A solution to the problem with creatures of people who quit

sunshinecat • 1 June 2012 at 6:45 PM

@cqpkytty Well, once it gets into "Uh no, actually, you're just wrong," then it's no longer debate. Debate is civil.

Besides, I can't imagine how arguing/debating any further will achieve anything. The suggestion is not going to be implemented with so many against it. Just let it go?

cqpkytty • 1 June 2012 at 6:46 PM

@sunshinecat
I don't see anyone saying that.

sunshinecat • 1 June 2012 at 6:49 PM

@cqpkytty Don't want to draw attention to anyone, but three of the more recent posts were rather "I'm right, you're wrong / not going to argue since I'm right".

Not going to reply to further argument, I have work to do.

whispers • 1 June 2012 at 6:51 PM

@Ian
@Meteoroid
@Annapashmina
This debate is turning more into an argument. We all know that it's now going to be inplimented. So why not close this topic to prevent arguing if it shall continue

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 7:09 PM

@blackdeathkitty You say "I don't think that it is greedy for people to want re-releases. Some people want a chance of having their dream cove :/" Then what is the difference between that and wanting a dream cove via the Adoption Centre? THAT is hypocritical.

@cqpkytty Have you ever thought that I just might not be up to you yet? Patience it a virtue. Here is your yerned response:
But they aren't actually that rare. (No offence intended). You said that I said "everyone who wants re-releases doesn't have really rare eggs". I was only talking about the people on this forum. Therefore, it is correct.

So you're saying that purging accounts is better than putting creatures in the AC in 3 years. It's better coming back and seeing your creatures dead rather than coming back seeing your creatures being enjoyed in someone else's cove. I have said all this before, I won't be repeating any more points made that have been replied to. I recomend you read from te start.

tikimaki • 1 June 2012 at 7:15 PM

@james-bond

I agree. But maybe it could be after 3 years. It is possible the user might come back.

cqpkytty • 1 June 2012 at 7:15 PM

@james-bond
I'm sorry, I thought you were just ignoring me.
And yeah, maybe the Olimpt isn't the *rarest*, but look at the Arnmnae - rarity 8. That is rarer than an Onny.
And I was just quoting what you had said earlier, I wasn't assuming you meant something you didn't.

And please, DON'T put words into my mouth. I did not say ANYTHING about purging accounts.

Deleted • 1 June 2012 at 7:16 PM

@james_bond


I don't think that this idea is greedy, but the quitting users might not want to do that. If they want their creatures to be taken by strangers, they would put them in the adoption center.

So, to answer your question, the difference is that putting other people's pets into the adoption center without their permission is sorta stealing... Sorta.

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 7:23 PM

@auror So what if you're in college? Are you going to be working 24 hours a day for 4 years? Is there such a thing as 'holidays'? I think you will find a break in that time, and if you loved your creatures that much and knew you wanted to come back, you would be able to log on. I have explained this countless times, please read previous posts!

@tikimaki Yes, I thought the suggestion of three years would be better too. So I changed it before. 😊

@cqpkytty Your example of using the weighted rarity is a great example of why it's not the best. You need to take into account popularity, the creature's egg/evolved stage, oldness, and your own preferences. If you had an Onny would you swap it for an Armnae? Perhaps you will say yes, just so you can block my point, but it can't be blocked. A very large majority would say 'yes'.

"And I was just quoting what you had said earlier, I wasn't assuming you meant something you didn't." So now you know you shouldn't always assume things.

I agree, you did not say anything about purging accounts, but your opinion means that it will be what I said. So please reply to that point also.

st_justinian • 1 June 2012 at 7:32 PM

I find this idea a piece of gibberish.

whispers • 1 June 2012 at 7:49 PM

@james-bond
I'm just getting my point out here.

"You said that I said "everyone who wants re-releases doesn't have really rare eggs". I was only talking about the people on this forum. Therefore, it is correct."
You said that, talking to another user in this forum.
I think it's wrong though.
I am a user that has good creatures (some are at my side, and I have a Tine :/)
Though I do sometimes wish for re-releases, for critters that came out while I wasn't on here 😋
I'm just pointing out that sentence seems...a bit stereotype-ish 😋

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 8:25 PM

@st_justinian In what way? All it is is that you pick 5 creatures, in 3 years the rest go to the adoption centre. 😊

@whispers
Number 1. Cough cough, are you the person who is telling everyone to stop debating? :/

I wouldn't call it a stereotype. It's true, everyone who's posted here saying they want re-releases is because they don't have those eggs they want re-released. Like what you said about only wanting re-releases of creatures that you don't have because you weren't there. You didn't say before that you wanted Tines re-released did you?

Deleted • 1 June 2012 at 8:27 PM

@james-bond Ummmm... I do want Clocats and Adarnas to be re-released too.

I have both.

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 8:29 PM

@blackdeathkitty You didn't answer my point,so I take it you just can't. 😊


You say "Ummmm... I do want Clocats and Adarnas to be re-released too.

I have both."

...So? o.0

Deleted • 1 June 2012 at 8:32 PM

@james-bond The one that you pinged me about? Yes, I did.



"I wouldn't call it a stereotype. It's true, everyone who's posted here saying they want re-releases is because they don't have those eggs they want re-released. Like what you said about only wanting re-releases of creatures that you don't have because you weren't there. You didn't say before that you wanted Tines re-released did you?"

Ummm... Wait... I'm not sure I understand this XD

whispers • 1 June 2012 at 8:41 PM

@james-bond
I didn't say I wanted Tines re-released, I already have one. And there are still a lot more out there than other critters. 😋
And I'm kinda being a hypocrite XD I just read that, and I just had to get my post out. I needed to 😋

cqpkytty • 1 June 2012 at 8:47 PM

@james-bond
OK,
1) I WOULD trade an Onny for an Arnmnae, but it ISN'T for the reason you said. I wouldn't say that to block your point, I honestly would rather have an Arnmnae than an Onny.
2) I did not assume anything.
3) You're one to talk about not assuming! I never said I would rather creatures were deleted than they were put into the adoption center. In fact, I *AGREE* with your opinion about that. HOWEVER, I would like to make a few modifications to your idea. First, I think it should be a longer time period. Maybe 5 years? That seems to be the standard on other sites. Second, I think it would be better to just purge the accounts- BUT not delete ANY of the creatures like some people thought should happen. I think the creatures should be auctioned off (EC) to the highest bidder (I think someone suggested that earlier on this topic), with maybe a week before the auction closed. Auctioned instead of put in the AC, so they can be put into circulation without always going to the users who would inevitably stalk the AC if your original idea was implemented. Personally, I like your idea, though I think it needs some modifications.
4) Finally, a comment on what @blackdeathkitty said, and your reply. She DID answer your point, you were saying that people wanted re-releases because they didn't have any or weren't there when they were released. She disagreed, giving examples of creatures she DID have and WAS there when they were released, but would still like to see re-released.

dragonkeeper • 1 June 2012 at 9:00 PM

I love this Idea

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 9:46 PM

@blackdeathkitty No you didn't. So I'll say it again: You say "I don't think that it is greedy for people to want re-releases. Some people want a chance of having their dream cove :/" Then what is the difference between that and wanting a dream cove via the Adoption Centre? THAT is hypocritical.

It's true that everyone who's posted here saying they want re-releases is because they don't have those eggs they want re-released. Make sense so far? Threrefore, the people who want re-releases only want the for themselves (duh) and not for the reason that they want that creature to stay around/in circulation. Get it?

@whispers
You said "I didn't say I wanted Tines re-released, I already have one. And there are still a lot more out there than other critters." What point are you trying to make? You are pretty much just making my point even stronger. Me saying "You didn't say before that you wanted Tines re-released did you?" Was a rhetorical question to make my point stronger.

@dragonkeeper thanks. 😊

Deleted • 1 June 2012 at 9:49 PM

Disagree.

Deleted • 1 June 2012 at 9:50 PM

@james-bond Yes I did. Look at post #8 on this page...



Ummmm... About the second paragraph... That is not true.

I mostly want pets to be re-released so everyone could have a chance of having their dream cove.

whispers • 1 June 2012 at 9:50 PM

@james-bond
I don't get what in the world what point you were trying to make
I don't even get what your point is o_o
I was trying to explain that people want re-releases. Even people with good coves. 😋

linpug • 1 June 2012 at 9:51 PM

@james-bond I have somewhat based this on yours, hope you don't mind! 😊

Edit: Wait I didn't post this? O_e

crescentfeather • 1 June 2012 at 9:53 PM

I don't quite agree with this idea... However, all of the reasons this doesn't appeal to me have already been stated by earlier users. Arguing about this seems rather pointless to me, since it is obvious that this idea has too much negative response to ever actually become implemented.

james-bond • 1 June 2012 at 10:04 PM

@cqpkytty
1) Then please tell me why you would trade your Armnae for an Onny. You said it "wouldn't be for the reasons I said" which were "popularity, the creature's egg/evolved stage, oldness, and your own preferences" and rarity of course, which was mentioned at the beginning.
2) This is what you said "And I was just quoting what you had said earlier, I wasn't assuming you meant something you didn't." THEREFORE you shouldn't always assume things should you? Because you assumed wrongly and that can often have bad outcomes. Can you accept that much?
3) Do not assume when you are not sure. You assumed something I said when I wasn't even talking to you about it. You hadn't read previous comments so didn't have a clue. Now I am specifically talking to you therefore have the knowlege to assume. I didn't say it was ALWAYS bad, I have made sure I haven't said that.
The time period can be fiddled with of course. I even stated that the 3 years was merely a suggestion right at the beginning.
It is impossible to purge an account and keep the creatures. That is the whole reason I suggested this idea.

Continued...

cqpkytty • 1 June 2012 at 10:32 PM

@james-bond
1) Ahem. I never said I would trade an Arnmnae for an Onny. I said that I would trade an Onny for an Arnmnae, as in giving an Onny and getting an Arnmnae. And I wasn't referring to all the reasons you gave (my "own preferences" would be my reason), I was referring to when you said "Perhaps you will say yes, just so you can block my point". I was trying to make it clear that I was saying that yes, I would, but NOT to block your point or prove you wrong.
2) I didn't assume anything, what makes you think I did?
3) Actually, I followed this thread from the beginning. I didn't post until just recently, because I didn't feel the need to, but I read all the posts and went back when I couldn't remember what a user was replying to. You shouldn't assume that people focus on their own posts and don't really read other people's posts. (OK, maybe that's overstating it, but you get my point)
4) Okay then, maybe creatures can't be retained after an account is purged, but mods could keep track of the species of the deleted creatures, and release the same number that was deleted. example: an account with an Onny is deleted. An Onny goes up for auction. (Not necessarily the SAME Onny, though)
5) You have said several times that "everyone who's posted here saying they want re-releases is because they don't have those eggs they want re-released" when @blackdeathkitty and I have told you that is not true, and it seems like you're just ignoring what we're telling you ☹️

Ian • 1 June 2012 at 10:48 PM

As of right now, Egg Cave has no plans to do account pruning of any sorts. There are web sites that do this in the name of freeing up server space, but this mostly happens due to a lack of planning to scale a web site. This won't happen at Egg Cave. The only thing we have ever purged is unactivated accounts (you have to activate a new account within 30 days; it's always been like this).

To maintain fairness to all users, Egg Cave will never force a redistribution of creatures, especially not in the case of an inactive account (what happens when somebody decides to come back?). When I conceptualized and planned the story of Ark, there is indeed room for an entire species to become physically extinct. This will inevitably happen, yes.

I'll leave this topic open, because I'm open to all thoughts. But remember to be constructive and not argumentative.

Thanks! 😊

whispers • 1 June 2012 at 10:58 PM

So @Ian,
Is Ark kinda like Earth, since species go extinct from time to time. Except in the real world, most of the time its our own faults and it's a bad thing xD

james-bond • 2 June 2012 at 2:10 AM

@cqpkytty
EC could be a good idea, other than the fact that it would wreck the balance between the worth of EC and the worth of creatures. Personally, I don't think any endangered creature is worth EC unless a VERY large amount of EC is offered. EC is available to anyone and is pretty much free if you have the time to feed.
It hasn't seemed like you like my idea...
Then do you think people stalking the Travel Agency is different to people stalking the adoption centre? How is that different?
4) No she didn't. That's not what she was saying. My point was that people saying they want re-releases only want re-releases of the creatures they don't have. @blackdeathkitty said "I don't want Tines re-released, I already have one." Which exactly proved my point.

@whispers And I said that people with good coves only want re-releases of creatures they don't have. Right? Which can be called greedy, just like how this idea can be labled greedy. But you don't have to look at everything in that way! We shouldn't be so negative!

@linpug Based what on mine?

@crescentfeather "Arguing about this seems rather pointless to me, since it is obvious that this idea has too much negative response to ever actually become implemented." That itself shows that you haven't read the previous posts from the beginning.

angelofgrotesque • 2 June 2012 at 2:15 AM

@james-bond

I didn't read through ALL the posts, so I hope this hasn't already been suggested: what if there was a setting where you could choose to keep ALL instead of just the five, but let's say you didn't really care if you lost so-and-so, so he/she can go on the "recirculation list" or whatever it turns out to be. That way, people who are prone to a hiatus can come back years later and still have all of them, or whichever ones they choose, and the rest will be recirculated?