We need your feedback: Bigger, less frequent pound openings?

[duckblind]

If there's anything that could help new players, it's probably making the number of pets on our page smaller so they only have to focus on recognizing a select few, not a high number of options taken away but just enough that it's not overwhelming. I think that would help ALL players, not just the new, old or experienced.

This is a good idea. When I try to see all the pets on the page at once I usually have to zoom out quite a bit which then makes the images a little harder to see. Just one less row would help a lot, especially if it was combined with randomization (and it would also help extend the pound opening, which is one of the biggest problems at the moment).

[The Last Raven]

If there's anything that could help new players, it's probably making the number of pets on our page smaller so they only have to focus on recognizing a select few, not a high number of options taken away but just enough that it's not overwhelming. I think that would help ALL players, not just the new, old or experienced.

This is a good idea. When I try to see all the pets on the page at once I usually have to zoom out quite a bit which then makes the images a little harder to see. Just one less row would help a lot, especially if it was combined with randomization (and it would also help extend the pound opening, which is one of the biggest problems at the moment).

I actually like the sound of this!

[ryomen]

If there's anything that could help new players, it's probably making the number of pets on our page smaller so they only have to focus on recognizing a select few, not a high number of options taken away but just enough that it's not overwhelming. I think that would help ALL players, not just the new, old or experienced.

This is a good idea. When I try to see all the pets on the page at once I usually have to zoom out quite a bit which then makes the images a little harder to see. Just one less row would help a lot, especially if it was combined with randomization (and it would also help extend the pound opening, which is one of the biggest problems at the moment).

big support on this idea

[Silver Tiger~]

If there's anything that could help new players, it's probably making the number of pets on our page smaller so they only have to focus on recognizing a select few, not a high number of options taken away but just enough that it's not overwhelming. I think that would help ALL players, not just the new, old or experienced.

This is a good idea. When I try to see all the pets on the page at once I usually have to zoom out quite a bit which then makes the images a little harder to see. Just one less row would help a lot, especially if it was combined with randomization (and it would also help extend the pound opening, which is one of the biggest problems at the moment).

Big support on this, it seems like the best suggestion so far.

[The Last Raven]

I just want to mention how much I LOVE the 'already taken' signs popping up in real time. It feels so less disappointing than when you click something and then be told it's gone. It also makes it easier for me to decide what to grab.

[Darni]

If there's anything that could help new players, it's probably making the number of pets on our page smaller so they only have to focus on recognizing a select few, not a high number of options taken away but just enough that it's not overwhelming. I think that would help ALL players, not just the new, old or experienced.

This is a good idea. When I try to see all the pets on the page at once I usually have to zoom out quite a bit which then makes the images a little harder to see. Just one less row would help a lot, especially if it was combined with randomization (and it would also help extend the pound opening, which is one of the biggest problems at the moment).

I only joined a year ago, but I big support this. It was a little overwhelming at first trying pound because of so many pets and scrolling made me feel like it would make me lose out on something for not being fast enough

[Kaya]

Neither option really seems to fully address the issue.

If you reduce pound opening to one time a day and increase by 500, it's less pets per day available (Due to reduced openings) and more likely to miss the single opening time. (I can't really process 1.7 times a day, my brain says it's either open, and thus a 1, or not, and thus a .7 )

If it stays the same, there are -more- pets available over the course of the day, so keeping it the same is actually the more logical answer, even though it does nothing to change the problem of them disappearing quickly.

Could the regular times be increased by.. say.. 300? or 250? That would give the 500ish increase spread out over a few openings instead of less pets over less openings.

Someone may have said this already. If they did, I second it, obviously.

[Adamented]

My final reply will just be this:

The only people who like an unfair system are those who have an advantage in it. I no longer think RNG is suitable for this website, if it has respect for its growing userbase as well as it's existing userbase. EQUALITY > RNG

Really amazing how many people managed to ignore the subject of my last reply in favor of making it personal like it's about one person and not the site as a whole making a decision to opt for equality over older-userbase equity.

[Darkcloud!]

My final reply will just be this:

The only people who like an unfair system are those who have an advantage in it. I no longer think RNG is suitable for this website, if it has respect for its growing userbase as well as it's existing userbase. EQUALITY > RNG

Really amazing how many people managed to ignore the subject of my last reply in favor of making it personal like it's about one person and not the site as a whole making a decision to opt for equality over older-userbase equity.

Agree. Personal attacks over the posts stating that they feel the base issue is that the "RNG" setup is not truly a fair rng and changing the frequency of pounds will not solve the underlying issue of the pound have been a reoccurring behavior in this thread.

The interest in changing the pound frequency also can extend to the opinion that the underlying issue is that the site is flooded by users looking only for pets they can trade.... or any other opinion regarding the underlying issues, which I cannot name all of here and naming any of them does not mean I share that mindset, just that I can see that point of view.

[Pallastronomy]

My final reply will just be this:

The only people who like an unfair system are those who have an advantage in it. I no longer think RNG is suitable for this website, if it has respect for its growing userbase as well as it's existing userbase. EQUALITY > RNG

Really amazing how many people managed to ignore the subject of my last reply in favor of making it personal like it's about one person and not the site as a whole making a decision to opt for equality over older-userbase equity.

The pound is quite literally based around RNG. Even if you’ve seen the pets coming up in the opening, even if you know what’s rare and what isn’t, you still can’t guarantee what you get on your page, and you still can’t guarantee you’ll be fast enough to click. The edge of experienced players over newer ones is inherent with having that experience; that’s not something exclusive to CS, and the advantage is still fairly slight all things considered. If anything, your suggestion of blind picks would factor in RNG more, so I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to get at with arguing that it goes against equality.

Even disregarding that, both new and old players would undoubtedly like some semblance of choice as to what pet they pick, even if they definitely aren’t getting something rare; I personally use it to grab missing stuff off my wishlist if I know I’m not getting anything valuable, meaning that at least I got something worthwhile out of it. Removing that ability to choose is undoubtedly just going to leave everyone involved more disappointed a majority of the time

Several already proposed ideas (Name less pets per page to focus on) already are much more effective at helping everyone on paper, so I don’t see why people are so deadset on a solution that will just hinder the more dedicated users and completely drain the fun out of the pound