Pound lag getting worse?

[ROX.mp4]

I don't normally comment on this stuff, but for some reason I decided to this time from the perspective that some of you have said some stuff that really.... doesn't make sense. Take this as a mini reminder from someone who is also mildly annoyed by how long it takes to bring the pound page up(so I get how you feel is what I'm saying). Some of you have been complaining about missing out on really good outcomes... well, the pound was NOT set up to get you really good pets. It was set up so that pets from banned users and pets that people no longer wanted would stay in circulation basically(or such is my understanding). You don't go into a shelter expecting to find a pure bred papillon, you go in expecting to find a mutt, and then, on a rare occasion, you might just find that pure bred papillon, but it's not at all a common occurrence. All I'm saying is, don't complain that you only got a common, that's all most of us get when we go in there. Anyway, I know my wording may have gotten a bit blunt there, this was meant to come across a lot friendlier than it likely did.

I think it isn't the fact that people are getting uncommon - below, I think its the fact the site lags so much that there's no chance for anything else. Of course you aren't going to get something nice every single pound but the issue comes when half of the users online can't get into the pound at all due to the lag. Using the analogy you used, if you go to shelter expecting to get a pet, but then a crowd rushes before you and tramples over you and when you enter; you're left with no pets to choose from and leave empty handed. Then this keeps happening at nearly every shelter you go to, of course you're going to have some grievances with how the shelter handles these issues! From what I've seen the people who are complaining about uncommon and below pets are just really upset that the lag is keeping them back from even a chance at something more and is ruining the experience of pound. I think that's the general consensus at the moment. Not tryna sound mean or anything I just kinda wanted to clear up how I (and many others I think) feel about this issue! anyones allowed to add on how they feel as well just in case im not covering all bases here cuz I know im prolly not lol

[Echo Revna]

-

[Cloverstream]

I don't normally comment on this stuff, but for some reason I decided to this time from the perspective that some of you have said some stuff that really.... doesn't make sense. Take this as a mini reminder from someone who is also mildly annoyed by how long it takes to bring the pound page up(so I get how you feel is what I'm saying). Some of you have been complaining about missing out on really good outcomes... well, the pound was NOT set up to get you really good pets. It was set up so that pets from banned users and pets that people no longer wanted would stay in circulation basically(or such is my understanding). You don't go into a shelter expecting to find a pure bred papillon, you go in expecting to find a mutt, and then, on a rare occasion, you might just find that pure bred papillon, but it's not at all a common occurrence. All I'm saying is, don't complain that you only got a common, that's all most of us get when we go in there. Anyway, I know my wording may have gotten a bit blunt there, this was meant to come across a lot friendlier than it likely did.

No ones saying they are expecting an omgsr every time, just that they want everyone to have a fair shot and for the lag to not be so bad. I’m not mad when I don’t happen to have any rares on my page. Thats fine. It happens, I am frustrated when I’m exactly on time and don’t get a chance because of lag.

And since this happens every time the “rare” word is dropped in any discussion like this. Yes, people do hope for a /fair/ chance at rares on a game based almost entirely on rarity. I think the sooner we accept this the better. I don’t think there’s a point in tut tuting people for it. I hope that makes sense, it’s about it being fair and actually having a chance. ^^ I hope I’m not coming off as rude or greedy.

[ACat]

I don't normally comment on this stuff, but for some reason I decided to this time from the perspective that some of you have said some stuff that really.... doesn't make sense. Take this as a mini reminder from someone who is also mildly annoyed by how long it takes to bring the pound page up(so I get how you feel is what I'm saying). Some of you have been complaining about missing out on really good outcomes... well, the pound was NOT set up to get you really good pets. It was set up so that pets from banned users and pets that people no longer wanted would stay in circulation basically(or such is my understanding). You don't go into a shelter expecting to find a pure bred papillon, you go in expecting to find a mutt, and then, on a rare occasion, you might just find that pure bred papillon, but it's not at all a common occurrence. All I'm saying is, don't complain that you only got a common, that's all most of us get when we go in there. Anyway, I know my wording may have gotten a bit blunt there, this was meant to come across a lot friendlier than it likely did.

No ones saying they are expecting an omgsr every time, just that they want everyone to have a fair shot and for the lag to not be so bad. I’m not mad when I don’t happen to have any rares on my page. Thats fine. It happens, I am frustrated when I’m exactly on time and don’t get a chance because of lag.

And since this happens every time the “rare” word is dropped in any discussion like this. Yes, people do hope for a /fair/ chance at rares on a game based almost entirely on rarity. I think the sooner we accept this the better. I don’t think there’s a point in tut tuting people for it.

Additionally, it's gotten to the point that people can't even get a pet because their page takes so long to load, which isn't very fair if you're there the second it opens. Obviously recently this has to do with players active:pet available ratio, but nevertheless it's hard to even get a common or below at the moment.

[Not to mention there's been word of the same users suspiciously getting store/high rarity pets each pound and usage of bots to do so...]

[Hawk WillowWatcher]

Additionally, it's gotten to the point that people can't even get a pet because their page takes so long to load, which isn't very fair if you're there the second it opens. Obviously recently this has to do with players active:pet available ratio, but nevertheless it's hard to even get a common or below at the moment.

[Not to mention there's been word of the same users suspiciously getting store/high rarity pets each pound and usage of bots to do so...]

Do you know who?

[ACat]

Additionally, it's gotten to the point that people can't even get a pet because their page takes so long to load, which isn't very fair if you're there the second it opens. Obviously recently this has to do with players active:pet available ratio, but nevertheless it's hard to even get a common or below at the moment.

[Not to mention there's been word of the same users suspiciously getting store/high rarity pets each pound and usage of bots to do so...]

Do you know who?

Not by username no it was mentioned on a different thread, were not allowed to name specific users anyway :<

[Juliamon]

Rather than "users being mad they couldn't get a rare" I think the real criticism should be directed at "there should be more rares" comments. Pets aren't created for the Pound, it's just redistributing existing pets, and the openings have a fairly consistent ratio of rarities so that you have similar odds each time of getting something good (in theory anyway). Having pounds with noticeably more rares would also mean pounds with noticeably fewer rares because the extra rares have to come from *somewhere.*

Also understating what's involved with "just hire more coders" or "get more servers" as it's really not that simple even though it feels like it ought to be. But that's not exclusive to the pound threads.

[himarry 124]

Rather than "users being mad they couldn't get a rare" I think the real criticism should be directed at "there should be more rares" comments. Pets aren't created for the Pound, it's just redistributing existing pets, and the openings have a fairly consistent ratio of rarities so that you have similar odds each time of getting something good (in theory anyway). Having pounds with noticeably more rares would also mean pounds with noticeably fewer rares because the extra rares have to come from *somewhere.*

Also understating what's involved with "just hire more coders" or "get more servers" as it's really not that simple even though it feels like it ought to be. But that's not exclusive to the pound threads.

Personally I think the size of releases should be closer to 10k pets per pound open that way people have a better chance at getting something

[Juliamon]

Rather than "users being mad they couldn't get a rare" I think the real criticism should be directed at "there should be more rares" comments. Pets aren't created for the Pound, it's just redistributing existing pets, and the openings have a fairly consistent ratio of rarities so that you have similar odds each time of getting something good (in theory anyway). Having pounds with noticeably more rares would also mean pounds with noticeably fewer rares because the extra rares have to come from *somewhere.*

Also understating what's involved with "just hire more coders" or "get more servers" as it's really not that simple even though it feels like it ought to be. But that's not exclusive to the pound threads.

Personally I think the size of releases should be closer to 10k pets per pound open that way people have a better chance at getting something

While that would be nice, there's still a finite number of pets in there. I assume they chose the current opening size based on the expected rate of pets being added to the pound, so that it would not reach a point where the pound simply did not have enough pets in it to open, which is something Tess has stated in the past they don't want to happen: Forum/viewtopic.php?p=116951228#p116951228

[himarry 124]

Rather than "users being mad they couldn't get a rare" I think the real criticism should be directed at "there should be more rares" comments. Pets aren't created for the Pound, it's just redistributing existing pets, and the openings have a fairly consistent ratio of rarities so that you have similar odds each time of getting something good (in theory anyway). Having pounds with noticeably more rares would also mean pounds with noticeably fewer rares because the extra rares have to come from *somewhere.*

Also understating what's involved with "just hire more coders" or "get more servers" as it's really not that simple even though it feels like it ought to be. But that's not exclusive to the pound threads.

Personally I think the size of releases should be closer to 10k pets per pound open that way people have a better chance at getting something

While that would be nice, there's still a finite number of pets in there. I assume they chose the current opening size based on the expected rate of pets being added to the pound, so that it would not reach a point where the pound simply did not have enough pets in it to open, which is something Tess has stated in the past they don't want to happen: Forum/viewtopic.php?p=116951228#p116951228

i personally am of the opinion let it empty then you have a grand opening like once or twice a week, the pound is artificially raising the rairty of pets by people not being able to trade them and i think it is a hinderance to the game.