Shooting Stars wrote:I really don't think this is necessary.
The pound isn't a rare farm, and the pound is meant to give pets new homes. Just because some were unlucky (it is all just luck), that doesn't mean to system needs to give everyone rares. And just because some were lucky to get multiple rares, doesn't mean they should be punished in any way.
Shooting Stars wrote:I still stand by what I said last year:Shooting Stars wrote:I really don't think this is necessary.
The pound isn't a rare farm, and the pound is meant to give pets new homes. Just because some were unlucky (it is all just luck), that doesn't mean to system needs to give everyone rares. And just because some were lucky to get multiple rares, doesn't mean they should be punished in any way.I understand by what you mean, I know it's frustrating how some get lots of rares and you get none. Hey, I wish I was able to achieve a rareslist pet, but just because I didn't get one (nor did one even appear), doesn't mean that there should be limits set in place so it can be easier for me to get one. It doesn't work that way. Life isn't fair, and sometimes you have to work a little harder than others, whether that be pixel dogs or a promotion at work.
I believe the Pound is the fairest it can possibly be. Sure, it's not perfect, but I think limits in place is more unfair. And I personally don't think it's right to take from the hardworkers. It's not that I don't "support the less fortunate", but people should be able to adopt as many rares as they please, and be able to keep them, without feeling guilty of being a "power adopter".
There is no way to make every single person happy. Some people do earn more rares than others, but they shouldn't be punished, nor made to feel guilty, just because they have a fast computer/internet.
I do feel incredibly guilty, because I adopted 6 rares this time around (at one point, almost back-to-back, and a 2015 store pet), and I do have a good internet service, and a speedy computer. Feel free to call me a power adopter to my face if you'd like.
There is no way the Pound can be completely fair, except for just removing the Pound altogether (which would be terrible ^_^).
Eaglespirit wrote:I think you misunderstand, this is meant as a suggestion for just the event, the normal pound us decently fair because it gives away a big enough amount at a time.
This would not be a permanent '10 rares only and ever', it would just be for the event.
And I find it funny how you point out the pound is not a rare farm, but support the people who use it as such.
I have no problem with people who get a rare pretty consistently (At one point I got one per week for a while), but when I see people who got tons of rares+ from the event (One person I saw had 16 rares from the event, including store pets and other VRs) that seems a bit unfair to all the other players.
I'm not whining just because I got no rares, I got about 2 dozen wishlist pets I needed anyway, I'm making a suggestion for an otherwise fun event to make it more balanced for players with a split second disadvantage.
Even the few rares I saw I mentally knew I had no chance on my mobile because of how tricky it was to refresh and scroll in time for the opening.
Again, this suggestion is just for the event if it is hosted again. All limits would be lifted after the event ends. It seems a few people didn't catch that :/
(One person I saw had 16 rares from the event, including store pets and other VRs) that seems a bit unfair to all the other players.
Eaglespirit wrote: Like saying a limit would 'punish' those who got rares. How??? For Easter we have a limit for tokens, is that punishment?
What if the token pets they adopted during the event turn uncommon instead of rare? Its the same as someone getting 'unlucky' and getting all 2016 rares from the pound event instead of 2010 rares.
How would that hurt the economy more then people who hoard rares lists? Or never trade pound pets?
Users browsing this forum: Nicnova, Scarlet Janefox and 1 guest