing by immortalizing them so fast til they get to rareness 100+ T.T

isra • 29 May 2012 at 4:20 AM

I'm gonna have to say no to this one. It doesn't matter how rare a creature is, how in demand their name is, or how long a player has been gone. When that player was here, they did all the necessary work (or spent the necessary real-life cash) to get the pets that they've got. No one else should benefit from that but them, or anyone they decide to gift/trade their pets to.

And on the whole "This isn't greedy!" debate... yeah, yeah it is. It's the same thing when people swarm quitting posts to try and snag rare eggs/pets that people are giving away. The entire "gimme gimme gimme!" mentality is entirely too pervasive on EC; a lot of people don't really care one way or the other unless they can possibly benefit from an idea themselves.

So no, I can't say I support this. You want to see more of these uber-rare pets back in circulation? Like @metaphor said, limited re-releases would work just fine, or else have some sort of contest/trivia events where they could be rewarded as prizes. Don't turn into vultures who want to stalk dead accounts until their contents get disgorged into the adoption center so you can get a shiny.

james-bond • 29 May 2012 at 4:30 AM

@jubjubloversboy he way your say EVEN A NEWBIE is very discriminatory. How would you feel if you were a newbie? You are a newbie yourself.

@dreamer All I can say to that is, like I said before, I suggest you stop posting on this forum. You are only arguing, like @balletninja said. You didn't answer any of my points, were they too strong for you to reply to? "It's my lucky day". Well would I have beenluckier if you didn't post in the first place? Please stop. You aren't even talking about this topic.

@yogurt It's great that the Tine is and LE. No one paid for it, so it can go into the AC for someone else to enjoy.

@metaphor And you can certainly do that, even now. 😊 What about those people who paid someone 4K CC for the Tine a day earlier than the Tines were put out for free in the cave? It isn't fair. That's why people are against it.

@plookle Wouldn't it be nicer though if the rare creatures were able to be got? Isn't it more selfish hoarding the creatures when you're never coming back? Why can't others enjoy them? The creatures going to the AC would encourage people giving their ceratures to their friends, thus keeping them in circulation. If they're just left in a cove, who can enjoy loooking at them? This idea doesn't have to be looked at as greedy.

dionaea • 29 May 2012 at 4:39 AM

@james-bond

Limited rereleases don't necessarily have to be in the cave, if a pet is only obtainable through trading a lot of CC, why not put them for sale in the Cash shop? A price of 1500 to 2000 CC for an Onny or Tine would keep them more than rare enough and people who traded for them will get over it eventually.

Or a rerelease in a different colour could be considered, this way the rerelease wouldn't have to be limited and could be put out during following years as well. For most creatures there is at least one other possible colour combination which will look good (white Tine with red markings, black or white Onny, etc).

cricket • 29 May 2012 at 4:46 AM

@james-bond When you say 'keep them in curculation' what do you mean? When I hear circulation it makes me think that a creature is being constantly traded or just passed around, like currency. Would you consider my rares in curculation even though I have never traded them and never will?

bunnyshadow • 29 May 2012 at 7:02 AM

@nousernamesleft
What about the people who rarely check their email?

nousernamesleft • 29 May 2012 at 7:20 AM

@bunnyshadow
I guess I am looking from the point of a newbie who wants some rares but finds it very difficult to get any without access to CC.
If people don't check their emails I guess it's their problem. Us newbies need a chance of getting some rares, especially kids etc. that don't have access to CC.

bunnyshadow • 29 May 2012 at 7:26 AM

@nousernamesleft
...So you just want the creatures..?

Besides, newbies get gifts all the time.

mastergemma • 29 May 2012 at 8:15 AM

@bunnyshadow
newbies do not get gifts all the time, I haven't even got one

bluszczyk • 29 May 2012 at 8:33 AM

I have to say it, I wanted not to post here, but I HAVE to say it- If somebody immortalizes their creature and not comes here that's his decision. You can buy Eurog, keep him on your profile about 2 years and then sell for 10$, it's your decision. So is the hiatus/ quitting person's choice. It was their time and money to collect creatures and if they leave them to die or they will remain immortal on their abandoned profile, it's their decision! Maybe in some time (months, years?) they'll come back? Or not? It's their decisions and we should not want their creatures for us! If some creatures will go like 1 or 0 rarity we can make lots of tickets to Ian to make a event where you can get like 10 of them for the first places, or it can be in the Cash Shop Park for like 1000CC... There is always a way to do something, plus it would be unfair if somebody payed $ for their creatures, abandon eggcave and their creatures would go for free to anybody...