A solution to the problem with creatures of people who quit

bunnyshadow • 29 May 2012 at 9:45 AM

@mastergemma
It doesn't mean other people haven't does it? I've never gotten one when I first joined. ^^

Orderedchaos • 29 May 2012 at 10:45 AM

I've seen this brought up once but not addressed, so I'll bring it up again.

Just because a person is active does not mean their creatures are in circulation.

Take myself as an example. I am very active. I have 300+ creatures and I do not trade. Creatures come to my cove and don't leave. So even though I'm active all my creatures are essentially "rotting" in my coves with a zero chance of leaving. How are my coves different than someone who hasn't logged in for a year or more? The same thing is happening, creatures are "rotting" and not in circulation.

It is also entirely possible to be obsessed with an online game at one point in life, run into more important things in real life, forget about the online thing, and then come back to it several years latter and get back into it. I've done it with several games back in college. And there are people here who are in the army and at least one person who is on active duty right now and hasn't logged in for almost a year. Should that person come back from duty to find all their creatures gone?

xxshadowclawxx • 29 May 2012 at 4:58 PM

You guys are still debating? I thought this was only a suggestion XP no need to be fussy

james-bond • 30 May 2012 at 4:58 PM

@orderedchaos It was already addressed. Twice actually. Your creatures are not 'rotting', you are there enjoying having them. If you're never online and never thinging about your creatures, not enjoying them, THEN they are 'rotting'. I didn't actually bring up the word 'rotting' zac did, so ask him. Circulation: I more mean those things I mentioned above rather than 'trading'.
Your person you are talking about, if this rule was in place they'd know about it, reciave an e-mail before it happens, and find one moment in 3 years to log on and renew their time. I think that's possible.

@xxshadowclawxx I KnOw! DX

whispers • 30 May 2012 at 5:06 PM

@xxshadowclaw
I'd thought that we'd realize that this idea will not be implemented. :/ So why argue about it? >.> Jeez

james-bond • 30 May 2012 at 5:07 PM

@nousernamesleft Thanks. 😊

@magenta I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

@cricket There is no paperwork, I don't think it's complicated actually. All you do is pick 5 creatures. The end. ?? And it is different, having a rare side account You know they are there, enjoying having them, you haven't abandoned them for three years not thinking about them. Right? It's different.

james-bond • 31 May 2012 at 3:13 AM

@isra Re-releasing is definately something I have a problem with. If you worked increadibly hard for an Eleymo egg for months and months, then find out that they are coming back out the day after, how would you feel? Answer me that.

You say the whole greedy debate is actually greedy. Well, it isn't. It's more greedy and selfish wanting to keep those creatures sitting in your cove when no one's actually enjoying them. You also say that it's bad that people 'snag' rare eggs/creatures at quitting posts. If the quitting post was made in the first place, it is for that reason right? Or else they just want the sympathy and attention of everyone. They want free gifts themselves. So I don't see why you think it's so wrong of people to ask for creatures on a forum someone's made specially for that reason. I also think it is very negative manipulating how you think ideas and suggestions are all based around the creator's benefit in a greedy way. All inventions, ideas are formed to benifit themselves and others. Don't always look at it as greed.

@bunnyshadow @mastergemma @nousernamesleft It is correct, I think the amount of gifts given around has dropped greatly. Some people, for some reason, don't like to give or trade to 'newbies'. I think this is really unfair. Bunnyshadow, if you think gifting is so common, how often do you do it?

james-bond • 31 May 2012 at 3:41 AM

@dionaea
About the re-releases you say "people who traded for them will get over it eventually". That means I can say "When someone has not been on egg cave for 3 years and is not coming back, their creatures will be in the adoption centre, all but 5. They will get over it eventually of course, because they're not even part of egg cave anymore. They will not even think about it." It is even less hurtful in a way, because you really feel the despair if you're an egg cave regular and paid/traded so much for the creature. Really. How would you feel? The colour idea is interesting, but don't you think it keeps it special, just being one of a kind?

@bluszczyk Then what do you think about neopets purging accounts? I am assuming the only thing you can say is that 'it's bad'. well, it's actually necessary. So don't you think it's better if someone else gets enjoyment out of the creature? You can't actually sell a Eurog for $10. Unless you find out personal details of a random stranger and get them to post it to you. Which you probably shouldn't do because it's very dangerous. I'm talking about people who are NOT coming back. Therefore, the 3 years. If you really cared about your creatures that much, you'd find time and log on once every 3 years. Lots of tickets to ian? Like text bombing? Or in other words spam? Nu uh. Re-releasing I think is terrible. If you traded 6K CC for a Gobbler and they came out the next day for just 1K CC, you would be sad.

bluszczyk • 31 May 2012 at 3:51 AM

@james-bond
There was a re-releasing of foo, roo etc. so it made them more cheap? And nobodysays it should be 1k CC re-release, it can be even 6k CC, I just don't tkink you sould want creatures, that are not yours, if somebody gived their time and money to get some rares and LE's it's theit account and they can do with them what they want, you should be mad at people who have creatures and they die, so the rarity is low, not at people who leave their immortal creatures. The creatures are theirs and they can do with it what they want. Yell at people who leave creatures on week without immortalizing them or without somebody who feeds them and they die. I just don't agree with you. And people who quit and know they have valuable creatures, mostly are giving them away, if somebody didn't do that, that means he wants to have this creatures on his profile.

writing • 31 May 2012 at 3:59 AM

Guys, I think this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. Neither side is going to give up. Just agree to disagree and leave it? Seems pointless to keep going. Maybe at the start it was fine to share opinions, but it feels like arguments are just being repeated now.

isra • 31 May 2012 at 4:33 AM

@james-bond I never said that asking for an egg/creature from a thread designated to do so was bad; what I was commenting on is that as soon as anyone sees a quitting thread, regardless of whether or not they knew the person, it get swarmed instantly. Most of them honestly don't give two craps if the person is quitting, they just want to see what they can get out of it.

As to this: "It's more greedy and selfish wanting to keep those creatures sitting in your cove when no one's actually enjoying them."

After they went through the trouble of getting them? No. With that logic, it's also greedy and selfish for people to not want re-releases because it means people will get the pets that they've got.

And your re-release argument doesn't really work for me. If I worked really hard for something and then it was re-released the very next day, my reaction would be "Cool, now I can have more than one and not have to do the same thing I just did all over again!", not "OMG now lots of other people are going to be as speshul as me! >(". And on a similar topic; how would you like it if you had to quit for some reason or another, came back, and found all of the pets you worked so very hard to get had been casually dumped into the AC and snatched up by people you don't know? Since there are no re-releases, I guess you've got to start from scratch to try and get them all over again.

silmaneero • 31 May 2012 at 4:34 AM

Isra's side. Part two since I broke the character limit.

In this case, it is greed. Not all ideas are, but this one is. I don't see how you can not support re-releases but you're absolutely fine with stealing other peoples' pets and, essentially, re-releasing them into the wild so people can snag them. The only difference is that you want to keep the population at a rarity level that, judging from your own suggestion here, you feel is too low to support the site's demand for them. How does that make sense? If the supply is too low for the demand, you increase the supply, you don't steal the product from someone who already has it and somehow thing that's going to satisfy the demand.

So. Pet dumping from people who have 'quit' when they could very well return in the future? No. Re-releasing? Yes. I'm sure Ian could come up with some sort of special trophy or badge or something to go on the 'original' release versions of the pet so that everyone else can tell that it is one and not one of the re-releases. Or else do a recolor, so that way anyone who doesn't have the pet at all can get a version of it, and people who do have one actually have a reason to try and collect the second version.

auror • 31 May 2012 at 5:37 AM

I am very new here, but why only FIVE eggs? How about we choose which eggs and creatures we want to keep? Like, say I have a lot of favorite eggs and stuff I could never even think of parting with. At least 20. I leave because of sickness/hiatis/moving/computer or internet somehow breaks, and when I come back, only 5 of my special, inseperable pets are still there. And 15 are now random people's pets. How would you feeeeeeeeeeeellllllllll... D:

Probably sad.

dionaea • 31 May 2012 at 8:46 AM

*deleted by user*

You're okay with stealing other's pets, but not with yours becoming less rare? Hypocrite. This 'discussion' is not worth my time. Did you even read my post properly? That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer or ping me.

taunter • 31 May 2012 at 9:34 AM

True true. I hate greed.

james-bond • 31 May 2012 at 4:34 PM

@dionaea The only reason you deleted it was because I replied in a way that overcame your problem. If you can't accept that, don't try and make it like I didn't. If you don't want an answer, don't answer me. About the rareness, I am not thinking about myself. I DON'T HAVE any really rare creatures so you can not accuse me of that. Therefore, totally nonhypocritical. If the discussion is not worth your time, why did you join it in the first place. I am sorry, I just found it quite rude.

@isra You were implying that it was bad. Are you saying that "as soon as anyone sees a quitting thread, regardless of whether or not they knew the person, it get swarmed instantly. Most of them honestly don't give two craps if the person is quitting, they just want to see what they can get out of it." is good? Now I'm confused.

How can it be greedy and selfish? Is it greedy and selfish wanting to reach a goal? Have you ever wanted a particular creature? If you have, does that mean you are greedy and selfish for it? I disagree.

"Cool, now I can have more than one and not have to do the same thing I just did all over again!" Do you call that greedy then? Wanting more than one?? :/ Your opinion on that is an opinion many people do not have. There will hardly ever be ultra raries in the AC. Think about it. Someone picks 5 creatures, which are the rarest most likely. Every three years. ??

lizardfeather • 31 May 2012 at 4:41 PM

Just a note, on your last statement you said every three years, but it would occur all at once because the users affected wouldn't have made the changes. But that would be three years after the initial release, and then it would probably quite down.

james-bond • 31 May 2012 at 4:43 PM

@isra @silmaneero Do you see a pattern? The people who want re-releases are the people without the really rare eggs. So of course they are the people who want those creatures for themselves. Isn't that greed? @silmaneero You are simply re-stating isra's point, just read what I wrote to her earlier. What I don't see though, is how this one is greed and the idea of re-releasing isn't. Can you please tell me how you wanting re-releasing isn't greed? Okay, so we come to the conclusion: Purging accounts would be better than letting others enjoy the creatures. <-- I think that's selfish and greedy, but I see most people think not.

@auror Those points were all talked about earlier. You have a whole 3 years. Nothing will stop you from going on once every three years if you were going to be that sad if your creatures got put in the AC. You would feel nothing. You have left egg cave. Not coming back.

@lizardfeather I'm not sure if I fully understand, but why wouldn't they have made the changes? The 3 years is of course implying that it's 3 years from when the rule's put in place.

cqpkytty • 31 May 2012 at 7:59 PM

@james-bond
I have really rare eggs *looks at Arnmnae and Olimpt* and I still want re-releases. I completely disagree with your post just now where you basically said that everyone who wants re-releases doesn't have really rare eggs. That is NOT TRUE.
And also, I understand what @silmaneero/ @isra (and they're the same person, just on different accounts, FYI) is saying. They're saying that your idea means taking creatures away from users who had quit but someday might come back (I've done that on sites before, it's not that unlikely to happen) which is actually very petty and cruel, whereas re-releasing would mean users get the creatures they like WITHOUT taking any away from other users.

Deleted • 31 May 2012 at 8:01 PM

I don't think that it is greedy for people to want re-releases. Some people want a chance of having their dream cove :/

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 1:54 AM

@@bluszczyk Yes, it certainly did make them more cheap. People used to trade so much more for them, especially if it was in egg or 1st stage. Even 6 K, the whole idea of it being availabe makes the creature lose value. Just like LEs when they retire. As soon as they retire, they are looked at as more valuable. I am not mad at people who let their creatures die at all, I let junk eggs die that I have no use for. Most people do. This is simply a suggestion to keep creatures around. So they don't just sit in coves forgotten, and instead are being enjoyed and made use of. You say "Yell at people who leave creatures on week without immortalizing them or without somebody who feeds them and they die". That is off topic. I never do that, no one does that. And you didn't answer the points that I made. Were they too strong? I will state it again. "what do you think about neopets purging accounts? I am assuming the only thing you can say is that 'it's bad'. well, it's actually necessary. So don't you think it's better if someone else gets enjoyment out of the creature?"

dada_dragon • 1 June 2012 at 2:20 AM

@james-bond

Or they could just put them up for adoption for scavengers like me. ❤️

auror • 1 June 2012 at 2:40 AM

What if you had to go to college for 4 years. Do they allow these sites?

isra • 1 June 2012 at 10:27 AM

@james-bond If I only wanted re-releases because I have 'no rare eggs', then logically wouldn't I also be in favor of taking those eggs from other users so long as I got one? That argument makes zero sense and has no basis in any sort of logic.

You can sit here and try to twist my words all you want to. The fact remains; taking eggs from other peoples' accounts is wrong, whether they are active here or not. If you want the eggs they've got that badly, then you should be all in favor of re-releases that allow you to get those eggs. And for the record, I stated I favor re-releases over taking eggs from other players, not that OMG we absolutely must do re-releases. Frankly, if I were that concerned about obtaining a rare creature, I'd be playing a lot more than I do now.

Deleted • 1 June 2012 at 10:30 AM

I think that a better idea would be to release every creature in egg cave for one day every year into the cave.

Not announced on the blog.

cafe • 1 June 2012 at 10:53 AM

o.e

I'm going to put my two cents in, but don't expect me to debate.

I just find it silly how one suggestion has caused this much uproar. I doubt Ian would implement this, and I disagree with it, but gawsh. Don't bite his head off.


Now, on my view of the suggestion [I haven't read this thread, so if I say stuff that's been said, woops];

No. I don't like this to say the least. I worked hard to get my critters, I spent the time immortalizing them, taking care of them, and making my cove grow. And I would be plain pissed if I decided to log off and be gone, I don't care for how long, only to come back and find //my// hard earned critters gone. And more than likely in the hands of some newbies, who are auctioning them off to the highest bidder.
If I spent the time to make it so that they don't die while I'm away, I expect them to be there when I return.

And yes, 3 years is a long time. But I can see situations where people can be gone longer.

-Continuing on other account-

stocking • 1 June 2012 at 10:53 AM

-continuation-

College. Someone could spend a long time immortalizing their critters so that they can go to college without the fear of their critters dying. And they may not be on the whole time of their studies; if they're a study-holic. If I was to go to college to become a vet, and decide my studies are more important than virtual eggs, I'd make my eggs immortal and stay off. Do you know how long vet college is? 8 years. So, I'd be off for eight years, and come back once I'm done. [No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to commute to college, so I will come home every night.]
Cancer/Long term diseases. Sad as it is, there are people who have bad health issues Sometimes they join adoptable sites. Sometimes they're too sick to go on a computer and will in a hospital all the time, and can only come on when they can. It would be horrid to be in the hospital with a bad sickness for years, only to come on and find your creatures gone.
Natural disaster. They lose their house, internet included. Could take years to re-build. Nuff said.


I can see not on situation where people gain something from this, other than the people who want rares. And, who is really the selfish one? The person who decides to let their cove rot[Even if they have an actual reason], or the person getting upset because there is a tine on a cove rotting, and they're basically jealous.



//Tori out//

cqpkytty • 1 June 2012 at 6:26 PM

@james-bond
I like how you ignore my post when it goes against your "everyone-who-____-is-_____-no-exceptions" opinion.

writing • 1 June 2012 at 6:34 PM

Everyone arguing, please stop making wild accusations of greed, this is delving into uncivil territory. Even if you disagree, there is no need to be rude. It's only a suggestion. Bitter and sarcastic comments are not needed.

@ian - please lock?

cqpkytty • 1 June 2012 at 6:41 PM

@ian
Please don't.

@writing
Actually, this isn't arguing. This is something called DEBATE. 😋