Adamented wrote: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