Jump to content
bbik

ANSWERED:One-Time-Only Holiday Unfreeze Option

Should users be able to unfreeze previously-limited Holidays?  

203 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally would really love it if there was a periodic (say, every 2 years or so) re-release of CBs of all old holiday breeds.

 

But nevertheless, the fact that some people in this thread might not support such a suggestion shouldn't be a knock against this idea. How good/bad an idea is has nothing to do with who supports it--each idea should be evaluated on its own merits. Right now what you are doing seems very petty..."A lot of you don't like the suggestion that I like so I'm not going to support yours." Rather than evaluating the idea on its own merits which is how all ideas should be evaluated, you are coming across as vindictive because you aren't getting your way.

 

To be quite frank, given the choice between allowing users to unfreeze old holidays or having a re-release of old holidays where users could get CBs, I would actually vastly prefer the latter option, but over the years TJ hasn't budged an inch on that front so I don't think it will ever happen.

I have not started this to be spiteful. What I'm doing is pointing at this clear line between older players and newer players. And this thread is a perfect example with that line.

 

The idea on it's own, for me doesn't stand. Why? Because you knew it was irreversible. You froze your old CBs or froze bred ones. The thing is, now that the limits are lifted why is this so important? After all, you can always get more of them now that the limits are lifted. Hell, you can even get the dragons with same lineages if you were fond of the one you've frozen. It's not like they are irreplaceable. And if you've frozen your CB well, tough luck. Your choice.

 

So why is it important that you unfreeze those dragons? There are far more problems and changes that are in my opinion more important then this one, for both game play and players.

 

And despite all of the problems, I'd like it if this was implemented. Just because it would make someone happy. And no, I don't have any stakes in this one either. But, I'm arguing against this because right now, it doesn't make any sense. I don't know why this should be prioritized. And have you guys thought of a reason for this from a game point? After all, this game does have some lore, and right now you haven't given any reason for this fitting in game, besides "I wanna".

Share this post


Link to post

I have nothing to gain from this particular action but after the debating still heavily support. Very much around the there was 2 limits there were certain rules leading the player to a particular action and now there are no limits, the unfreeze option for the selective holiday dragons would be good to be implemented due to this change. It would also aid the ever growing population of DC. Whilst it also was a selection and there is the argument "you picked it, live with it" I agree with this:

Just because it would make someone happy.

 

Rule changes should only affect future actions, not past ones.

 

Why on earth should it apply like this? Also in this sense by changing the frozens from past rules it WILL affect the future - gene pool larger, more eggs for ever growing population, etc.

 

A lot of DC "doesn't like change" because stepping over that threshold is too far ahead to see. I wasn't too certain of the lifts being lifted but have seen the benefits for players. We have had to adapt before, we will adapt for the right reasons again and I do not see harm in this one. For the released dragon scenario will comment if a relevant thread is raised.

 

Probably will be yelled at now, so bow out smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
1) What makes this one THE one that can't change then?

 

2 & 3) Thing is, there was a little message that also told me I could only get TWO of a holiday breed. Now I can get more! Why can't that irreversible message also disappear or turn into something else? What is making it special?

 

4) Wut? You guys wanted to discuss it here, so we discussed it here a few pages back. I assumed you guys were saying it isn't fair because other things aren't going to be implemented, so I was explaining that those other things *you guys mentioned* have a chance of getting implemented. Apologize if my english just sucks, but I was trying to communicate/explain using the most common complaints/examples used just like a page before

 

5) Allowing unfreezing of holidays, it will allow us to breed them too and create more eggs for others to catch, which is the purpose of DC like you said. No, it isn't urgent. No, it's not a big impact. Yes, it would be an extra. Yes, it would make some people happy. No, it wouldn't hurt anyone. What bad is there in adding a little extra?

 

6) Future suggestions isn't potential problems. Suggestions aren't problems, TJ can come in at any time and close it on us with a big fat "lol no.". I jsut think it's silly to refuse this suggestion because "rules never change" (they change all the time in DC), because this doesn't benefit everyone (benefits some people and doesn't break the game for anybody), because other suggestions may arise and get shot down (features are rejected and accepted all the time, I don't see a problem in future suggestions arising from this implementation - this suggestion thread came from the fact the limit was lifted, which was a previous suggestion)

1) Nothing. But what makes it THE one that should be changed? After all, change shouldn't happen just because it's change.

 

2 & 3) Well, most rule changes don't allow you to change something you did beforehand. Like when dead dragons didn't lose their lineage any more, people weren't allowed to undo the kills they did in order to create "deadlines". When teleport was implemented, we didn't get our "lost in trade/transfer" eggs and/or hatchies back. So why should this be done in this case?

 

4) Yes, I did. And got the "open your own thread(s)"/"this doesn't belong here"/"I'm not discussing it here" message a couple of times. No matter which way I do it, it's wrong because (in your opinion) I'm in the wrong anyway? And I still don't know what would make unfreezing "fair".

 

5) Why do you deserve "a little extra" in the first place? That's the big question here. The only arguments I see are "it would benefit everyone" - and I doubt that it would have that much of an impact to begin with - and "it would make some people happy", not to mention "it would be fair". There's no doubt it would make some people happy. Pretty much every single change would make at least some people happy, even the worst and most controversial ones. And, I must admit, I still don't get the "fair" aspect of this.

 

6) I never said rules never change. What I said is, "Give me a good, solid reason why this rule should change!". What reason is there that it really should be implemented? And, since a lot of other ideas for rule changes could use the same line of argument as is presented here - where to draw the line? What would be the effects on gameplay? (If they're negligible, why bother with this change? If they're massive - would this really be a good idea for DC as a whole?)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

You have a point about deadlines, she said sadly. But still...

Share this post


Link to post

1) Nothing. But what makes it THE one that should be changed? After all, change shouldn't happen just because it's change.

 

2 & 3) Well, most rule changes don't allow you to change something you did beforehand. Like when dead dragons didn't lose their lineage any more, people weren't allowed to undo the kills they did in order to create "deadlines". When teleport was implemented, we didn't get our "lost in trade/transfer" eggs and/or hatchies back. So why should this be done in this case?

 

4) Yes, I did. And got the "open your own thread(s)"/"this doesn't belong here"/"I'm not discussing it here" message a couple of times. No matter which way I do it, it's wrong because (in your opinion) I'm in the wrong anyway? And I still don't know what would make unfreezing "fair".

 

5) Why do you deserve "a little extra" in the first place? That's the big question here. The only arguments I see are "it would benefit everyone" - and I doubt that it would have that much of an impact to begin with - and "it would make some people happy", not to mention "it would be fair". There's no doubt it would make some people happy. Pretty much every single change would make at least some people happy, even the worst and most controversial ones. And, I must admit, I still don't get the "fair" aspect of this.

 

6) I never said rules never change. What I said is, "Give me a good, solid reason why this rule should change!". What reason is there that it really should be implemented? And, since a lot of other ideas for rule changes could use the same line of argument as is presented here - where to draw the line? What would be the effects on gameplay? (If they're negligible, why bother with this change? If they're massive - would this really be a good idea for DC as a whole?)

Just joining in the debate here.

 

1) There's nothing which sets it apart - this certainly isn't the only suggestion which requires rules to change. Just have a look through the subforum and you should see plenty more. There's no reason to deny change just because it's change, either.

 

2 & 3) Suggestions are all about making things change when they haven't changed before! Perhaps those rule-related changes weren't suggested or perhaps TJ decided he didn't like them, but that's not a good reason not to try suggesting a similar thing again. If this goes through, perhaps it can set a precedent of reparations based on misunderstandings and uninformed decisions. smile.gif

 

4) Things aren't unfair by default. I could debate this better if you would explain why it isn't fair rather than expecting a reason why it is.

 

5) It's not about "deserving" it or "having a right to it" - it's about this making some people happy without harming anyone else. Just because this suggestion doesn't positively affect everyone doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented if it doesn't negatively affect anyone. I agree that "it would be fair" doesn't make much sense to me either, but I see no explanation of how this negatively affects anyone.

 

6) A good, solid reason is that it would make a lot of people happy and make them enjoy the game more without detracting from the gameplay experience of anyone else. This is a thread about this suggestion, not a thread about other suggestions (although I personally have no objection to it being discussed here). It just doesn't make any sense to me to bring up other suggestions when they probably don't actually exist and may never do. This is a tangible suggestion which many people would like (I wouldn't say the majority of people, since going by a poll in a forum thread which non-supporters may not visit isn't conclusive). This wouldn't majorly affect anyone who it didn't benefit, but it would make some of those who it did very happy and it would make other players able to build more better lineages. I think that's a good enough reason to bother with it - it positively affects a reasonably sized chunk of the player base without having a detrimental affect (that I can see) on any of them.

 

Sorry if I'm being long-winded or unintentionally offensive. If anything I said seemed hostile, it was unintentional. Please forgive me.

Share this post


Link to post

1) Nothing. But what makes it THE one that should be changed? After all, change shouldn't happen just because it's change.

 

2 & 3) Well, most rule changes don't allow you to change something you did beforehand. Like when dead dragons didn't lose their lineage any more, people weren't allowed to undo the kills they did in order to create "deadlines". When teleport was implemented, we didn't get our "lost in trade/transfer" eggs and/or hatchies back. So why should this be done in this case?

 

4) Yes, I did. And got the "open your own thread(s)"/"this doesn't belong here"/"I'm not discussing it here" message a couple of times. No matter which way I do it, it's wrong because (in your opinion) I'm in the wrong anyway? And I still don't know what would make unfreezing "fair".

 

5) Why do you deserve "a little extra" in the first place? That's the big question here. The only arguments I see are "it would benefit everyone" - and I doubt that it would have that much of an impact to begin with - and "it would make some people happy", not to mention "it would be fair". There's no doubt it would make some people happy. Pretty much every single change would make at least some people happy, even the worst and most controversial ones. And, I must admit, I still don't get the "fair" aspect of this.

 

6) I never said rules never change. What I said is, "Give me a good, solid reason why this rule should change!". What reason is there that it really should be implemented? And, since a lot of other ideas for rule changes could use the same line of argument as is presented here - where to draw the line? What would be the effects on gameplay? (If they're negligible, why bother with this change? If they're massive - would this really be a good idea for DC as a whole?)

1) So now the things are just going back and forth. No motives for not doing it but good for some people - why not then? And sometimes change does happen just because it's a good change

 

2 & 3) Of course not, because most things that were done can't be reversed and lots of old information was already lost or simply no one suggested them. But this one can and this one was suggested This is not a thing that "should" be done, it's something people want.

 

4) I already explained why I brought those things ( which I didn't even bring up, I mentioned nothing in specific), it's because you guys were focused on them and calling this unfair because of them. Yes, they should have their own thread.

 

"Let's talk about candy and potatoes!"

"But potatoes are unrelated!"

"Oh my God you talked about potatoes after saying they were unrelated!"

 

See what I'm trying to explain? Seems like I'm in the wrong anyway for you too. (I'm not trying to be against you, just explaining my position, I apologize if it looked like I was.)

 

Anyway, what makes it unfair then? It's just a couple pixels and the ability to use your magic pixel power to unfreeze old frozen pixels...

 

 

5) Why is it unfair then? And I'm not saying we deserve a little extra, it's a suggestion and if TJ thinks we deserve it, then he will implement it. And so far, I haven't seen any bad side to this unfreezing. There's no explaining the "why" and no explaining the "why not", seems pretty 50/50 to me.

 

 

6) Like I said multiple times before: It's an extra because it's a small change that hurts no one and makes some happy. It's not critical, it's a small suggestion, it doesn't have a strong need to be implemented. I'm fine with both outcomes, but one satisfies me more than the other. Where to draw the line? That's TJ's decision, isn't it?

The holiday limit was lifted - rule change.

This thread arises from it, asking for a rule change - it can be turned down or implemented

(insert here many other suggestions the future will bring us if this does get implemented and many other dramas and decisions)

 

 

------

 

Basically: You think this isn't critical enough to change, and you are right. I think something doesn't need to be critical to change. You think people will feel like rules can be broken then, and you are right. I think it's okay for them to think that, no way TJ will allow users to jump the line. There isn't a negative side to this suggestion, that I see (could be wrong). If it's not a bad thing and it's good for some - why not then?

 

edit:

Ponystar17 explained better than me in a more elegant text, thank you

Edited by LaHaine

Share this post


Link to post

5) Why is it unfair then? And I'm not saying we deserve a little extra, it's a suggestion and if TJ thinks we deserve it, then he will implement it. And so far, I haven't seen any bad side to this unfreezing. There's no explaining the "why" and no explaining the "why not", seems pretty 50/50 to me.

I think it has been made pretty clear that some players did not freeze one of their CBs, but released it to get a lineaged Holiday dragon. By only allowing unfreezing, but not getting back the released dragon, this suggestion is treating the latter group different although the reason for both actions was the same - if we had known that the limit would be lifted, we never would have [insert action here]". And that reason is given as sole justification for the unfreeze - if only we had known.

 

Now it's been said is that it'd be easy to track the freezes and difficult (if not impossible) the other, that's why one should happen and the other not. That favors one group over the other while both acted on the same premise.

Edited by Rally Vincent

Share this post


Link to post

My brain is so tired I'd just like to see TJ show up, pronounce and close the thread. xd.png

 

I SUPPOSE the only unfairness (possibly) with THIS SUGGESTION and ONLY with this suggestion is that if this change is made, those who released their CBs can't get them back, and breed them - which seems, honestly, to be what is actually wanted, while those who froze them can. Which is very unfortunate, but I think unfixable.

 

Here's another thing though, that IS related to this. Anyone who froze a 2008 CB holly - they were at that time male only; the genders only came up with the 2009 breeeding season - MUST have them instantly grow up male, to be "fair" to those 2008 people who didn't freeze xd.png No chances to do a hasty gendering to get something OUTRAGEOUSLY super-rare, and no accidental females, either ! In fact I'd say every frozen CB holly should grow up male, as there are only 5 CB females, all HM prizes, and I simply do not believe their owners froze any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it has been made pretty clear that some players did not freeze one of their CBs, but released it to get a lineaged Holiday dragon. By only allowing unfreezing, but not getting back the released dragon, this suggestion is treating the latter group different although the reason for both actions was the same - if we had known that the limit would be lifted, we never would have [insert action here]". And that reason is given as sole justification for the unfreeze - if only we had known.

 

Now it's been said is that it'd be easy to track the freezes and difficult (if not impossible) the other, that's why one should happen and the other not. That favors one group over the other while both acted on the same premise.

Ok, so you are saying A-1 shouldn't be implemented because A-2 can't be implemented? What's wrong with letting people unfreeze their holidays, even if others can't get their released ones back? I think if we can make some people happy, that's better than making no change at all

Share this post


Link to post
Ok, so you are saying A-1 shouldn't be implemented because A-2 can't be implemented? What's wrong with letting people unfreeze their holidays, even if others can't get their released ones back? I think if we can make some people happy, that's better than making no change at all

Happiness of some and fairness for all aren't the same in this case, and you specifically asked what was deemed unfair. That brings us back to asking for a good reason for this suggestion. Is making some happy and leaving others behind a good reason? For you I assume it's better than nothing - to me, it's favoristism. And yes - I think that favors only a part of the playerbase is a good reason to not implement that suggestion.

 

Lifting the limits benefits everyone the same from the point of the lift without leaving anyone behind. This suggestion doesn't, and although I wouldn't mind if unfreezing was allowed, pretending that this suggestion was fair, would not hurt anybody etc. just makes me want to show that this is not true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Happiness of some and fairness for all aren't the same in this case, and you specifically asked what was deemed unfair. That brings us back to asking for a good reason for this suggestion. Is making some happy and leaving others behind a good reason? For you I assume it's better than nothing - to me, it's favoristism. And yes - I think that favors only a part of the playerbase is a good reason to not implement that suggestion.

 

Lifting the limits benefits everyone the same from the point of the lift without leaving anyone behind. This suggestion doesn't, and although I wouldn't mind if unfreezing was allowed, pretending that this suggestion was fair, would not hurt anybody etc. just makes me want to show that this is not true.

Favoritism is choosing to help one entity (person or group) when you have the option to help the other either as well or instead. There's no favoritism in helping half the people when the other half can't be helped. I know it's hard not to be envious of anyone who has better luck than you - heck, I missed a lot of Holiday dragons by joining DC so late - but it's not any more fair to hold them back when a solution that can make them happy has been suggested. This isn't an explanation of how it hurts anyone - it's an explanation of how it doesn't help everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

How do we know the other can't be helped? It seems like people are dismissing it without even asking. Much like it's obvious that a generic unfreeze BSA would help far more people than a holiday CB only restricted one would. But yet, that is not "fair" for some reason. Imo the poll needs to do away with the unsupported mass unfreeze option and instead, insert a, I don't support this, but I would support a generic unfreeze bsa or event. I suspect that would get more support than the current holiday only suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post

Favoritism is choosing to help one entity (person or group) when you have the option to help the other either as well or instead.  There's no favoritism in helping half the people when the other half can't be helped.  I know it's hard not to be envious of anyone who has better luck than you - heck, I missed a lot of Holiday dragons by joining DC so late - but it's not any more fair to hold them back when a solution that can make them happy has been suggested.  This isn't an explanation of how it hurts anyone - it's an explanation of how it doesn't help everyone.

This. I am still mad as hell I joined in a January - missing Christmas 2009 - sad.gif and that I didn't KNOW enough fast enough to get two sweetlings... I could have if I had known. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

I donate to several charities. I am acutely aware that the children in the villages I sponsor have way better lives than the ones living just outside those villages. But I won't stop giving to them just because I can't help all the other children as well - I just hope that the ones I am helping to feed, house, educate etc will grow up to be able to help their whole countries in the end. It isn't "fair" on all the other children in the area, I think, but still. It's better than doing nothing at all, IMHO.(ADP I see you coming up behind me - but I am comparing like with like here xd.png)

 

@ Vhale - an unfreeze BSA would undo freezes on all dragons ? - we are TOLD in great big almost flashy letters xd.png that freeze is permanent - this holiday thing is a QUITE exceptional issue, given a change in the conditions relating to the dragons, and I cannot see the two as being the same thing. With the exception of discontinued - we made the freezy choice knowingly and with the chance to get more dragons just like the frozens. That doesn't apply to holidays.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
I know it's hard not to be envious of anyone who has better luck than you - heck, I missed a lot of Holiday dragons by joining DC so late - but it's not any more fair to hold them back when a solution that can make them happy has been suggested. This isn't an explanation of how it hurts anyone - it's an explanation of how it doesn't help everyone.

Your definition of fair must be very different from mine, then, if you think it's "fair" to allow one group of people to do something but not the other one. Basically what you are doing is telling one group "bad luck, pal", but you won't accept that for the other group. I still need to hear a good reason why that should be "fair".

Share this post


Link to post
Your definition of fair must be very different from mine, then, if you think it's "fair" to allow one group of people to do something but not the other one. Basically what you are doing is telling one group "bad luck, pal", but you won't accept that for the other group. I still need to hear a good reason why that should be "fair".

Perhaps it is. smile.gif However, if you feel so strongly about reclaiming Holidays from the Wilderness, maybe you should make a suggestion thread about that. TJ might reject it, but I don't see why both groups shouldn't have a fair chance at getting what they want.

 

I'll try to explain why I think preventing this is unfair in more detail. It seems to me like many of the non-supporters are just trying to deprive others of what they want because they can't have it themselves. Is it unfair that some people have an easy solution to their problems? Yes. Does that mean that that solution shouldn't be used just because some people have harder problems to fix? I'm not convinced.

Share this post


Link to post

@fuzzbucket

Sorry, I don't agree that it's exceptional. And going by the poll, I'm far from the only one. Sometimes it's better to come to a compromise than abandon an idea altogether. But, it's up to this threads supporters to come to that choice.

Share this post


Link to post

@fuzzbucket

Sorry, I don't agree that it's exceptional. And going by the poll, I'm far from the only one. Sometimes it's better to come to a compromise than abandon an idea altogether. But, it's up to this threads supporters to come to that choice.

I would also not mind seeing a compromise, but I'm not quite sure what to suggest. While unfreezing years-old Holidays wouldn't break the game, the ability to freeze hatchlings and then unfreeze them later just to free up scroll space does seem pretty broken.

 

If you're going to go into statistics and majorities, I will point out that only sixty-seven of the one hundred and ninety-three voters did not support this idea in any form. Most people (at least of those who do see the thread) seem to think that this is sufficiently exceptional to warrant an exception to the rules.

Share this post


Link to post

It's interesting that this discussion is revolving around a lot of different things regarding game mechanics (under the guise of the term "rules"), and when they can and can't change. One of the important distinctions that I think has been overlooked in the comparisons between holiday limits and this suggestion is that one involved removing a game mechanic completely, whereas this suggestion is for making a one-time exception to the established "rules," rather than actually changing. Although such an exception would set a precedent for future exceptions, it doesn't involve any real change to how DC works.

 

In general, I'm not really in favor of making such exceptions. If there are cases where exceptions are necessary, it probably means that the mechanic is flawed, meaning there are more fundamental problems at hand.

 

For example, in this case, the argument comes down to: should freezing be permanent? Those who froze their CB holidays years ago certainly did so with the expectation that it would be, but is it reasonable to believe that changes in conditions should give people the chance to revise their decisions?

 

I happen to believe not--there will almost certainly always be cases where an action is performed that the user later regrets, and while good software usability might dictate that users should be able to undo their changes as much as possible, the concept of making mistakes is a fundamental part of games that, when removed, takes away from the positive reaction of succeeding.

 

tl;dr: I don't like making exceptions to rules, and I haven't seen anything in this thread to convince me that doing so in this case is worthwhile, nor have I seen anything to indicate that the underlying mechanism of permanent freezing is flawed. Feel free to create a thread to discuss that (yes, I know people have done so in the past, and have been shot down because "freezing is meant to be permanent." That sort of negative reaction to topics in suggestions is whole other discussion).

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.