Jump to content

KrazyKarp

Members
  • Posts

    1,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KrazyKarp

  1. It may not equal a flood, but you can't deny it would be easier to get pink Sapphires. I doubt many would be using a flood to get blues. However, you don't even need a flood (whatever a "flood" means to you with respect to the AP, it's not very well-defined right now); more importantly, Sapphires being more common + a fix in ratios would result in more picked up and abandoned, like for any other common. No, it wouldn't guarantee a flood, but claiming it would "not help at all" is incorrect.
  2. This is 100% the issue. The AP mechanic itself is not the problem. The issues people experience with pink Sapphires root back to the ratio system being outdated and very broken, in desperate need of an overhaul. Sapphires should've flooded, and perhaps most importantly, Sapphires should have become more common permanently. But the current ratio system is so broken... it'd be difficult. This is also the issue with Gemshards and Cantors, nevermind all the issues unrelated to the birthday release that ratios create.
  3. My thoughts on some things brought up in the thread: 1. CB blues not being in the AP anymore is not at all a big deal. It's one easy-to-grab common you'll have to rely on the biomes for, and hunting in the AP for one specific CB common isn't convenient anyway. Really not worth complaining about. 2. Pinks will gradually become more common as people get their fill. Even so, it's entirely possible they'll still hold some sort of value permanently, unlike other common NRs. And that's honestly refreshing, to have something hold value that isn't just "dive into the biomes and battle other people there". It spreads something valuable to a different part of the site. That's cool. Adds another way for people to trade for what they'd like, too. 3. People with slow internet have always been at a disadvantage. It's not anything new, and it's unfortunate, but it's also not a fixable issue on DC's side. It's not quite fair to say "well we can't do this because some users have slow internet"; if so, then you'd be completely changing how we get eggs from the biomes and AP!
  4. It's the incorrect usage of the word "free" objectively, going by the denotation. There's nothing opinionated about that, I'd hope, because it's based on the objective definition we use all the time. So you can prove that these trades are not free by proof of the definition and thus, are untruthful. That much is true. Whether the untruthfulness is intentional or accidental is dependent on the individual trade, I suppose. As someone coming from a field where we deal with nitty gritty details of logic, that's why the "free for x" trades bother me; they're logically incorrect. At the end of the day it's not that big of a deal though. It just pulls at my brain as a slight annoyance. tl;dr it's incorrect and confusing but not too much of a big deal
  5. As someone who is not at all artistic and thus does not have an eye for the finer anatomical details, drakes look like any other Western to me. The combination of a) being more restrictive and in a restricted breeding pool b) yet at the same time not appearing any more unique than other less restrictive breeds feels like it'd be an unappealing combination to create, because why would you make a drake when you could make it a regular dragon in a much wider breeding pool? Because honestly, drakes look exactly like Westerns to me with very minor differences. And I'm not stating that as fact or anything, I'm stating it as a general source of confusion as someone who is 100% player, 0% artist. The other restricted groups have more obvious appeal in uniqueness of physical differences; two-headeds have, well, two heads. And pygmies are small, which seems like a minor difference but also seems to be quite a popular one. I'm not saying anything in support of or not in support of this suggestion. I'm pretty neutral to it, no matter what I'm going to collect drakes and non-drakes, because I like all the sprites. Sprite requirements is not a topic I'm super involved in, nor do I really deserve to be too involved in because again, not an artist by any stretch of the imagination. That being said, I felt like the perspective of someone who is purely a player and not at all an artist might, I dunno, be helpful or something to drop in here.
  6. It has been added to the sheet (hopefully correctly) for anyone who wishes to view the data; thanks for the ping!
  7. There's never been a complete "play any way you want" feeling on DC. The most notable is limits on CB holidays and GoNs, as well as the raffle, which severely limit how much you can play like you want depending on your goals. I don't understand where people are coming from with "ah good 'ol days when we could play however we wanted without weird mechanics" because it was never true unless you're talking about like, really old days like 2008. But soon after that you start to see different mechanics settle in; 2009 saw the addition of Stripes and thus, the breeding mechanics associated with them. 2009 you also get your first hit of time-based mechanics with Sunsets/rises (so I'd argue the time-based mechanics of the Gemshards isn't even a new concept to begin with). 2010 you get Summon, as well as time-based mechanics with Moonglow/Sunbeam drakes. 2012 is the raffle. And so on. Did people just... expect DC to stop trying out new mechanics, even though it's been doing so since, from what I can tell, the 2008 release of Vampires with Bite?
  8. I guess it's a matter of opinion on how big of an addition it is. New mechanics for only 7/280 breeds plus a new hybrid seems pretty small to me, especially given that they're all for commons/uncommons with the exception of Coppers.
  9. The amount of complaining in here is overwhelming. It's a small addition of mechanics that are a bit tougher than usual. Not much different from the difficulty of getting NDs or Undeads, just some new mechanics that are a bit tougher with the pro of more variety. DC has never been a game of moving quick, so naturally you most likely will not have all of these alts for a bit of time. It's just how the game works. On another note, I do think some larger issues being fixed would help make new releases more manageable, like how 3 eggs per biome has not been enough for a long time now, and ratios have needed an overhaul for a while.
  10. The population is what I meant, yeah. 217/~400,000 is honestly pretty optimistic numbers; that's a ~0.054% death rate across the entire population (obviously a smidge bit higher because population is just under 400k, but probably not by much) which is pretty darn great on the grand scale of the virus, in my opinion. Obviously 0 deaths is awesome but unfortunately, not realistic anywhere. The only thing that would be concerning is if the rate of change with respect to a short amount of time is larger than usual, but I'm not sure if you have access to that data?
  11. What's that denominator for the 216? I'm always cautious of "x number of people in y place have died from covid in z amount of time" when the denominator isn't mentioned. Examples: 216/300 is scary, 216/1 million is reasonable - and I'd say incredibly optimistic - with the virus.
  12. Nice nice, ok. This is a particularly strong statement, and is 100% true. If an animal is causing far too many problems in its environment, this kind of population control is the way to go. Another species that comes to mind not "getting a free pass" is lionfish. This is where I'm sort of not entirely onboard. Feral cats are no different from any other wild animal, and other wild animals suffer some pretty gruesome and inhumane fates; infected, malnourished, etc. Like how you mentioned we don't give a free pass to zebra mussels or Asian carp, we also shouldn't give a free pass to feral cats; they're treated by nature like any other wild animal. Of course, then you consider the detrimental impact of them on other species, and that there is the justification of population control/human intervention. Actually, yes, part of population control would be killing. In fact, that would be part of us correcting our mistake as much as possible. There have been species in the past that negatively impacted the environment (both related to and independent of humans) so greatly that they needed population control, which includes killing. Wouldn't be any different from killing the locusts in Utah to help population control them. This is all true, but is in no way related to this thread. We're talking about destructive feral and domesticated cats not properly handled, not your regular indoor cat that helps your migraines. You're trying to justify the destruction of feral and domesticated cats by centering the discussion on how domesticated, properly handled cats help humans. It's comparing apples to oranges. I'd need a source saying this behavior of dogs is as bad as the destruction cats have done (which is entirely possible in certain areas). A personal anecdote of your mom's dog holds little in a discussion about the larger impact of a species on the environment. We're not living in a perfect and ideal world. Ideally, cool, we'd help feral cats and birds live together while not hurting either. Realistically, from the sources Lord November posted, this is not the case. Hard truths: population control of feral cats would involve killing. Just like many other invasive species population controlling, which is how humans are helping the environment. It is not our responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of individual cats and birds. It 100% is our responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of the populations of these animals. Very, very different statements. I'd also need to see a source in your claim that most birds killed by cats were actually pets that had their wings clipped, because that's an incredibly bold claim after Lord November's source says 2.5 billion bird deaths are related to feral/loose cats. And so now you're claiming billions and billions of birds are killed by cats because they are pets with clipped wings. You need to back that up. This is, to put it bluntly, an incredibly dramatic and incorrect assessment of Lord November's post.
  13. Can you link your sources? I'm aware that cats can have detrimental impacts on the environment, and I think discussion about that can be quite educating and important. But there's a lot of claims in your post that I'd feel more comfortable seeing sources for before jumping into a discussion. Particularly, claims involving specific numbers add a level of rigor to discussions that needs a more careful approach.
  14. Support, there's situations where this would help people and I don't see any harm of it. On the topic of lore vs. game mechanics, there's a significant disconnect between the two in general. A lot of game mechanics directly contradict lore (e.g. certain breeding pairs being possible). There's no clear criteria concerning when it's not ok to separate lore and game mechanics, besides trivial examples like "if this hatchling lore-wise takes years to grow, I don't want that applied to game mechanics".
  15. There's a list of inappropriate behavior in the forum rules, so we've already got precedent for a list. In fact, the forum rules manage to be rather short, yet detailed at the same time, which is what needs to be done to hub rules. Despite this, there's an amount of length that's unavoidable when it comes to transparency and communication with rules; it's just how it is, as seen by the length of the forum rules compared to hub rules. I forget how forum rules work, if you need to check a box or something to verify you've read them, but whatever is done with them can be applied to the hub. Regardless, people can do this with forum rules already; avoid reading them. I pointed it out before, but I'm rather confused because we're trying to get the hub rules structured more like the forum rules, yet this structure apparently doesn't work for rules, yet it's how our forum rules are structured, therefore our forum rules need to be rewritten shorter in a couple sentences like hub "rules"? That's what I'm interpreting things as so far. There's a lot of clashing information; does DC want rules to be structured and longer, yet more detailed like the forum rules? Or does DC want some short, brief few sentences as rules? Either way, one of them stands to change, because these are very contradictory ways to format rules.
  16. Compare the forum rules with the hub rules. Forum rules are much more detailed and structured; hub rules are a small and brief statement of words. The forum rules even have a "laundry list" of inappropriate content.
  17. Trade hub definitely needs a well-defined set of rules. Right now, it's very difficult to discuss what rules the trade hub exactly as because they're scattered across the forum. I think right now we just need to focus on actually getting a list of rules on-site, then from there if we need to discuss specific rules, we can. And of course, people need to be told why they were banned. I feel like that much is obvious.
  18. As long as the thread is immediately locked, I don't see why not if it helps people. I also think just any sprite update thread in general should be locked immediately; they never seem to remain civil and end in everyone feeling upset. Not much point there.
  19. I'm not seeing very strong reasoning here. I only see statements on how things currently work, with little connection between those statements and evidence of this idea not being good. The argument that "this is the way things are, so this is the way things should be" is circular and holds no water. It wouldn't be a big deal for the revive action to be usable on eggs. The possibility of the action failing is enough to balance it out.
  20. Support from me! Random pair within groups is something I'd use often, for sure.
  21. The creativity argument was logically disproved pages ago, like most arguments in favor of exclusivity. Not sure why it's still being brought up. I suggest people who think exclusivity and creativity have a generalized relationship read some earlier pages. I speak for many of us when I say we're tired of arguments that have been thoroughly disproved are continuing to come up. There are certainly some opinion/personal feelings things still going around, which of course is going to be part of any suggestion and don't have the kind of closure more logical arguments have. But stop bringing up things things that have been disproven, please. True! People tried pointing this out to others saying just a d d s p a c e s or "pull out a dictionary" or "try other variations of a name" but many people in support of name exclusivity tried to claim that arguments do stop holding water when alternatives are suggested that doesn't fit the bill for those you disagree with. (for the record, I don't know if you specifically were part of this Fuzzbucket, so this may not be directly applicable to you)
  22. I think a lot of support for name exclusivity was founded upon wanting to continue to feel special at the expense of others, i.e. "I want this for my own joy and no one else can have it!!!!". I think when people who favor exclusivity realized that kind of reasoning won't really fly, they started grasping at straws to find some sort of logic in exclusivity, which still hasn't been found to any considerable amount. That's been my point of view, anyway. The only possibly justifiable reasoning in this thread that's appeared for favoring exclusivity is inbredness. Though people already need to go off-site to check for inbred lineages sometimes, so I'm not sure keeping exclusivity is actually helping as much as people think. But regardless of naming, the site could benefit from an inbred checker anyway, which would immediately solve any issues in relation to eliminating exclusivity. I think to really sum up what I'm thinking, I'm honestly just... uncomfortable that some people want name exclusivity to stay so that they can enjoy getting names at the expense of others. And even if that isn't someone's claimed main reason for supporting exclusivity, they're an enabler; fundamentally, grabbing names at the expense of others' joy of naming is what exclusivity does constantly. It's the same as when some didn't support CB holidays coming back because they wanted to continue to have special scrolls at the expense of others, which were equally uncomfortable posts as the ones here. And those people, too, began grasping at straws when they realized they'd need to come up with some sort of shaky logic to try to justify the limited appearances of CB holidays.
  23. When the Nilias were updated, the new sprites aren't my cup of tea and I prefer the older ones. But that's ok, I can prefer the old sprites and still have an appreciation for the new Nilias. I don't see much of a point in dragging a dislike for the updates on and on and on and on. Yes, it's valid to not personally enjoy sprite updates. There's no point in excessively rambling about it. Sprite updates happen, they've happened in the past, they'll happen again. Just do your best to enjoy them and appreciate the new sprites!
  24. Love the updates, they look awesome!
  25. If we truly aren't going to have a way to get CB Prizes outside of the raffles, then this would at least be slightly better than how it currently is. Support for really anything that would give more opportunities for more entries; this suggestion, another raffle change, whatever it may be. Of course like I said, a way to get CB Prizes not from just raffles is best but... yeah, not sure if we'll ever get a method that isn't too close to pure luck.