[IMPLEMENTED] Mark store pets as store pets

[Imabox]

Well I think it's been pretty much decided that there would be no benefit to removing their tag completely, however I still personally like the idea of getting their own tag (it might not be terrible for Customs to get their own tag as well if only just so people know what it is, but that's not really too important to the argument and is really up to the staff members if they'd like that). I mentioned that with the initial introduction to new tags people will probably freak out, but the novelty would wear off and it'd eventually stop.

If a new store pet comes out and it also has the same tag as an older store pet it will lose the feeling of "my pet has a special tag!" feel to it. The point of it would just to separate Store Pets from regular pets. Since the argument is that Store Pets are not necessary for a complete collection it would just allow people to physically see that they're different because they wouldn't have the normal tag other pets have.

As DaDwarf and Elemental mentioned the nice thing about them having the normal rarity tag is it allows people to know how valuable the Store Pets actually are. Although I don't see an issue with removing the rigidity about the Store Pet's worth and allowing more "offer what you want" type of things. Mostly since even if a Store Pet is only a VR it is still worth more than anything from it's year (and will increase in value) just because they'll never be re-released. So their OMGSR, VR, or Rare tags don't really make a big difference on their value. But that's just my own opinion and view on the matter.

Anyway I'd love to hear other opinions on Store Pets getting their own rarity tags.

[lil rascal]

I would personally vouch for an added tag much rather then removing rarity tags, the rarity tags help with keeping the store pets and their worth relateable. Remove the rarity and people dont know what to pay. Now at least people still know that an omg so rare should (obvs?) be worth more then a very rare store pet?



Also i wanted to add that there are def people who dont collect store pets or consider them part of a complete colllection, same goes for the URs.

I'm definitely more down for this, and was just about to mention that. Now that the skelebun went omgsr we know it's rare than we first thought. Without that it would probably still have been stuck on it's tier, right? So it doesn't make sense to remove that altogether...

And there is definitely different ways of viewing complete collections. I don't view URS as a complete collection, because they're so hard to obtain. Others don't view the store pets as one. Personal decisions for that.

I agree with this, I don't think store pets rarity tags should be removed but an additional tag to say they are store pets sounds interesting. Personally I'm not surprised about the skelebun going OMGSR, I've suspected for a long time that store pets are a lot rarer than they are usually treated as. Since the rarity system update it has never made sense to me that a VR that is never going to be released is considered to be worth just a normal release older rare that is re-released every Dec 18. Even if it's a recently retired store pet the VR label makes it clear there are less of them in active accounts than a '10 rare. I think CS trading ideas failed to update when the rarity system was changed & I don't really see what the problem is with having this confirmed, it's not like they're the only OMGSRs on the site.

[arabella !!]

I agree that store pets also deserve their own tag.

[nickjr]

First post has finally been updated! Took me a solid hour |D I still suggest reading through the thread but I hope I provided a good super-overall summary in the first post.

You'll notice I didn't list pros/cons explicitly under "YES" METHODS; instead, I included "Method-specific" things under "NO" REASONS as "cons". The "pros" for most of them are basically just the overall "it'll let users know that these aren't considered part of a full collection" thing.

Do we still want to discuss this?

I do want to say that a lot of the previous discussion before Nick's thing was posted kept on blurring "no rereleases at all" with the explicit methods. The way I saw it (and this is now reflected in the first post), the main issue quickly became "Do we rerelease store pets AT ALL?" but people kept arguing against specific methods when I think they were really arguing against any method of rerelease. Case in point: WASSAP's suggestion made perfect sense (if you're going to use the "but it's unfair to people without a lot of C$ argument", how about you apply that to regular store pets...). The only thing to argue against was that it would rerelease store pets AT ALL--which is a separate, bigger issue (one which we now have an answer to from Nick, so no more discussion on that).

OTL

I also want to say this now:

When we talk about moving the store pets into their own separate archive, many of you seem to be thinking of the immediate results. Of course if we do anything with the store pets they'll have a massive demand spike, that's just what happens. When new store pets are released, demand spike. When the skelebun became OMGSR? Demand spike. All of this will/has eventually calmed down every time it happened, and everything just went back to normal after 2 weeks or so. If we moved the store pets into their own archive, demand would rise by a lot, but a few weeks later it would just be "oh, yeah, the store pets have their own archive. Cool."

Of course, I could always be wrong, maybe the demand would rise and stay there but I doubt it. Just my two cents :')

If CS had an abusable Like button, I would give this 1k+ Likes. Even the Black Advent has had its up and down periods, right?? Right???? What about equimagine's equines? New URs? Heck, just monthly outcomes that end up uncommon or rare?????

[gallifrey falls.]

@nickjr, You make a good point; demand always fluctuates, so doing something with the store pets might calm down after a bit. But it might not too - pets like the BA, Raven, Cerbs, etc, have high points and low points - but generally are always in demand in some way. I feel like the store pets might go the same way. If they're given a separate place, non-list store pets that are already popular, like the 2011 Gryphons, could spike in demand and stay that way.

It all depends on what the community thinks though, and if the staff agrees - it could be that moving them doesn't do much at all.

[Imabox]

This isn't really adding a contributing post or idea, but I wanted to point out that I really enjoy the updated front post. I think it really helps point out the important conversations.

Although I kind of feel like the "YES" METHODS should go before the REASONS because the methods is more about all the different topics that are being discussed while the reasons is about one of the topics just in more detail. Just a possible suggestion? Either way I still like how it looks.

[Simon]

Sorry but I don't support any of these ideas. I think a lot of this discussion is taking place under the assumption that every CS user is going for a complete collection and that just simply not the case. Every user has the ability to decide what pets they want to obtain / trade for. No one is obligated to collect every single pet, we have the ability to decide how to collect. I don't really see a need to remove them from the archives or any of the wishlist suggestions. They are listed under "Store Pets" and under the year they were released which makes complete sense.

Rarity tags are important, even for store pets. Custom pets don't have them because there is only one of them in the entire game. You can not compare them to this situation at all. It's still very useful to be able to compare the quantity of store pets to other rare pets (and other store pets). Store pets will continue to be released every other month so it's not like we will have a time where every single store pet goes OMG So Rare, as we will always have more recent store pets that are more common. I think it would get very confusing if the most recent store pets had nothing to distinguish them from one of the first store pets.

I see no need for a special marker on store pets if you can simply check the archive and see that it is a store pet? Sure it can't hurt but I don't think it's urgent or necessary.

Basically, I think the fact that store pets are listed separately in the archives as they are now is enough distinction and is working relatively well. I know a lot of you disagree but I just don't see the need for any of these changes.

[ElementalInsanity]

Nah, I definitely agree with you, Simon. I don't feel that there's a need to separate them in the archives when they already have their own section. That works well enough, and frankly has since the beginning hasn't it?

I also agree and I'm glad someone else put into words about the rarity tags. Can't say it much better than you did, honestly.

I'm pretty... idk, indifferent to having a special store pet tag, honestly? I'm fine without one and keeping them as they are, I won't mind if we do end up having one to distinguish them from other pets. I'll admit it would be more helpful, and if everyone really feels something needs to be done then I feel this would be the best course of action than anything else.

[nickjr]

@Simon I wasn't thinking of all of CS, but rather just the people who are going for complete collections. I don't know if that's the majority of CS, but as far as I can tell, it's a pretty big part of CS (i.e. maybe not that big %-wise, but pretty big in terms of raw numbers. Quantity has a quality of its own here). I wasn't thinking of e.g. the people who only hoard, the people who go for only designs that they like, etc; I was only thinking of the collectors, of which the raw number seems to be pretty high?

To the collectors, there is nothing that lets them know that store pets aren't meant to be part of a collection. The way I see it is that there's a site-implied definition of a "full" collection, and then there are user definitions of "full" collections, and then there's the admin-suggested definition of a "full" collection--which I doubt many users are aware of. User definitions of "full" collections are... just user definitions. You can discount URs. You can discount spiders. You can discount some Halloween pets (like I do; the artists are too good at making scary Halloween pets OTL). You can discount 08s. These are, for lack of better wording at 1 AM in the morning, conscious user decisions to not include pets in a full collection.

But what about people who discount nothing? Then they're gonna go for everything that's addable to the wishlist. What does the label "Store Pets" in the archives convey? "People bought them with real money" and... nothing else? People bought them with real money, so they're worth quite a bit. Okay, so they're hard to get like the other pets in the archives.

I'm not sure how to explain it. The site-implied definition of a full collection is that you get everything in the archives. I don't see how the site-implied definition of a full collection can be anything else. All pets that users individually decide not to include are... not implied by the site. You don't get that green checkmark in the archives if you don't have the pet (this is probably the only official feature that's geared towards collecting--but it is geared towards collecting, because I don't see what other purpose it can serve. That choice of a green checkmark is just the cherry on top). You can add the pet to your wishlist if you want to look for users who have it, and it pops up in trades like all other pets. It looks like just any other pet that you need for a collection.

I don't know. It really bothers me that we've got admin endorsement of the fact that store pets should be considered a separate collection when they look like they belong in the same collection as literally all other archived pets. As a result, users treat them as part of the same collection even though this was not intended by Tess.

I'm also thinking of this: How many times over the years have we had people suggest or ask if there exists an auto-add feature for the wishlist for every last pet in the CS archives? And similarly for the suggestion to show "You already own this pet" in trades? Clearly a lot of people adopted the "gotta catch them all" mentality. (Of course both suggestions should remain denied for the reasons that they've been denied. That's not my point. My point is more focused on the users and their intentions, not the features.) Before they get hardcore, they're just adding everything they can to their wishlist and/or they're only or primarily looking for pets they don't have.

Re: store pet tags
One thing mentioned when this was brought up was possibly just adding it to existing pet pages. So not taking away the existing rarity tags. One implementation could even be something closer to the PPS links we have on pet pages. Since when was this suggestion mutually exclusive with keeping existing rarity tags??

All that being said, I can definitely see why changes shouldn't be implemented (and I added your reasoning to the first post). I won't raise much of a fuss (... well, what I consider a fuss) if you guys decide no even though I personally want some sort of change, even if it's just as small as some "These pets are not considered part of a full collection" line in the archives.

edit: CS has been dominating my attention for the last 8 hours lol I tried to start working at 5 PM and only now have I finally finished an assignment that took me a grand total of 1 hour... and that's all I accomplished in the last 8 hours orz don't follow my example, lovely people, no matter how much you love CS
good night; I probably (hopefully) won't be back for another 16 hours

[Simon]

Yeah I just wanted to state my opinion on the topic ^^ I think everyone's ideas are valid here in one way or another. I'm just speaking from my perspective as a player.

I do see your point but at the same time I think the reason most users want to own full collections is so that they can own every single pet released. I doubt that is going to change no matter how many changes or distinctions we make. There will always be users who claim they have "real" or "fully" complete collection bc they have a complete store pet collection. Therefore, users will be seeking these pets regardless. If anything I would worry separating them would make store pets even more desirable.

I guess it just seems odd to me to have a statement on the archives saying "This is a complete collection, this isn't, etc." As a user who isn't going for a complete collection I guess it just feels odd to me bc having it there would almost make it seem like the site is endorsing that as the right way to collect (or encouraging it). I guess my question is why is it so important to define what a "true" complete collection is? At the end of the day if a user wants to collect every pet in the game they are going to try for that regardless. If a user wants to collect every pet minus the store pets and URs they are totally free to do that as well. The archive is supposed to be....well just that, an archive of every pet released. It's not meant to serve as a checklist of every pet you must own.