Buster2918 wrote:Darkcloud! wrote:Why do people keep insisting that users are saying they are "owed rares" when the actual posts from other users are about the chance to click on one/see one at all on their page over the course of a pound open, and the disparity between those who have the means for faster internet connection, spare time, and a desktop computer and those who don't, and how it could be addressed.
Genuinely curious as to why the words keep getting turned into trying to make users sound ungrateful and demanding and to dismiss the valid concerns of people brought up around this just being a band-aid on the wider issue of openings that disproportionately distribute pets.
Hi, sorry I was offline for a while doing irl stuff but now I can respond and hopefully clear up anything for you. People keep bringing up an issue that is not meant for this, and that is that they do not often see rares, let alone get one. The thread is about how often the pound should open and what changes can be made to alleviate the pound closing in an instant, more pets or more openings throughout the day to make up for quick pound runs. A lot of what I see is just people complaining that they do not get a rare pet. That's tough, trust me I know, but it happens to all of us. RNG does not care about fairness and making sure everyone sees a rare on their page, that is why it is RNG...
(I should also mention that slow internet, availability to check CS, and owning mobile/desktop is not CS's problem, it is the user's situation, which CS cannot control. I would only blame them for website lag as that is in their control and their responsibility to address and manage.)
This isn't about the greed for rares or hunt of them within the pound, it's about how the pound's system is inherently unfair and puts new players at a disadvantage to experienced players, especially those who make sure they know what to expect via the pound's next opening folder.
In my opinion I think it would be best if everyone got a random pet, or had to pick from mere silhouettes, removing any visibility of pound pets altogether and putting experienced players who can recognize pets visually at the same standing as new players who cannot recognize pets visually.
If the point of the pound is to redistribute pets, as is often accompanied by the comment "most people wont even see rares!!" as a non-constructive response to "our system isn't fair to begin with", then this is not only equally as effective but removes an unnecessary advantage that has always existed and should cease to exist in favor of making sure CS treats its userbase equally.
Equality matters, even in a simple matter like this. Fairness matters.
I've noticed that those arguing against blind picking aren't actually saying why the idea is unconstructive or why they think the suggestion would not improve the system, rather just saying vaguely "I don't like it" and "it's not really unfair" when the evidence says otherwise. I have actually yet to see a retort including any supporting evidence to their own claims on that front, that blind picking would not improve the system towards fairness and equality. It's just been attempts to contradict the idea that experienced players are in slight advantage, without supportive reasoning.
Unconstructive refusal to change is pointless, "the old system is good" is not a good enough argument to refute the possibility of trying things in a new way, when plenty of evidence is suggesting this change would benefit many users without (per their own arguments) taking anything away from experienced players. If the experienced players have no advantage now, what's the point of contradicting a change that you claim will not affect you? Where's the reasoning to explain why these users think blind picks would be somehow worse for anybody? If you're claiming that all users are random picking anyway and most wont get rares- which we all agree is true- how does a blind pick affect them at all?
All it does is ensure there's no gap between experience and inexperience.
The only way I can see is "experienced players who recognize pets will be able to pick them out of the pool they get", but the unsung context is "new players who can't recognize pets will not be able to make an educated pick" (at least, not with milliseconds to choose). If everyone got a random pet, or perhaps even could only see a silhouette, the advantage of those players is taken away. The pound page that allows players to see what will be in the next opening wouldn't need to go (since this perspective is repeatedly ignored in favor of defending that particular feature), since seeing what's coming wouldn't make you any more likely than any less-aware user to recognize it in a pool. Thus, regardless of what does or does not appear in anyone's given pool from the pound, everyone would have an equal chance that doesn't currently exist with how the pound works at the moment.
Putting aside time zones, accessibility, mobile or desktop access, slow internet, and user availability, all which I agree CS cannot control, what I am suggesting is absolutely under CS's management. It's something they are more than capable of remedying and the imbalance exists as a consequence of the pound system's intentional design, in spite of the fact that this consequence may not have been foreseen it still needs to be addressed.
A real defense can only be made by making a claim, providing your evidence, and connecting your evidence to your claim through reasoning- not baseless claims without supporting information to defend said claims, or a simple disapproval without further discussion.
Here's an example: The current system favors experienced users (claim). Few newer users will be able to recognize pets they might want or value and few users new or experienced know you can check what is coming in the next pound opening, while experienced users are able to recognize pets they might want or value as a consequence of their time here (evidence). Since experienced users can recognize pets and inexperienced users cannot, the experienced user is at an advantage regardless of what appears in their pool, which makes the system inherently inequal and thus unfair- removing the ability to see and thus recognize pets would put both experienced and inexperienced players on the same ground (reasoning).
I'd like to see someone make a case for the other standpoint: keeping visibility. Only one that genuinely takes in account and acknowledges the advantage that currently exists in the divided gap of experience, and gives constructive criticism to why a blind pick would be unfavorable to equality among the userbase for both experienced and inexperienced players.
