Distribution of Creatures

takochu • 10 June 2014 at 10:22 PM

I believe that it is unfair that only older users (excusing people who buy CC) have no way of getting older creatures. If a person is inactive for long enough, creatures should be put in the adoption center so the creatures stay in circulation. Or, we could re-release older creatures every year. I like the first one better.

rainbowbrite01 • 10 June 2014 at 11:25 PM

That's a great idea!!! @takochu it isn't fair that users don't get some creatures and that they're impossible to trade for

mastergemma • 11 June 2014 at 1:03 AM

@takochu
how long is long enough though? my friend can't come back on for another few years so it's not fair for her to lose all her creatures.

I know that Ian isn't going to re-release creatures, he has said it before

awkolicious • 11 June 2014 at 2:48 AM

@takochu How long would be long enough? If a person has been on hiatus for a month it wouldn't be fair to lose some creatures because of that.

mastergemma • 11 June 2014 at 2:59 AM

@takochu
@rainbowbrite01

Another thing is that some people work reeaaaaaal hard for creatures. If they are released again (April Fools prank) those who had just paid billions or many creatures for something that is just released again will be jibbed. For noobs to just waltz in and gain rare creatures it wouldn't be fair for the older players.

All in all it wouldn't be fair for anyone and if someone does leave they do have the choice to donate creatures

metaphor • 11 June 2014 at 4:18 AM

Well, I didn't want to vote "No, you're stupid," because that's not quite what I think. That said, I don't like this idea. It's been brought up again and again, and I just can't agree with it. It just seems kind of cheap to me. You'd be better off re-releasing creatures in very small quantities imho, but that won't ever happen.

@mastergemma

I still don't really agree with the whole "it's not fair to older users" argument. I can see that it would be frustrating to have a virtually unobtainable creature suddenly become a little less rare, but if re-releases were handled in very limited quantities, that wouldn't happen. People freaked out for no reason over the winter re-release. Foos and Florns may not be super-duper rare anymore, but they are still rare and highly sought after. The truth is, as important as it is for EC to keep its loyal old members, it needs a pull for newer members. And tbh, if I were a newer member, I could see being a little frustrated that a creature that retired just a few months ago costs about 30 bucks worth in CC, the price of 6 current CC creatures. I don't think it should be that way. Yeah, supply and demand and all that, but that same argument could be used in support of re-release.

I don't think it should be a frequent thing. Say, no more than 20 of a retired creature put in the Cash Shop Park at a time, and only during a couple times during a month. And not always the same creature, and perhaps with a price tag higher than the usual CC creature (1000-2000 CC?)

There's things being very, very valuable and then there's pretty much everything being out of reach to newbies except for cave creatures, SARs, and Asteroid creatures unless they spend a great deal of money, which is truthfully what is happening. We can't let our trophy pets get in the way of a growing community forever, guys. I know you all want your frozen Onny egg to be the most specialest creature ever, but it's just not within the best interest for a site that keeps growing and growing with little to keep its newer players invested.

I just checked the TC, and there are currently no Florns or Foos there. They're sure flooding the market, all right.

takochu • 11 June 2014 at 9:38 AM

@mastergemma @metaphor

Whatever.

metaphor • 11 June 2014 at 10:35 AM

@takochu

What? I'm not hating. I even somewhat agreed with you.


Offering suggestions and slightly disagreeing =/= hating

takochu • 11 June 2014 at 10:40 AM

@metaphor

Okay. I see. Sorry.

mejary • 11 June 2014 at 2:21 PM

Or what about "On your birthday you can choose any creature" even if they are retired, but just ONE creature....

pokewolfkyuubi • 11 June 2014 at 2:36 PM

@takochu
On the idea of giving away creatures of people who are inactive, I think it wouldn't be fair, because some people can be gone for long periods of time but come back later. I think it would be better if creatures are put in the adoption center right before they would die. Then, the inactive members who come back would keep theirs, and neglected creatures would be saved and cared for by someone else.

trig • 11 June 2014 at 2:38 PM

To put it bluntly:

No. This is exceptionally ridiculous.

I remember these types of threads in 2011 - 2012. They're quite "self-centered."

Although @metaphor's argument makes logical sense, I am stoic on my opinion that what stays in a cove stays in a cove.

Re-releasing creatures would take the fun and rarity out of creatures. You want the Onny to become the next Whoon? That destroys the whole purpose.

takochu • 11 June 2014 at 9:48 PM

@trig


It would not work like that. You are exaggerating and spamming this topic with hate.

mastergemma • 11 June 2014 at 11:23 PM

@takochu
It's not hate, it's the other side of the argument. If you cannot handle having others criticize this idea, which has been asked so many times before, then don't write something

This idea is corrupt at best which is why it just won't happen

takochu • 11 June 2014 at 11:24 PM

@mastergemma

I see. Parts of Trig's comment were unnecessary though.

stellalunagirl • 12 June 2014 at 1:19 AM

@takochu

Rarity and popularity do go hand in hand. Usually, rarer creatures are viewed as more desirable. So perhaps if recirculation of creatures occurs, creatures that were once looked upon as ultra valuable, lose their "worth" as people are less interested in getting a creature which is not as "rare". It woud mean that a "rare creature doesnt just bexome less rare but it sort of becomes less appealing as well. The whole idea of "rarity" has got to do with exclusiveness and having that creature mesnt you had something special. Once again, losing that exclusivity would mean that it would feel less "special".

Besides, it isnt as satisfying obtaining a "rare" creature if you didnt work hard and traded hard to get it, so in the end you might not feel as satisfied or content with obtaining a creature through recirculation.

That is just my opinion. ^^

takochu • 12 June 2014 at 10:37 AM

@stellalunagirl

Makes seance. ^^

emilianagerson • 12 June 2014 at 11:11 AM

@takochu
I think this is a good idea, if someone is quiting, they could press a 'quit' button, and there animals would go to the adopt center.

takochu • 12 June 2014 at 11:12 AM

@emilianagerson

Good idea!!!!

metaphor • 13 June 2014 at 7:26 AM

@stellalunagirl


But that's the problem. It shouldn't be all about "feeling special." It should be about wanting this economy to grow, but people are so caught up with rarity here that there is no gray area. It's either it's virtually unobtainable or as common as a tasma.

Deleted • 13 June 2014 at 1:16 PM

I really think that if you cant handle someone elses opinion, @takochu, you might have as well not posted this topic. Because really, calling someones post hateful because their opinion is different? No. Just no.

takochu • 13 June 2014 at 1:17 PM

@metaphor

Okay. ^^


@poof

Sorry. I just thought one post was overly rude. I am fine with difference of opinion, just not when it is rude.

Deleted • 13 June 2014 at 1:19 PM

@takochu But what do you consider rude? Is it because there are no emoticons in those posts? Or because people are blunt? Id like to know, because while some posts are blunt, I dont think they are rude. o:

takochu • 13 June 2014 at 1:21 PM

@poof


I only think Trig's post was really rude.

Reasons:

1. Calling this ridiculous

2. Assuming that an onny would become a whoon.

Deleted • 13 June 2014 at 1:24 PM

@takochu Mhhmm. I do agree on the first one, although the whole Onny/Whoon thing was an example. And a good one at that, because thats what might happen if Creatures like the Onny get rereleased somehow (and it wont matter in what way.)

takochu • 13 June 2014 at 1:29 PM

@poof

Let me restate the idea. One month of the year, two older creatures become available for 500CC in the CSP. This would protect that sort of thing from happening.

trig • 13 June 2014 at 1:42 PM

Again, no.

People with unrestricted access to CC -- not pointing anyone out here -- may hoard the creatures and create almost a monopoly of that kind. It takes the fun out of rare creatures.

The only reason why people covet their Onnies, Doovoos, Gobblers, etc. is because they are limited in number. Of course, I would love a rare creature for a mere 500CC, but then it upsets the balance between wanting something rare and liking something that is common.

metaphor • 13 June 2014 at 2:00 PM

@takochu

I think if that were to happen, they should a lot more. I'm not against it completely, but 500 CC per very rare creature WOULD be detrimental to the economy.

takochu • 13 June 2014 at 2:02 PM

@metaphor

Okay. 1000 CC? Or would it depend on the creature?

awkolicious • 13 June 2014 at 3:16 PM

@takochu -waltzes into the arguement- It should depend on the creature. I heard someone once bid 60 dollars on a Nym. Therefore 1000 CC for a creature like that isn't fair. I guess you could say I'm just kind of on both sides here xD