Remove "Special Release" from counting towards collection

[×Seven of Nine×]

This is the last time I'm posting in here as I'm only going to be ignored, but URs are only released once out of the whole year, for one day. Every year they add 2+ URs to the mix, and it just gets worse and worse every year.

URs are SPECIAL releases, UNreleased pets, meaning they SHOULDN'T be required for a complete collection.

If it means anything, I've been reading your posts and understanding you. I've just been sooo busy with work and unable to participate in this thread.

Oh don't worry, that statement wasn't directed at you.
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I've been posting and understanding me.

[ChaseTheSun]

it's a check mark

no support

it's a check mark

support

Having a toggle in the archive for more than just species would be beneficial for everyone. The people who say it's "easy mode" to not include URs in a full collection can still show off their complete collections with the URs. They still hold those bragging rights. It is still an achievement to see that check-mark. It's just that adding more categories gives other people the chance to see check-marks as well. There aren't an infinite amount of certain pets and not all people have the time nor resources to get a hold of high demand, difficult to get pets. If it's just a check-mark then it shouldn't matter if people with smaller goals get to see it, too.

[CHINARIZING]

I wanna voice more of my opinions here. I apologize if this comes off as rude or anything, but I do not want to target the individual. Just the actions, and the attitudes expressed here.

I feel like, especially with Seasonal's input, even if CS staff don't have more power in suggestions, they can and still influence others purely because of their power. When someone sees a staff member, with a specifically colored name to draw attention to their role, they're immediately drawn to whatever they have to say. Yes, in theory a staff member has no more power than another regular member in forums, but that's not how it is in practice. We're still gonna be drawn to whatever they say, and because of their knowledge of CS, we're more likely to be influenced by what they say.

And what Seasonal said here, and what others have echoed, is that somehow collecting without URs is "easy." I still don't have a 2008 pet. The most valuable pets I have for trade are worth half an MA at most, and they're low-demand. I can't imagine how difficult it'd be for someone who started off similarly to me to gain a full collection. This isn't a casual game anymore. It's a hardcore game. Removing URs from the necessity of a complete collection just allows this hardcore game to be softened a little bit, and give people to finally see that they've, indeed, by the standards of the site, fulfilled the game's goal.

Yes, there are other playstyles, like mine. I just aim to collect my WL and other cool-looking pets. But that doesn't mean that people looking to get that checkmark on a full collection without URs should be discounted. All-in-all, people who don't aim to have a completely full collection (minus stores) are shoved to the wayside in the game. Those without the URs, which are all worth upwards of dozens of 2009 rares at their minimum, are ignored because the ones with such valuable pets will get their effort "discounted" somehow. As if we need to be constantly grinding to be worth the site's attention. This is not to say the work to get such valuable pets are just nothing, that it's "just a pixel sparkledog site," it's definitely awesome. But this is not the way to go by only considering those with the best pets.

Hope this is coherent. Again, I just wanna speak as someone who isn't exactly "rich" in CS terms lol

[Lanayru]

And what Seasonal said here, and what others have echoed, is that somehow collecting without URs is "easy." I still don't have a 2008 pet. The most valuable pets I have for trade are worth half an MA at most, and they're low-demand. I can't imagine how difficult it'd be for someone who started off similarly to me to gain a full collection. This isn't a casual game anymore. It's a hardcore game. Removing URs from the necessity of a complete collection just allows this hardcore game to be softened a little bit, and give people to finally see that they've, indeed, by the standards of the site, fulfilled the game's goal.

(Snipped the reply a bit to avoid a super long quote)

To be entirely fair, I don't think anyone here is trying to claim (at least intentionally) that a full collection without URs would be particularly easy? In fact, my main confusion with the whole removing URs boils down to the fact that... well, it wouldn't make the process any easier. I genuinely understand not wanting to pay absurd amounts for pets just for collection's sake (it's part of why I personally don't aim for a full collection - I don't want to pay myself sick for pets I don't otherwise care for) but that's absolutely not an UR-only issue.

I guess my question is moreso what makes URs special compared to other valuables and lists in this sense? I'm genuinely asking because there very well may be something that's not clicking in my brain here (and if that is the case I'm sorry, I promise I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse lol), but I just kind of... don't see the point. Yes, we should have more collection toggles in general (which should honestly be its own suggestion at this point because I'd 100% support that!) but I just genuinely fail to understand how removing URs from the specific category of Full Collection would really benefit people when it will still remain 'unattainable' without owning a decent amount of on-site valuables.

[Seasonal]

It seems like the suggestion has kind of shifted away from the original post. My lack of support is because by definition, a complete collection would be… well, a *complete* collection. Not a complete collection minus X or Y or Z. And like Lanayru said, there are plenty of pets that are hard to obtain that aren’t URs, so I don’t understand the logic behind only removing URs, special releases, etc.

It’s kind of a catch-22 because if I don’t post, people voice frustration that staff aren’t involved in things, but when I do post people get upset that my colored name brings influence to the conversation. It’s hard to find a balance, but I try to speak as someone who has been here since 2008 and didn’t become a mod until late 2016. So I had 8 years of playing the game “normally” and that’s where my opinions come from. ^^

[Bilaz]

I think I understand this now.

I originally posted here a while back saying that I don’t see the difference between UR pets and regular OMGSR pets. I didn’t see what seperated a Moonswirl from an UR Galaxy Cat.

I do now
It’s the date that is different.

If you’re collecting 2008 pets you’re going for high value pets to begin with,
but if you’re collecting this year’s pets that’s a lot of monthlies and event pets. It’s fun and achievable to collect those. I understand that it’s really discouraging to have your completed year checkmark taken away because we have UR pets every year. There’s no casual collection achievement this way.

[Tiger]

Definite support! At the end of the day, a collection really varies depending on the individual's preferences-- some people count store pets, others don't, etc. That already makes collecting a very subjective thing and people's goals are celebrated on the forums regardless of how they define them.

Here's why:

1. Some parts of the collection, ie store pets and URs, just aren't feasible to obtain via regular gameplay by design, and the official collection should reflect that.
You're not *supposed* to get both URs on December 18. You're not even supposed to get trading fodder equivalent to said both URs. The traditional CS gameplay revolves around having a combination of pets that can be used to trade for missing outcomes.

2. Not counting special releases doesn't disvalue that accomplishment.
Collecting all the special releases is absolutely a challenge and accomplishing it should be celebrated! Not counting URs in the official collection isn't going to make that achievement any less impressive, just like obtaining all the store pets is still a fantastic achievement.

3. I'm not even going to debate whether or not getting a full collection is "too easy" because whether it is or isn't is irrelevant. It's a childrens site, accomplishments are wonderful whether or not they're "official", and mostly importantly, the archive should reflect a goal that is ultimately accessible to all players regardless of age or financial status.

PS: we could always consider collecting the URs and store pets to be kind of a New Game +? Maybe a different color checkmark for each category? That way everyone gets the recognition they want.

[-Starchild.Keith-]

My lack of support is because by definition, a complete collection would be… well, a *complete* collection. Not a complete collection minus X or Y or Z.

I want to say I'm not angry but I'm tired and my tone is just everywhere so I apologize in advance.

So then store pets should technically count in a complete collection. They all share the same archive, so why single out just those?

Store pets sell at a set price in the store for a few months, and then people might sell them for 5 more the next year or so- if they bought for 25, they sell for 30.

I do not even want to think how much actual money people spend on URs and other ridiculously hard-to-get pets. This is a kid's website, but it's starting to be aimed at people who have money. I joined because I wanted to collect pets and have fun, but now it's an almost cutthroat economy. If I saw the site as it is now, there is NO way I would join unless I was rich.

I could probably buy an entire year of store pets cheaper than a UR, regardless of year, with the exception of the first few years because those pets have gone BEYOND ridiculous in rarity and demand.

[Seasonal]

My lack of support is because by definition, a complete collection would be… well, a *complete* collection. Not a complete collection minus X or Y or Z.

I want to say I'm not angry but I'm tired and my tone is just everywhere so I apologize in advance.

So then store pets should technically count in a complete collection. They all share the same archive, so why single out just those?

Store pets sell at a set price in the store for a few months, and then people might sell them for 5 more the next year or so- if they bought for 25, they sell for 30.

I do not even want to think how much actual money people spend on URs and other ridiculously hard-to-get pets. This is a kid's website, but it's starting to be aimed at people who have money. I joined because I wanted to collect pets and have fun, but now it's an almost cutthroat economy. If I saw the site as it is now, there is NO way I would join unless I was rich.

I could probably buy an entire year of store pets cheaper than a UR, regardless of year, with the exception of the first few years because those pets have gone BEYOND ridiculous in rarity and demand.

I personally don’t agree with store pets not being part of a complete collection; I think they should count, and I won’t consider my own collection complete until I have all of them.

I think rarity and value is a bad baseline to determine whether pets should count towards a complete collection because again, it’s not just URs that are worth a lot; the nons and the Joker are worth a lot too and they’re worth a lot because they’re old. It just doesn’t make sense to me to pick and choose which pets count and which pets don’t because URs and older pets are both obtained in the same manner at this point. I was around when certain Malk dragons were only worth a September, and those are special releases. So not counting them just doesn’t make sense to me.

[Hollypaws]

but special releases are just what they're called- special releases. with pets like the july lioness or the august pps, that's one thing. those pets were put into normal litters, so it only makes sense that in order to have a full collection of 2012 pets, you need those two outcomes from their respective litters even if they're ridiculously harder to get now than they were back then . with urs, most, if not all become OMGSR by the time they have a rarity, and even if they drop to VR the demand will still be incredibly high for most of them. even if a casual player is lucky enough to get one out of the 2-3 URs for say, 2024, they might not be able to get the rest of them unless they really, and i mean REALLY started stockpiling pets from 09-08 for the remaining pets. the ur pumpkin pie from 2021 alone can go for around 2 nons from a cursory search... and that's over 150+ 2009 rares or 12+ mid advents! it's nowhere near reasonable of a goal for children, let alone casual players who don't have the time, money, or understand the quite frankly over-complicated trading economy on the site in order to get a few bonus pets.

PS: we could always consider collecting the URs and store pets to be kind of a New Game +? Maybe a different color checkmark for each category? That way everyone gets the recognition they want.

if we must keep them as a qualifier, why not just do what tiger suggests?