Suggestion for the pound event [If continued next year]

[ElementalInsanity]

Support. While the pound isn't supposed to be a "rare farm" other people still seem to get rares after rares, lol. Last time they had this event I did, and this event I haven't gotten one. And with how the server has seemed tonight a lot of the faster clickers do get those where others don't. ^^

[- Alice -]

I completely agree with this idea! I havent gotten one rare pet, every time I see one and my slow hand drags along to the pet its already long gone... I have never adopted a rare form the pound let alone a list pet!

[sumashira]

I joined in 2010, so I've been here for about 8 years (holy cow!). I have adopted a bit less than 120 pets from the Pound in that time, and of those only 1 of them has been a rare. xD

From my perspective, this Pound event and the Pound in general are as fair as they can be; the Pound randomly opens a random number of times at random times every day, with a random selection of randomly valued pets - you are shown a random handful of those random pets, and in 20 seconds you get a new random handful. It's almost entirely luck.

I learned that many of the people who get Rares+ from the Pound often have many Rares+ on their Wishlist to make it easier to spot and snag one, should one appear in their selection. Additionally, I've noticed many people who get Rares regularly and consistently check both when the Pound might open and what the Pound will be adopting out when it opens so that they know what pets to look for and click as soon as they see them.

I think that what you get from the Pound is a combination of about 85% luck (all the randomization) and about 10% how much time and effort and research a person has put into knowing what pets are Rare+. (I would say 5% is due to variable internet connection and server lag.)

While I would like to see Rares+ farmers be slowed down (since I do believe that experience and effort contribute to rarity of the pets they gather), I'm not sure if adding in these time limitations will necessarily help. A skilled Pound adopter could still manage to get a VR and then after the time limit is up (and the Pound opens again) immediately adopt another Rare, or Very Rare. I don't think that it would significantly help with fairness by any means.


EDIT: After See_Air_Ruhh_ 's response, and thinking more about this specific event, a timer for a future event like this may be useful if it could be programmed and utilized easily and efficiently.

[See_Air_Ruhh_]

I do actually support this. Not for everyday pound opening, but for this specific event, if is done again. Only because I was following the "Pets you got from the pound" thread, and some people snagged up to 35 rares in the event. I got lucky, and snagged a current store pet, but I still agree.

I also agree the pound isn't a "rare farm" ; and people should be grateful for getting the free pets, and I was grateful for the event, and all the pets I received, but it was frustrating seeing the same people get list after list, after list. Yes, luck does have to do with it, but, again, IF this event happens again, the cool down for r,vr,omgsr would allow more players to enjoy the event itself.

Faster computers do have a lot to do with these things, plus luck. Also, with the amount of people participating in the event, it was kind of like the Dec. 18th event for me. If your computer is already slow, then you factor in the fact that hundreds or so more players are refreshing the same page, it causes already slow systems to slow down even more. Even a mili second could make difference.

As I said, for everyday openings, no, this isn't needed. But for another event like this, I think this is a brilliant idea if it is possible.

[Obius]

Rare farming has been going on since the pound first opened. And unfortunately, connection and hardware speed do influence the odds of you obtaining better pets. Its not that we don't care about those commons or very commons. It is that we can get those very easily and cheaply as compared to older, harder to get designs. Why spend 20 minutes (or 3 hours for the matter) waiting to adopt again over something you can get in 30 seconds? It is an ill use of your time. So you generally strive for the most wanted pets because it can be used more effectively in completing your collection.

This is one reason why I never understood Tess when she said "The Pound is not about rares". Her game is centered around limitedly available pets and their varying rarity upon release. If all pets are equal, why even have rare and retired pets in the first place? Shouldn't they be all available forever? Even store purchases? Fact is she knows that this system keeps the site alive. Few would be on it if all pets and items were made unlimited. Just look at how people flood the site during events!

This is a trading game after all. And you would be hurting yourself by treating all adoptables as equal. Sure its fun to "pretend" those pound pets are real. But in truth, they are pixels on a screen and no real living breathing things are imprisoned and are in need of rescuing. I will save my sympathy for real pound pets, thank you.

Now on the subject of this "perfectly fair" RNG system, it is unfortunately anything but. RNG may help slow users by divvying up the pets so that not all fast users see all the pets at the same time. But unfortunately, your connection speed means that, by the time you even see or even click on the pet, it is most often gone to someone just a little faster than you... Same for slower systems. When I had no computer, my old smart phone would sometimes take up to 2 minutes to even show me the pets. By this time, all the better adopts are long gone. On a trading game that values things over other things, being stuck with scraps puts a major damper on your progress.

This is why I sympathize with slower users. Cause I was there and it sucks. It also hurts hearing people so religiously defending a system that allows for such imbalances. Hey if you can't afford a good computer, phone and a good network, its your fault for being poor! Way to support the less fortunate!...

I still hold out for a better system. In the meantime, I will try my best to scroll and click as fast as possible to keep up with those power adopters who show no signs of slowing down.

[Shooting Stars]

I still stand by what I said last year:

I really don't think this is necessary.
The pound isn't a rare farm, and the pound is meant to give pets new homes. Just because some were unlucky (it is all just luck), that doesn't mean to system needs to give everyone rares. And just because some were lucky to get multiple rares, doesn't mean they should be punished in any way.

I understand by what you mean, I know it's frustrating how some get lots of rares and you get none. Hey, I wish I was able to achieve a rareslist pet, but just because I didn't get one (nor did one even appear), doesn't mean that there should be limits set in place so it can be easier for me to get one. It doesn't work that way. Life isn't fair, and sometimes you have to work a little harder than others, whether that be pixel dogs or a promotion at work.

I believe the Pound is the fairest it can possibly be. Sure, it's not perfect, but I think limits in place is more unfair. And I personally don't think it's right to take from the hardworkers. It's not that I don't "support the less fortunate", but people should be able to adopt as many rares as they please, and be able to keep them, without feeling guilty of being a "power adopter".
There is no way to make every single person happy. Some people do earn more rares than others, but they shouldn't be punished, nor made to feel guilty, just because they have a fast computer/internet.
I do feel incredibly guilty, because I adopted 6 rares this time around (at one point, almost back-to-back, and a 2015 store pet), and I do have a good internet service, and a speedy computer. Feel free to call me a power adopter to my face if you'd like.

There is no way the Pound can be completely fair, except for just removing the Pound altogether (which would be terrible ^_^).

[Eaglespirit]

I still stand by what I said last year:

I really don't think this is necessary.
The pound isn't a rare farm, and the pound is meant to give pets new homes. Just because some were unlucky (it is all just luck), that doesn't mean to system needs to give everyone rares. And just because some were lucky to get multiple rares, doesn't mean they should be punished in any way.

I understand by what you mean, I know it's frustrating how some get lots of rares and you get none. Hey, I wish I was able to achieve a rareslist pet, but just because I didn't get one (nor did one even appear), doesn't mean that there should be limits set in place so it can be easier for me to get one. It doesn't work that way. Life isn't fair, and sometimes you have to work a little harder than others, whether that be pixel dogs or a promotion at work.

I believe the Pound is the fairest it can possibly be. Sure, it's not perfect, but I think limits in place is more unfair. And I personally don't think it's right to take from the hardworkers. It's not that I don't "support the less fortunate", but people should be able to adopt as many rares as they please, and be able to keep them, without feeling guilty of being a "power adopter".
There is no way to make every single person happy. Some people do earn more rares than others, but they shouldn't be punished, nor made to feel guilty, just because they have a fast computer/internet.
I do feel incredibly guilty, because I adopted 6 rares this time around (at one point, almost back-to-back, and a 2015 store pet), and I do have a good internet service, and a speedy computer. Feel free to call me a power adopter to my face if you'd like.

There is no way the Pound can be completely fair, except for just removing the Pound altogether (which would be terrible ^_^).

I think you misunderstand, this is meant as a suggestion for just the event, the normal pound us decently fair because it gives away a big enough amount at a time.
This would not be a permanent '10 rares only and ever', it would just be for the event.

And I find it funny how you point out the pound is not a rare farm, but support the people who use it as such.

I have no problem with people who get a rare pretty consistently (At one point I got one per week for a while), but when I see people who got tons of rares+ from the event (One person I saw had 16 rares from the event, including store pets and other VRs) that seems a bit unfair to all the other players.
I'm not whining just because I got no rares, I got about 2 dozen wishlist pets I needed anyway, I'm making a suggestion for an otherwise fun event to make it more balanced for players with a split second disadvantage.

Even the few rares I saw I mentally knew I had no chance on my mobile because of how tricky it was to refresh and scroll in time for the opening.

Again, this suggestion is just for the event if it is hosted again. All limits would be lifted after the event ends. It seems a few people didn't catch that

[Shooting Stars]

I think you misunderstand, this is meant as a suggestion for just the event, the normal pound us decently fair because it gives away a big enough amount at a time.
This would not be a permanent '10 rares only and ever', it would just be for the event.

And I find it funny how you point out the pound is not a rare farm, but support the people who use it as such.

I have no problem with people who get a rare pretty consistently (At one point I got one per week for a while), but when I see people who got tons of rares+ from the event (One person I saw had 16 rares from the event, including store pets and other VRs) that seems a bit unfair to all the other players.
I'm not whining just because I got no rares, I got about 2 dozen wishlist pets I needed anyway, I'm making a suggestion for an otherwise fun event to make it more balanced for players with a split second disadvantage.

Even the few rares I saw I mentally knew I had no chance on my mobile because of how tricky it was to refresh and scroll in time for the opening.

Again, this suggestion is just for the event if it is hosted again. All limits would be lifted after the event ends. It seems a few people didn't catch that :/

I do understand your suggestion completely, thank you very much. I did mean the 99k/200k events. I did read your post (and the title). I don't know why you'd think I meant the regular Pound??

I still don't see the Pound as a rare farm, I never go to the pound only wanting rares, but I don't think the people who do want rares should be limited. I don't see how either connect really. "Support the people" seems kind of off to me actually, like the people who do get lots of rares have done something wrong? They haven't.

(One person I saw had 16 rares from the event, including store pets and other VRs) that seems a bit unfair to all the other players.

Sure, 16 rares is a lot, but they did rightfully adopt those pets. They earned them (and of course they were lucky). They were a fast clicker, and probably have most rares on their wishlist so they can recognize them easier. But because one person got 16 rares, does that mean everyone should get 16? I believe this would definitely hurt the rare economy.
I mean if 100 people got 16 rares, that's already 1,600 older rares in circulation again. 1000 adopters would mean 16,000 rares. We have December 18th for a reason.

Say this is implemented. There will be some who only get recent event rares, and then others who get 2009s. Unless you put a limit on how much 2008-2010 pets you can get (1-3 I'm guessing), which would be even more limiting. There would be some who only get rats and equines, and then others who get high-demand dogs and Warrior Cats. What happens here? Species limitation?
I guess something similar can be said for December 18th. So one person gets 3 rareslist pets, does that mean everyone should? What happens when there are some who only get low-demand rareslist, while others get high-demand?

The way the Pound event is set up now is the fairest it can possibly be. Absolutely nothing can be 100% fair. I know it's irritating to see others get more rares than you, but hey, you can just use the pets you did collect, and trade them up for rares.

[Eaglespirit]

The way you worded things made it sounds like you thought you'd only be able to get that amount of rares forever.
Like saying a limit would 'punish' those who got rares. How??? For Easter we have a limit for tokens, is that punishment?
What if the token pets they adopted during the event turn uncommon instead of rare? Its the same as someone getting 'unlucky' and getting all 2016 rares from the pound event instead of 2010 rares.

How would that hurt the economy more then people who hoard rares lists? Or never trade pound pets?

Dec 18th is way different from the pound, you're always going to get rare+ pets from that. Sure maybe some are newer, but its still rare. There's a wide margin in the pound.
And that's where the skill/luck comes in, if you see a pet you know is a rare, but you have to make a decision on if the species is worth clicking.

I never said make it 100% fair, its just severely tipped towards a specific group of players right now. Ones with fast internet, computers, and time to sit and wait. I have nothing against them, but what they have shouldn't give them an advantage.

The token events have a limit.
December 18th has a limit.
Why shouldnt the pound event?

[Shooting Stars]

Like saying a limit would 'punish' those who got rares. How??? For Easter we have a limit for tokens, is that punishment?
What if the token pets they adopted during the event turn uncommon instead of rare? Its the same as someone getting 'unlucky' and getting all 2016 rares from the pound event instead of 2010 rares.

How would that hurt the economy more then people who hoard rares lists? Or never trade pound pets?

Token pets turning uncommon instead of rare is definitely not the same as this. It's not on a basis of luck, it is on how many people adopt that pet. (As in the Peach Bunny this Easter was popular, lots of people hoarded, it will probably be uncommon.) The banner does have limits because there were people (summer event 2011) got hundreds of banners (hence why the banner pets are still common x). Which means people could stay up all night, for the entire length of the event, and gather thousands of tokens.
How long does the Pound event last? About two days? You are also given a random selection of pets, sometimes no rares showing up (as I once stayed and went through an hour of Pound event openings for a WL, not one (or rare) showed up). You are guaranteed a token every time you click a banner (with the exception of the occasional item/pet), but you aren't guaranteed a rare every pound opening.

The limit would punish those who took their time to help build their collection or trading fodder, because "it's not fair to the newer/slower computers&internet/younger players!!!!" The limit for banner events is in place so people who have the time to be at the computer all day don't have thousands of tokens compared to the ones who have school and jobs. (Better explained in the thread I linked above.)
Maybe you didn't read what I said about this in my last post.. "They earned them."

I doubt people never trading their pound pets really does anything to the economy? It's just the same as never trading your monthly outcomes.. Do you actually think it does something?
And people who hoard rareslist traded for them. The traded other rareslist pets for them, thus putting those pets into circulation. It's supply and demand. 16,000 rares is suddenly putting a bunch of rares into circulation, and could diminish the worth (a small amount, but could be noticeable depending on the pets) of some of those rares.
This is kind of off topic though.


I'll respond to the rest of your post later, I'm a little busy today.