Adoption Center instead of dying?

hathor89 • 23 July 2013 at 4:25 AM

Hey there.

I've seen a lot of dying coves since I began playing about a month ago. And I keep asking myself, why all these great creatures (and sometimes very rare creatures, too), should have to die. Wouldn't it be so much nicer if they would be given to the Adoption Center by the system instead of just...disappearing? In all these abandoned coves I help keeping alive there are so many of my dream creatures in danger it nearly hurts.

What do you think?

karamel • 23 July 2013 at 8:29 AM

@hathor89 What would be classified as "dying"? Even if it was 0 happiness = dying, some people might just be on hiatus. There's still a chance of people feeding their cove.

What if someone came back from their hiatus (or even quitting) and saw that their creature was in another person's cove? At least they could use the Resurrection Stone if they had CC, but think of the drama it could cause. :I

It also takes away the responsibility of looking after your creatures. And you have to pay to put creatures into the Adoption Center - if it automatically put dying creatures into the AC, then there's no point in having the fee.

Don't support this, sorry. :c

olimpt • 23 July 2013 at 8:30 AM

@hathor89
I'm with the idea and i'm not with it.
Lets say a tine died because of a tims glitch, whoops there it goes into the adoption center. Not only that but it would make people not feed eggs and stalk them for the adoption center. And it would remove the purpose of the ressomething stone witch brings them back to life for a fair price.
I'm more with the not with it side of things but I feel like this idea could be improved upon.

hathor89 • 23 July 2013 at 11:21 AM

@karamel
@olimpt

I get the points. And I'm sure that my idea is not perfect. Any improvement ideas are very welcome.

Why I had this Idea is really because there are so many creatures dying I really want to have and are really hard to get.

Deleted • 23 July 2013 at 11:41 AM

@hathor89
The owners who have that creature have spent a lot of real money, or worked hard for a lot of time. If they were on hiatus, and it ever died, then it'll always be there to revive with the revival stone. If I went on a hiatus, and my mortal Guinstar egg (Tuxedo) dies, I could revive it. But when I see it in somebody elses' cove and I cant get it back, then what was the use of trading a lot of creatures for Tuxedo at the start?

The owners worked very hard. If you need your wishlist creatures, you'd need to do the similar work. Nobody gets things for granted, nor does EggCave gift out Nyms and Tines to everyone. That would absolutely ruin the Egg-Conomy and result in more than half of the CC purchasing users to quit, as they have traded super rare creatures worth 100s of dollars to buy those. If they're dead and into someone elses' account, then what was the use of the $100 + spent on them?

If anyone really needs creatures, they should just try their best to upgrade their cove for it, not to make suggestions. If this was to be from the start, it would have been acceptable, but after 4 years, when people traded tons of CC to get their wishlist creatures,

For those people who dont have the privilege to purchase CC, the Ressurrection Stone is providing a revival service for all. That would soon be made a tradeable item, so all the dilemnas over that will end at the earliest.

It would cause a lot of tension and drama amongst Egg Cave users.
There are many mortal Nyms in EggCave, if they were to die and just be thrown in the AC, then what was the use of trading that much.
It would cause 50% of the people to quit, and even a lot of drama for those who spent over $50 on Nyms. People may even start demanding their money back, as they dont have the creature, nor the money. Its like a waste, and people would start revolting. This would ruin the whole community, and harmony would be scarce in EC.

So, in all views, I disagree and detest this suggestion.

crumbledtower • 23 July 2013 at 12:11 PM

I really just think if someone was sure they were leaving eggcave FOREVER, then they should just leave their eggs etc. at the AC or trade them to an active user for a reasonable price. If they were gone for a little while, coming back, expecting to be able to feed their hungry eggs, seeing their creatures gone, yeah. Not the best thing, especially if they worked hard to obtain it. There have been many good points stated, many of which I have to agree with.

semo2005 • 23 July 2013 at 1:17 PM

@hathor89 Sorry I don't agree with this idea I mean if someone quit they would trade the mortals to an active user

Deleted • 23 July 2013 at 3:27 PM

i understand where you're coming from, and i partially agree with the concept. maybe for accounts that have been permanently deleted this could happen, but not for inactive users who may come back months/years later from a hiatus.

but i definitely don't agree with dying creatures being transferred into the AC since i've actually bought A LOT of CC myself (more than what i'd usually spend on a game) to trade for the creatures on my wishlist and constantly use click exchanges to immortalize them so they won't die.

@hathor89
since cc gifting has been terminated, you have a better chance of buying that creature you want so badly with ECs. it takes time and a lot of patience, but save up at least 250k a day from feeding. in 8 days, you'll have that 2mil to buy your very first CSP. 😉

jemmie • 23 July 2013 at 4:16 PM

@hathor89
Um, I have some questions.

>Whats the point of the Resurrection Stone?
>Whats the point of caring for your creatures?
>Whats the point of Tims Food Shoppe?

Also...

>People would stalk the Adoption Center
>People would just go there to find rare creatures instead of actually trading.

Sorry, dont support.

hathor89 • 24 July 2013 at 4:51 AM

@frosted

I didn't make this suggestion because I'm counting on having those creatures handed to me on a silver tablet tomorrow. Of course it needs a lot of hard work to get my dreamies. And I will do it. But my point is, that if those creatures die, they always get more and more rare and even harder to get. What if someday only one single creature of a certain kind ist left? Then nobody else who dreams of it ever gets his or her dream come true. That'd be really sad, wouldn't it? I didn't think it over some days and nights, I put it in here to discuss with others and develop my idea.

@jemmie

Yeah, that's exactly the questions I asked myself...except the resurrection stone...but some people don't book Tim and don't care for their creatures.




I think if my idea would get modified, it could have the potential to make people care more about their creatures. If they knew their creatures would be gone forever if they don't book Tim long enough or care to feed them regulary, I think they would care a whole lot more.

What I also have seen and think is unfair is people who quit and have immortal coves. Those coves will be forgotten. And there are rare creatures in them nobody cares about. I mean, let's transfer it to the real world. You got a pet. You grow it up, you teach it to care for itself and then you abandon it. How does this pet feel? Lonely, abandoned, sad...and it surely wishes really badly to get some attention. From anybody. I don't like the idea of immortality. Because of this. You can abandon your cove and it stays like this forever (or as long as this game exists). And nobody will be able to care for those pets you left there.

@hybridrainbow: well, not exactly 250k per day, but I feed really much, as much as I can (got a family and a household to deal with...). But...finding somebody who is willing to sell me those creatures is the really hard part. I'm not talking about the creatures you can buy for CC right now, but those who are retired or once were available in the Cash Shop Park.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 5:27 AM

@hathor89
Let us take an example.
Your suggestion gets made.
No creatures are immortal.
Half of the creatures in existence die.
The rarity of Macbots, Doovoos, Gobblers go to 1.

Another example,
Suppose that this suggestion is made.
Lets take an example of a hardworking user, who bought a CSP for 2mil EC recently.
They feed it reguarly, and once, their computer breaks down.
They have no other way of access to Internet, and their sole mean was derived from them. Their CSP dies, and goes off.
They never get it back.
They'd just curse EC and quit forever.

Say another example,
that YOU, yourself is deprived of Internet access for a week and you forgot to put Tims on your creatures.
They die, including CSPs, and you lose them.
What would you do in such a situation?

While you suggest this, those users struggling to immortalise creatures, and those who worked so hard for their creature (and have went into unexpected hiatus(es)) loose their creatures which they traded a lot of $ or hardwork for?

Say what would you feel in such a situation? That is the very feeling that those users would have.

hathor89 • 24 July 2013 at 5:35 AM

@frosted
I do understand this, but there's smartphones, internet cafes or friends you can ask if you could use their computer for just 2 minutes. Booking Tim for all your creatures doesn't take any longer. You even have got the time to write a status message saying you're away unexpectedly.
I would be very upset if my creatures were away. But there's always a way to avoid this.
And just because I don't like the idea of immortal creatures doesn't mean I suggest undiong this. My suggestion was to do something about these creatures that are left for themselves and die. How likely is it for some girl between 11 and 15 to return to an online game after being away one whole month? Not very. Ok, those coves are most likely not the ones with very rare creatures in them, but they are dying creatures. And this is what doesn't seem right to me.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 5:49 AM

@hathor89
It's part of the game. Not everyone gets their dreams fulfilled and creatures need to get rarer. It's not so sad, it's just how it is and how it should be. If creatures that someone earned die, then that should be it. They shouldn't go to someone else who probably didn't do as much work. How things are already work. Why fix something that's not broken?

karamel • 24 July 2013 at 6:19 AM

@hathor89 I've been away from Egg Cave for way more than one month; my sister is still currently on hiatus (and has been for a year) and her creatures were at 0 happiness. They're not rare, but they have sentimental value. I managed to immortalise them (with help of others), but would I have been able to do that if they were all in the AC? I wouldn't have even known those creatures were in her cove.

@kisamari "But all in all it would add to the responsibility of having these little digital pets." Apologies if I sound rude, but I don't understand what you mean? If someone couldn't be bothered to take care of their creatures, they could just leave them to die and be sent automatically to the AC instead of trading them off, etc.

Also, another thought: if the creatures were at 0 happiness, then they would die anyway...? Before they were sent to the AC? And my point about the AC fee is still here.

hathor89 • 24 July 2013 at 6:21 AM

@jrock Yes, it is. It's not possible to fulfill all your dreams in minutes. But there should be the chance to fulfill them with work. And as I see it there already are some creatures where this chance is really low. I don't want it to be 100%. But it should be real. Not something about 0.000x%
And besides that, why let creatures die? You wouldn't have to go to the cave a thousand times if you just could take creatures others abandoned. Creatures that would die otherways.

karamel • 24 July 2013 at 6:25 AM

@hathor89 "But there should be the chance to fulfill them with work." You're calling stalking the AC "work"? And the chance of getting them /is/ real. EC value is gradually increasing because we have new SAR creatures and CC cannot be transferred. It's like in IRL terms - you may not be able to see that nearing-extinct creature in your life, but the chance is reasonable as they are very rare anyway. The chances of getting these creatures are reasonable - they're not all going to be equal or sometimes even visible, but the chances are there.

Dying creatures is part of natural life. Being automatically sent to an adoption centre isn't. I know that, with humans, not looking after your children to the right standards can result in them being taken away from you, but we have Resurrection Stones. What would be the point of the RS if the creatures were sent to the AC before you even bought one?

tl;dr: jrock has hit the nail on the head. x3

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 6:27 AM

@hathor89
Sometimes we can work as hard as we can and they don't come true. It's just the way things work. Like you said, there is a chance. If it's low, it's for a reason and should be so. Not everyone always gets what they want just because they want it and work hard for it.
Why let them die? Because that's how it works. Creatures die. Rarity goes up. It's part of the game and is how it should be.
You can take creatures others abandoned, if they choose to do so at the Adoption Center. Otherwise, we'll just have to give it all we can and try to get them.

hathor89 • 24 July 2013 at 6:31 AM

@karamel

I'm not talking about stalking the AC. I'm talking about people who didn't have enough luck to look there when there was a rare creature in it. They would have the chance to trade for those creatures then.

And I already wrote more than once, that my idea is not perfect. If you got anything that would make it better, then tell me.

This is not natural at all. Creatures don't stop mating or laying eggs like it is simulated here. I know that dying is part of life. But dying because you're abandoned simply is sad. Let's forget about the rare creatures and get to the commons. Why let them die and "force" newbies like me to go to the cave thousands of times when it would be so easy to save them poor things? I don't have to steal my commons from the cave myself. If there is one dying I don't already own I think "Poor thing, in my cove you would be happy..."

karamel • 24 July 2013 at 6:35 AM

@hathor89 This suggestion (to me) seems like instead of trading/actually working towards getting that dream creature, you could just stalk the AC.

I still have unanswered questions: What would be classified as "dying"? What's the point of having the Resurrection Stone? What about the abandoning fee?

"Why let them die and "force" newbies like me to go to the cave thousands of times when it would be so easy to save them poor things?" Because it's part of the game?

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 6:40 AM

@karamel
You did, too. Perfectly said.

@hathor89
It's not about things not being "sad". It's how the game works and should. Like Karamel said, if that's how things worked then people wouldn't have to trade or make much of an effort. Just check the AC for a while and find rare creatures. That's not how the game should work.
As for commons, they're already easy enough to get in the cave 😋 I don't see why that would matter.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 6:44 AM

@hathor89
I dont have any restriction over this if there was a huge setback on this;

Only non-star, unfrozen, dying, and neglected COMMONS (ONLY) die this way.

Immortalization is a necessity, and that would never go.

hathor89 • 24 July 2013 at 6:45 AM

@jrock It matters because they die in abandoned coves.

@karamel No, I don't. I look in there once or twice a day, yes. And if I find anything in there I want, I adopt it. But the whole rest of my time I spend here I feed coves, look in the trading area of this forum and work for my dreams to come true. And I'll be doing this untill I got every creature on my wishlist.

Now excuse me, I got to feed a whole lot more creatures before this day is over to obtain my next wanted creature.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 6:46 AM

@hathor89

This is a game. And that happens to be part of the game.

hathor89 • 24 July 2013 at 6:49 AM

@frosted No, not only commons die this way.
As I told you already, I don't want to be immortalization undone, I want to do something about these abandoned coves. I simply don't like the fact that immortalization exists, but changing that is impossible. And I don't try too impossible things. 😉
BTW: is it really your birthday? Then Happy birthday. 😉 Enjoy it.

As I said in my post before, I go and work for my dreamies now.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 6:51 AM

@hathor89
Not disturbing you over this, but you started it *shrugs*
This topic was opened by you.

It caused a controversy, but not a serious one, so it was just a called dispute. It could have been prevented.

That's the spirit.

Already the CC-EC gifting and trading has been denied. The overall EC value increased.
It has increased tremendously.
It used to be 1 CC = 14 - 16k EC, but now, 1 CC = 4-5k EC
The CC gifting disablement, and the Creature Labs is a new way of increasing the worth of EC, to make the site as free as possible.

If this implement was done, it would be like giving too much privileges to users who dont even spend a penny, or bother to do work, (not anyone specifically), to get creatures while stalking the AC like freaks

Also, it would lead to the quitting of many CC buying users, and EggCave's main source of income would be in a deplorable condition.

karamel • 24 July 2013 at 6:52 AM

@hathor89 Pardon my wording, I didn't mean that you /personally/ just wanted to stalk the AC and not trade; I meant that this could be a result of this suggestion being made. Apologies! ><

The questions I'm asking are to do with knowing more about your suggestion and perhaps improving it, but you are not answering them.

olimpt; I'm really trying to word my posts so that I'm not attacking the user, but more the suggestion. ><

olimpt • 24 July 2013 at 6:56 AM

Look over all of the posts, it looks like there is like, a fight or something.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 6:58 AM

@olimpt
Where?

jemmie • 24 July 2013 at 7:45 AM

@hathor89
Not to be offensive, but realize how these creatures aren't real life ones. They don't have to act exactly like real ones.

Deleted • 24 July 2013 at 8:02 AM

@jemmie
lol
I get too attached to my Pixgogs o-o