Suggestion + Poll | Make "Only C$ offers" group option

[bfdi]

Feel like this will be more damaging to the economy and especially for newer players

theres nothing wrong with someone wanting a specific offer for specific pets

[LiaTsu]

This suggestion irks me. Im fine with adding an “only for wishlist or c$” but “only for c$” would be so damaging to the trading economy. Not everyone can spend money. And many times Ive been able to sway ppl who had pets in “c$ offers only” groups with good ole wishlist. I feel like theres so many pets I wouldve never managed to get after lots of trading hard work if people could lock them to “c$ only”

[Lex.]

This suggestion irks me. Im fine with adding an “only for wishlist or c$” but “only for c$” would be so damaging to the trading economy. Not everyone can spend money. And many times Ive been able to sway ppl who had pets in “c$ offers only” groups with good ole wishlist. I feel like theres so many pets I wouldve never managed to get after lots of trading hard work if people could lock them to “c$ only”

It's either them having to decline offers they don't want vs getting offers they want. There isn't much problem there. If someone is dead set on getting only c$ for their pet, a c$ lock isn't going to damage anything?? It is important to respect boundaries, and trying to coerce someone into taking a trade that they specifically never stated they wanted just "irks" me.
Just find someone else who has that pet you want to sell your own pets for c$, anyone can do it if they trade fairly. This is no different from item only offers on pets or pet only offers on items.

[LiaTsu]

Its not coercion if I overpay for something which makes the person really happy…. Its about flexibility. My “c$ shop” is flexible and often used for regular trades too…. If you’re not flexible write it in your rules. I always read the rules.

[bark]

This suggestion irks me. Im fine with adding an “only for wishlist or c$” but “only for c$” would be so damaging to the trading economy. Not everyone can spend money. And many times Ive been able to sway ppl who had pets in “c$ offers only” groups with good ole wishlist. I feel like theres so many pets I wouldve never managed to get after lots of trading hard work if people could lock them to “c$ only”

Having a "Trading for wishlist pets/c$" idea is a neat additional option (since we have one for pets and items) but with your logic, this can be used for an argument against wishlist locking a pet. Not everyone is going to have a pet on a trade partner's wishlist, not everyone is going to have C$.

It can be frustrating, I get it. There's many times I couldn't send a trade for a pet wishlist-locked and had 0 wishlist pets to offer. Unfortunately not everyone is going to be flexible, that's how it is when playing an online game with others /Nm

[LiaTsu]

-snip-

Having a "Trading for wishlist pets/c$" idea is a neat additional option (since we have one for pets and items) but with your logic, this can be used for an argument against wishlist locking a pet. Not everyone is going to have a pet on a trade partner's wishlist, not everyone is going to have C$.

It can be frustrating, I get it. There's many times I couldn't send a trade for a pet wishlist-locked and had 0 wishlist pets to offer. Unfortunately not everyone is going to be flexible, that's how it is when playing an online game with others /Nm

First off, thank you for the tone tag.
I understand what you’re trying to point out here. Like I said I’m all for a “Trading for Wishlist Pets/Items/C$” option. However I feel like only wanting wishlist pets, or atleast one wishlist pet, is different than only wanting C$. You don’t need to spend real money to have a multitude of pets. You don’t need to be a mastermind of making people fork c$ over to you to have a multitude of pets. If you don’t have someone’s wishlist pets, oh well, that’s life. But being unable to trade due to not having c$ somehow feels like it stings more, no? I want to reinstate that there’s nothing wrong with wanting C$. But heres a scenario that could, for exemple, happen if c$ locking became reality : someone with a monopoly on a huge chunk of high demand pets, who you could previously get from either giving them wishlist they really wanted or overpaying, is now locked behind c$ only. A lot of people want the pet and would otherwise have the means to overpay in pets for it, but now no longer has access to a big portion of the market because they don’t hoard c$. I feel like it would take the fun of trading out of it and rather just feel like I went to costco to drop a couple of real dollars. Idk if my scenario or metaphor makes sense to others but I hope it does.

(I would also like to apologize for my first post’s wording. I’m autistic and struggle with using the appropriate wording to communicate a certain tone and in hindsight I did come off as aggressive which wasn’t the intention)

[The Last Raven]

Support.
Not sure why people are against this stating it would ruin the economy.

If someone offers pets for a pet I only want c$ then I am not going to accept the trade. Having the lock just helps me not get those offers in the first place. That's like saying the WL only lock shouldn't be a thing because what if people don't have WL pets to offer. That's kind of the point. I don't want things that I don't want.

[purin]

support <3

[jprspereira]

Support!

[Ebony Stardust]

It's exactly the same as the wishlist lock, people already ask for C$ only on their pets as they see fit, they have no obligation to trade for something they don't want (no matter how frustrating that may be to "poor" players), and this suggestion simply makes it easier to enforce.

I support this suggestion