[IMPLEMENTED] Mark store pets as store pets

[nickjr]

IMPLEMENTED 2018-12-10
Store pets now have the following:

• a tag on their image that reads "C$"
• a link to the C$ store on their profile page that reads "This pet was sold in the store"

You can read the original suggestion below.





Last content update: 2017-March-03
Last update: 2017-March-05 (minor formatting and rewording)

Right now, store pets appear the same as all other pets aside from having much fancier art--and even this comparison doesn't hold true all the time, because we do have simpler but elegant store pets, and we also have some extravagant event pets. This brings up two issues:

1. Store pets in the archives appear under a "Store Pets" tab for their respective years. That's it.
   
   
   1. There's no explanation that these pets will never be rereleased (no, there are still no plans for that), so the question of rereleasing store pets keeps popping up.
      
      
   2. There's also no explanation that Tess intended for store pets to be considered a separate collection (click) or not "part of a normal collection" (click). And if you get a store pet, then you get the same green checkmark as you do for all other pets. So it seems like the de facto default definition of a "full collection" in the CS community includes store pets--i.e. pets that may literally become impossible to obtain one day (compared to pets like the zebras or the Sunjewel, which will always be somewhat available due to rereleases).
2. Beautiful designs and fancy lineart changes aren't enough to distinguish store pets from non-store pets. How are newer users supposed to know that the pretty pets that they want from someone are store pets? You may as well ask them to check the archives for every single pet that they're going to ask from someone else. On top of that, recent store pets often won't have rarities for quite a while, so recent store pets look even more like very pretty missed monthly/event outcomes.

Suggestion: Mark store pets in some way

These options have come up and seem viable (no credit, sorry; a lot of these are amalgamations of ideas and development of ideas):

POLL OPTION: "Store pet markers similar to PPS pet markers (image tag, FAQ link)"

Let's have store pet markers just like our PPS markers:

1. Have "Store" or "Store pet" or something on the pet images themselves, and
2. have a link to a question on this page on every store pet's pet info page
   
   • The question would be something like "Are store pets ever rereleased?" and the answer would be something like "We have no plans to rerelease store pets."
   • Would also be nice to have the other suggested FAQ question below (third quote box)

POLL OPTION: "Separate archives for store pets"

Place store pets in their own archives such that store pets have different colors/icons/etc for the wishlist star and the ownership checkmark

Would also be nice to have a link in these archives to the other suggested FAQ question below (third quote box)

NOT IN THE POLL, oops; consider this a minor addition to both of the above options rather than its own option

Have another question on this page whose answer would let people know that store pets should be viewed as a separate collection* from all other pets

* I wrote "a separate collection" instead of "the full collection" or something similar because I remember what someone said about how it'd be odd for CS to actually define what a full collection is, so I figured that using the wording "a separate collection" would allow people to have their own definitions of a "full collection" without feeling like it's less than/not as good as a site/official definition; there are probably better ways to put that

There was a lot of discussion about other potential ideas, but most were ditched in favor of one or both suggestions above. Feel free to read through the thread or look below to see other ditched ideas.

[nickjr]

These are previous versions of the first post. I'm keeping them here for reference/archive/curiosity purposes only, as indicated by the fact that I crossed everything out.

VERSION 2

Original title: Should we mark store pets as something separate?

I'm crossing out everything about putting store pets back into circulation via any method, because this is no longer an option. Nick confirmed on February 6, 2017 (or an adjacent date, depending on your timezone) that there are no plans to rerelease store pets.

Tess intended for store pets to be considered a separate collection.
Here's another post (2010): "Can't you all just accept that the store pets aren't part of a normal collection?"

Should we make that clearer?

(IDEAS ARE NOT CREDITED. IDEAS COME FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE.
I also suggest reading through the thread; many of these ideas were brought up very early in the thread, even before we got the above word from Nick!)

"NO" REASONS:

• Community might freak out and put store pets upon a pedestal; depending on the method, the community might treat store pets like customs


• Can we really convince the community of the reason behind a change like the ones suggested?


• Don't change the status quo. It's been like this for years (sorta goes with the above). Store pets have always been considered by the community to be part of a collection; why change that now?


• A wishlist is exactly that: a wishlist. Why should it matter what's on the wishlist?


• The archive is exactly that: an archive of all pets ever released to the public (as opposed to private adoptions a.k.a. customs) on CS. The archive isn't a checklist


• People already have different ideas about what's considered a complete collection


• Going for a full collection isn't obligatory anyway, regardless of the definition of "full"; we can play CS how we want; why should the site appear to endorse one playstyle or another?


• Current category in archives is enough


• Method-specific from someone who can buy C$: Would like to find people who have the pet on their wishlist for whatever reason (hardcore collector, like the design, etc) so that the buyer can gift/trade away extras to people who do want store pets


• Method-specific: the other side to the above: would like to be able to find store pets if looking for them!


• Method-specific: Would still like to have a rough idea of what store pets are worth (e.g. Skelebun is clearly pretty dang valuable; would also be good to see which store pets are bought so much that they start out Rare, not Very Rare (RAVEN.)

"YES" REASONS:

• (Mostly with newer players in mind) They look like any other pets in the archive. If you're going for a full collection (before you go hardcore!), you're going for everything that is addable to your wishlist. How are you supposed to know that those store pets aren't considered part of the same collection as literally every other pet in the archive? All they have is the label "Store Pets" and even the label looks the same as all other labels. Literally the only thing that sets them apart is the knowledge that store pets are bought with real money. Okay, they're bought with real money. So? What else does that mean by itself?
  
  ........... I admit that's mostly my train of thought


• Pretty sure there is a large raw number of collectors on CS... it's not like only a handful of users are collecting anyway or something
• May as well put something like "Store pets will never be rereleased" somewhere visible so that people stop asking; they ask either because of greed or because they seriously do not know


• Since we're free to play CS however we want, probably the only collector-oriented features we'll ever have are the current "You own this pet" + the green checkmark... but they are collector-oriented! What other purpose do they serve? And getting that green checkmark for a store pet means something different from getting a green checkmark for any other pet: You get a green checkmark for something that will never be rereleased vs you get a green checkmark for something that either is or will be rereleased


• Method-specific: Just give us some marker of store pets! Lineart changes and beautiful designs don't immediately distinguish a store pet from other pets. Sure, it's easy to find a store pet in the archives if you know what you're looking for--but if you don't know it's a store pet, how are you supposed to know it's a store pet? Especially if it's a recent store pet and therefore does not have a rarity? Especially for new users, who may not be familiar with the store pet release schedule? We can make do, yeah, but why shouldn't store pet recognition be a site-embedded thing, especially when they are "something obtained not by regular adoption"?
  
  
  • For those who are going to point out the "Given to purchaser by: CS Store" thing: that only works for the purchaser and literally will not work for anyone else, aside from residing in the memories of whoever looked at a store pet in the purchaser's hands before the pet went to someone else. And that's a clunky solution. It's like a make-do solution.

"YES" METHODS (can be combined with each other if compatible):

• Remove store pets from the archives entirely
• Remove the "Add to wishlist" feature for store pets
• Put store pets in a separate archive
• Give store pets their own wishlist section (e.g. different star color)
• Remove rarities from store pets
  
  • Reason 1: They're outside of the system that the rerelease deals with. They'll all go OMGSR eventually...
  • Reason 2 (separate from above; can be but not necessarily in conjunction with above): Just remove rarities from them.
• Give store pets their own rarity tag
  
  • Reason 1: Similar to Reason 1 for suggestion above
  • Reason 2 (separate from above; can be but not necessarily in conjunction with above): They're separate pets from everything else
• Keep regular rarity tags on store pets, but put some sort of other marker/tag on them (e.g. an additional bar that looks like the rarity bar; something similar to the PPS thing)
• Add a note in the archive for store pets along the lines of "These pets are not considered part of a complete collection" (with more refined wording)
• Add a note like the above in other places (e.g. page where you buy the pets)

DISCUSSION SHOULD BE ABOUT STORE PETS IN RELATION TO THE ARCHIVES AND/OR STORE PET RARITY TAGS; reading through most of the thread is STILL important, because these topics were brought up early in the thread!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERSION 1

Original thread title: Now that we have an OMGSR store pet

I guess we should seriously start considering if there's anything that can be done to keep them in circulation? Dec 18 happens now because we want to keep older pets in circulation (I swear there's a quote from an admin that is directly about this, but the closest I can find is this), but this only happens for pets that were released for free.

For store pets, if they get released again:

(EDIT2: If you have any better ideas for how to format the list, let me know. And I'll keep up with the discussion but unfortunately I'm swamped with homework due to having a cold + fever this weekend So I probably won't be making lengthy posts

BUT I did want to mention now that although I made this thread in response to the OMGSR rarity, I am NOT suggesting that we bring its rarity down below OMGSR! It's more like... eventually the bunny will literally be almost unobtainable. That point is coming soon. I don't know when it'll come, but it'll probably be soon if the change in rarity tag is any indication. So I figure... if we want to keep it juuuuuust barely in circulation...... Does that make sense? Basically this is a preemptive post because we're not going to get any further hardline indicators of scarcity)

EDIT: Sorry, I think I made the list unclear. I've edited it now. Only the "out of the question" options are the ones we shouldn't be considering at all (unless you have a VERY good modification in mind).
edit3: Credit has been removed because even though I'm fine with BBCode, it takes time that I don't have to use it extensively. Exact phrasing that isn't mine will be in quotes. Also, list items with quotes are weird on mobile. I would know.

MAIN ISSUE: Do we do a rerelease AT ALL or no?

IF YES:

1. Free is out of the question
   
2. Original price is also out of the question
   
3. Pay (any price) for a random store pet has been denied because that's too much like gambling
   
4. Pick and choose a pet defeats the purpose, regardless of price; therefore, also out of the question
   
5. "There is already a solution for the store pet problem. But its not cheap or random. Once a store pet reaches a near unobtainable level, Tess can release those hard to get store pets at preset limited quantities. And the cost of buying would be anywhere from their current C$ value placement to perhaps a little more or less. Once store pets reach high mains, this can be done to keep them in circulation."
   
6. Similar to the above, but banner system (with protections in place against pageload-spamming) with high C$ prices
   
7. "[if] people want the chance they can simply add themselves in a number counter. They will just have to click on entering themselves in it and then the numbers chosen will be randomized."

IF NO:

• Continue to NOT rerelease store pets and instead do NOT treat store pets as part of a full collection with all other pets, but rather as bonuses/relics/a separate collection entirely, as Tess intended in 2009
  
  • Accompanied by doing something to clearly show this, because right now, you're not going to realize Tess's intentions unless you find that post

Gonna try to keep the first post to base ideas only. I will not include thoughts on these ideas unless there's a pretty resounding "no" for an idea (in which case, I'll add "out of the question")
Elaboration on these ideas can be found in posts as well so please read
My own thoughts will be separate from the first post as well, aside from the first four bullet points lol

edit: switched bullets to numbers, sorry

original post (first post was version 1):
In regards to the fifth option: The method of pet distribution is missing

My first thought is that RNG selects (slightly more*) people than the intended number of to-be-rereleased store pets. These people are then technically allowed to buy a specific store pet for a certain very high price (I suggest something significantly higher than "List" price, although not that much higher--basically something that will even account for "typical" overpay levels). Limit 1 purchase per allowed account.

But do we want RNG to choose from all (active) users or should people enter like in the few giveaways that CS has done? What about a C$-on-account metric?

(Also agree that this should probably only be done once store pets are almost totally unobtainable--almost purely for circulation purposes)

* because I doubt every chosen user from RNG will end up buying the store pet, but that depends on what method we use

[Decca]

Store pets are meant to be rare and hard to obtain, that's why we pay actual money to buy them.

However, I would love for them to stay in circulation as well, just so it makes it easier for me and other users to obtain their goals. I think on December 18th, old store pets should be released into the store for an hour to thirty minutes (I think keeping them in for two long would make their rarity drop), and that they should be sold for a bit more then their C$ value. Or instead of a few hours, maybe only release a certain amount? Like, releasing 4 or 5 ravens into the store, and once those 4-5 are gone, there's no more buying them.

[lucky333123]

Store pets should be hard to obtain, however I would like them to stay in circulation too. I rather not have them re-released since it isn't fair to the original buyers.

To make it more fair, I feel like people want the chance they can simply add themselves in a number counter. They will just have to click on entering themselves in it and then the numbers chosen will be randomized. That way there is no bias, but will also allow members to choose whether they want to be inserted into it or not. To prevent cheating by others making multiple accounts, you have to be on CS for a certain period of time before you are allowed to insert yourself. I know it would be unfair to newer users, but it is the only way I can see something to help prevent cheating.

@Monzo The issue with allowing them into the store means that it will not be fair to a lot of members. There are a lot of timezones to take into account, thus it would not really be a fair shot to everyone.

EDIT: Tried to make my view a bit clearer on the issue, but I gave a solution in case Tess or Nick change their minds, though I feel like store pets should not be re-released.

[Decca]

I guess that's true, I always forget about timezones.

I think that would be a better choice to keep them in, but how long would you need to have been a member for? I think 2-3 months is reasonable, but I'd like to hear what you think (since when I do giveaways and such, I don't really require people to be a member for that long, so I really wouldn't know.. I have no experience with it haha).

[nickjr]

Sorry, I think I made the list in the first post unclear. I've edited it now. Only the crossed-out options are the ones we shouldn't be considering (unless you have a VERY good modification in mind).

[lucky333123]

I guess that's true, I always forget about timezones.

I think that would be a better choice to keep them in, but how long would you need to have been a member for? I think 2-3 months is reasonable, but I'd like to hear what you think (since when I do giveaways and such, I don't really require people to be a member for that long, so I really wouldn't know.. I have no experience with it haha).

I feel like the amount of time should be up to Tess and Nick since then no one will know the specific amount of time. If everyone knew the specific amount of time, then people would work around the system. I do however feel like it should be at least a couple of months, if not slightly more. Maybe also have at least 10 posts or something (unless COPPA'ed) to help it be geared towards active members. COPPA members will exempted from having posts for obvious reasons. It would prevent cheating accounts who do not have posts, etc. from entering. I'm not sure if that is too harsh or not?

[DrinaLestrange]

The issue I see with this is that:
1: the pets are worth way more than they were when released so it'd be unfair to sell them at original cost and
2: it isn't fair to make people pay more than the original cost either, especially if they weren't on CS when they were released to have the option to buy them when they came out.

[Obius]

Thank you Nickjr for reviving this. I remember I mentioned this before somewhere. But do not remember exactly where I talked about it.

The only two hurdles was the high C$ price that would be needed (The pets have gone up in value after all and asking less would erode their value) and the distribution. Since the C$ system has no refunds, I argued you would have to buy it directly instead of using C$. So if you missed out at the chance to buy it, you wouldn't be stuck with $60+ in virtual currency.

I imagine this would be more easily distributed with a pre-order system. Here is how I think it would work.

Pet to be re-released is announced in advance. On the day it is available, it is a one per person deal. Once you click purchase, if you were early enough, you are taken to a paypal page to complete the purchase. Otherwise your pending adopt goes to someone else (say after an hour of not completing a transaction).

The price would already be high so I think there would be a chance to buy before they sell out. More than $60 is typical for high mains. And most don't have that much. While many may balk at the price. It is what the pet is worth that you are paying for.

This preorder system keeps the release quantities under wraps. Something Tess may wish not to publically disclose. The only possible indicators of the adoptions running dry is a notice.

If preorders evaporate too fast, some other requirement can be established. Like first dibs to those that buy the most c$, artists that get featured, writers that get some sort of achievement, RPers that had the most creative RP sessions, Poem Winners, Dressup Contests, Giveaway Contests, and many ways to award first dibs on whoever wants.

None of the above will grant free store pets. As this would erode or kill store pet purchases.

[DrinaLestrange]

Wassap, that's not fair to people who have a ton of C$ and can't afford to buy the store pets with cash.....there's a ton of kids on this site, and I personally dont know anyone who has parents willing to pay $60 cash for a virtual pet.