Pound "very rare drought" discussion

[guroboss]

it could be an option to remove the WL indicator even for people who put missing pets on their WL as the WL shows at the top pets you've received recently in trades - if its not there, then its a duplicate (which isn't so bad - you could trade them off or donate them back to the pound)

i think I'm having a hard time understanding this part of your post, so please clarify if i'm misunderstanding, but I think the argument for removing the WL tag is that a lot of people are using the WL feature for trade fodder. by removing the WL tag, it is very likely that a pet I choose randomly would become fodder anyway, which would defeat the purpose of removing the tag on top of punishing people who use the pound to get missed outcomes.

based on the sheer number of pets on site, and the number of pets on a lot of people's wishlists (mine is over 50 pgs long, including a lot of uncommon and below pets and I haven't been very thorough in WLing all the pets I'm missing), it would feel incredibly disappointing to choose a random pet to use as fodder when I could have chosen a pet that would stay in my collection, especially because most of the pets on my WL aren't particularly rare, I just missed them.

[cswolf.]

Popping in to say we will never remove pets from inactive accounts, that's something we are firm about. You would be surprised how often people return to very old accounts.

To give a bit of an update regarding the VR pet supply, we are about half way to the point where we can start releasing VR pets again (at a more realistic drop rate than before of course), so we are getting there slowly but surely. Banned accounts are getting cleared out constantly but as I've mentioned before there are many cases where we can't empty accounts for a while based on the circumstances of the ban.

As someone who has been trying and failing to return to accounts elsewhere after 10+ years, I'm grateful CS's top brass is still firm about this.

I agree! I know that no matter how inactive I go on my account I've had for over 14+ years and curated, that all my pets and items will be back here waiting for me when I return.

[alolan vulpix]

it could be an option to remove the WL indicator even for people who put missing pets on their WL as the WL shows at the top pets you've received recently in trades - if its not there, then its a duplicate (which isn't so bad - you could trade them off or donate them back to the pound)

i think I'm having a hard time understanding this part of your post, so please clarify if i'm misunderstanding, but I think the argument for removing the WL tag is that a lot of people are using the WL feature for trade fodder. by removing the WL tag, it is very likely that a pet I choose randomly would become fodder anyway, which would defeat the purpose of removing the tag on top of punishing people who use the pound to get missed outcomes.

based on the sheer number of pets on site, and the number of pets on a lot of people's wishlists (mine is over 50 pgs long, including a lot of uncommon and below pets and I haven't been very thorough in WLing all the pets I'm missing), it would feel incredibly disappointing to choose a random pet to use as fodder when I could have chosen a pet that would stay in my collection, especially because most of the pets on my WL aren't particularly rare, I just missed them.

I understand it'd be somewhat disappointing to get a duplicate pet, but in the same way that staff have stated the pound is not intended to be a "rares farm" I'm not sure why it has to be a "missed outcomes farm" either, idk I guess I have a much longer wishlist due to being gone for so long and returning (233 right now) so I'm pretty statistically likely to pick a pet I don't already have if it's not super recent lol.

I guess if you wanted to be able to pick out missed outcomes, maybe WL pets could only be indicated if they were VUC or lower? that sounds silly but might work? but then players could just WL every pet LOL. Idk I like the idea of complete potluck pound a lot.

[RoseDust]

I don't really like that idea.. i still need 168 of all horses, 19 of them are EUC and the rest is rare and up.

If you'd want a potluck pound it would be better to just pick a species and not show which alltogether, for example everyone knows about the rainbowmane (sadly) so that still wouldn't be luck, whislisted or not. Same for any pet with a date from 2009. Wouldn't matter if you'd have it on your wishlist, you know it's gonna be rare

[alolan vulpix]

I don't really like that idea.. i still need 168 of all horses, 19 of them are EUC and the rest is rare and up.

If you'd want a potluck pound it would be better to just pick a species and not show which alltogether, for example everyone knows about the rainbowmane (sadly) so that still wouldn't be luck, whislisted or not. Same for any pet with a date from 2009. Wouldn't matter if you'd have it on your wishlist, you know it's gonna be rare

sure, but the star and "on your wishlist" likely speeds up your reaction slightly more (if you are a user with only rares+ on your WL). there are plenty of rare+ pets that are not lists or are hard to spot (i.e., the OMGSR rats). 2009/2008 dated pets or super iconic lists are obviously going to be noticed anyway, but many would be missed without a WL indicator.

idk, I'm not for drastically changing the pound format, I'd just be open to experimental openings to see how people find it