Unfreezing

[Fuzzbucket]

If unfreeze is anything less than a year (with the cost being the loss of a breeding season), I for one will use it to up the number of no-effort Holidays I can have.

 

In short:

90 days, or x a year, is very easy to abuse and WILL be: I can say this with certainty because I'm one of the ones who will be doing just that. Neither of those suggestions has an effective deterrent in them for Holidays, and its the Holidays that will be abused the most because of their very nature. Only the loss of that next breeding season would deter me. And the only way to do that and still have something useful is to force a year wait.

 

The truth of the matter is, for those who regret the decision a year wait is a small price to pay to undo the decision. For changes in the game, a year wait isn't much, considering how slowly the game changes. The only time the year wait is problematic is an accidental freeze OR using it to get around scroll limits.

 

As for the free space.... I can agree with that, that the action only shows up if you have an open hatchie spot.

 

Cheers!

C4.

Yes - that is only sensible !

 

and yes to the rest of it too.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

If you freeze a holiday hatchie you will have to wait at least 90 days before unfreeze. The holiday season would be ended by them and you will not be able to breed that dragon except after a year. I don't see a problem here.

That's no different from raising a holiday hatchling normally, though. That's not a punishment.

 

90 day cooldown: freeze any extra holiday hatchlings you have, making space for more. You can unfreeze them before next holiday season, thus letting you breed them then (which is true of those you didn't freeze, too--holidays can never breed within the same season they grew up in, so we always have to wait a year anyway)

 

1 year cooldown: if you try to use this as a way to gain extra holiday hatchling spaces, you'll miss out on the next holiday breeding period--forcing you to wait an additional year (two years altogether) before you can use them to breed holidays.

 

Granted, you'd still have to trade for those extra holiday hatchlings, so some effort would be involved to overfill your slots--but this would still make it possible. I mean, people can trade for low time hatchlings too and do IOUs like you said, but that seems harder to exploit.

 

Basically: everything has loopholes, but let's avoid making obvious, easy to use ones when we can

 

(And again--lol so many edits--what is the point of this suggestion? If unfreezing is really just to undo past mistakes, do we really need 36 a year? That's a lot of mistakes!)

Edited July 22, 2014 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Fuzzbucket]

Exactly - you get a load of reds, incubate eggs from the AP and freeze the hatchies right up to the limit and then breed everything you have - collect the new ones - and after it's over you unfreeze.

 

Too easy

[danicast]

That's no different from raising a holiday hatchling normally, though. That's not a punishment.

At least someone finally used the word to express what I've been feeling in this thread since the beginning: the point here is to punish those who decide to use a new feature.

Thanks for saying out loud. That's why it has been impossible to discuss this feature, there is a "punishment idea" behind the suggestion.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

At least someone finally used the word to express what I've been feeling in this thread since the beginning: the point here is to punish those who decide to use a new feature.

Thanks for saying out loud. That's why it has been impossible to discuss this feature, there is a "punishment idea" behind the suggestion.

The idea is not to punish people using it for valid reasons (to undo past mistakes). It is to punish people who attempt to exploit it for something it was never meant to be--a bank for extra hatchling slots. This thread was started originally because TJ shot down the idea of allowing a one time Holiday unfreeze option (suggested because circumstances regarding how many Holidays we could collect had changed). This was then made to provide everyone who regretted past freezings for whatever reason to fix them. Not so we could all scratch our heads and think up ways to make it easy to get around scroll limits.

 

As someone who does regret a few freezings made during very different circumstances (CB Holidays frozen when the limit was two, or when Pumpkins weren't breedable / seemed likely to never return, or rares frozen when I didn't know what was rare), I would find this feature VERY useful and not a punishment to use at all. It does exactly what I want it to do: let me change choices made during different times that I now regret. A year is not that long a wait, really, when most of the freezings one regrets aren't regretted until way later anyway.

Edited July 22, 2014 by angelicdragonpuppy

[danicast]

The idea is not to punish people using it for valid reasons (to undo past mistakes). It is to punish people who attempt to exploit it for something it was never meant to be--a bank for extra hatchling slots.

Why some people consider so bad to raise more 36 hatchies a year in a very complicated (because to me is much easier to raise hatchies in the normal way) method? We are not talking in add slots, the person who freezes still have to use the eggs slots and the hatchies slots before freze a hatchie. It's not a big deal and I honestly don't undertand why you guys don't want to improve the game.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Why some people consider so bad to raise more 36 hatchies a year in a very complicated (because to me is much easier to raise hatchies in the normal way) method? We are not talking in add slots, the person who freezes still have to use the eggs slots and the hatchies slots before freze a hatchie. It's not a big deal and I honestly don't undertand why you guys don't want to improve the game.

Because adding more hatchling slots is not the point of this suggestion. If you think we need more slots, go suggest as such--don't try to form a loophole in a suggestion made for entirely different reasons. I would love to see a platinum trophy with eight egg slots introduced that gives people a very open faced way to raise a good deal more than 36 extra hatchlings a year, but the idea of sticking in the potential for extra hatchling slots in a suggestion that wasn't made for it--in a manner that feels like intentionally creating an exploitable loophole--makes me rather uncomfortable. It just feels rather shady. ;;

 

Also they are extra slots. I regularly get hatchling locked; being able to store those hatchlings away for later unfreezing, thus instantly giving me more egg space, is giving me extra slots.

Edited July 22, 2014 by angelicdragonpuppy

[danicast]

Humm, I got it. It never occurred to me that a sugestion could not implement more than one aspect of the game. That sounds too strict, sorry, it's not my way of thinking. I think that an improvement should be creative and enrich the game experience and open to all kind of modifications. Well, I'll leave you with your dillema.

[annageckos]

Why some people consider so bad to raise more 36 hatchies a year in a very complicated (because to me is much easier to raise hatchies in the normal way) method? We are not talking in add slots, the person who freezes still have to use the eggs slots and the hatchies slots before freze a hatchie. It's not a big deal and I honestly don't undertand why you guys don't want to improve the game.

We do want to improve the game, that is why we are here making suggestions and commenting on them. Unfreezing would be a great addition to the game, but IMO it need to have limitations in place or people will abuse it.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Humm, I got it. It never occurred to me that a sugestion could not implement more than one aspect of the game. That sounds too strict, sorry, it's not my way of thinking. I think that an improvement should be creative and enrich the game experience and open to all kind of modifications. Well, I'll leave you with your dillema.

Again, though--it feels like a loophole rather than a feature. And even as a feature, it isn't that exciting. Being able to freeze a hatchling when I have too many so I can get another slot requires very little skill or thinking (well, ok, you have to decide if it's worth waiting three months and if you'd rather save the slot for later, but eh, not that big a deal). I'd rather see slot increases done in other ways (maybe AP only slots? Platinum trophies? Ways to temporarily earn more slots by achieving some task?), not in a back door, not particularly creative way through a suggestion that was already pretty much hammered out for a different purpose.

 

Also if that was sarcasm I smelled, it's not needed. ^^;

[danicast]

I don't do sarcasm, I don't have enough english to that. I was honest.

I think that was a cultural shock, because as brazilian, I have a very free way of think and we stimulate people to be creative and inventive all the time. It's one of the reasons why we are in the group of researchers of the human genoma and why we have so many good cancer treatment centers in Brasil.

Edited July 22, 2014 by danicast

[KageSora]

Possibly--but I see nothing good in the 'creativity' needed to devise a loophole to attach to another suggestion to try to add that change in when it's not part of the actual suggestion at all.

 

To me, that's something underhanded and shady and done in politics to pass a suggestion that would have been shot down if it was made on it's own.

 

 

If you want some sort of way to 'store' hatchlings or expanded hatchling space, make a new suggestion rather than trying to alter this one into something that the current restrictions were agreed upon to prevent from happening.

 

 

Also, just remember: Not every change is an actual "improvement" to the game, no matter how much some or even many people want it. If a suggestion unbalances or even breaks the game, then it's likely to get shot down by a higher up even if the playerbase has a good deal of support for it.

 

You can't just chuck in everything that people ask for, because then the game will be an utter mess. Restrictions and limitations need to apply to things to try to keep the game a game rather than something that hands you everything you want with no effort.

Edited July 22, 2014 by KageSora

[Fuzzbucket]

I really don't think nationality has anything to do with this. There are creative free spirits all over the world - perhaps especially here (and as it happens I know a Brazilian girl; who is about as rigid as they come. So rigid that she even jokes about it.) MANY countries encourage free thinking, and many are in the human genome project. I don't think that kind of thing affects unfreezing in the very slightest - I really don't.

 

What you are suggesting would be a massive and exploitable loophole in the scroll limits. Most of us are not happy with that - that doesn't mean we aren't free thinkers or creative - just that we'd like there not to be yet another way to exploit things - there are already people using catching scripts and snap links and so on, that are abused constantly - we don't need more ways for cunning players to take advantage. That's all.

[danicast]

Trust me when I say: this is a cultural shock. If I had suggested this in a brazilian forum, my suggestion would have been embraced with enthusiasm instead of be criticized and accused to try to cheat in the game. That's why I'm 100% sure that this is a matter of cultural shock. It's okay, I understand that other cultures are not so open to develop things in a fast pace. No harm feelings.

[KageSora]

Any potential mechanic addition or alteration has the possiblity for loopholes to be exploited.

 

However, exploiting loopholes--while not wrong exactly (unless whatever exploit is considered cheating, some are some aren't), it's often something that's discouraged and a reason why loopholes and glitches tend to be closed fairly quickly upon discovery unless the actual exploitation adds to the game in a way that doesn't detract from others' experience.

 

When a suggestion is brought up that has potential loopholes, means of closing them need to be discussed to prevent that abuse. If they're left wide open then it's possible they'd be closed in a way that the playerbase might not like, or that the suggestion may simply be ignored as "too easy to exploit aspects for unintended gains".

[danicast]

It is not a loophole, it's an aditional feature. Again, the problem is that what you call loophole I call feature. It's defiitely a problem of different ways of thinking. It's okay, no harm feelings.

[Fuzzbucket]

Trust me when I say: this is a cultural shock. If I had suggested this in a brazilian forum, my suggestion would have been embraced with enthusiasm instead of be criticized and accused to try to cheat in the game. That's why I'm 100% sure that this is a matter of cultural shock. It's okay, I understand that other cultures are not so open to develop things in a fast pace. No harm feelings. 

I hope some other Brazilian players will chip in here, as I would be very surprised if such a generalisation actually held up.

 

Exploiting loopholes is something that members from all over the world are unhappy with. That's why they tend to be closed as soon as they are found, and that's why we are trying to make sure that there isn't one attached to this suggestion.

 

ETA (cross posted) something that allows players to get around the scroll limits that have been set for everyone in this game IS a loophole, whether you choose to see it that way or not.

Edited July 22, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[danicast]

I hope some other Brazilian players will chip in here, as I would be very surprised if such a generalisation actually held up.

 

Exploiting loopholes is something that members from all over the world are unhappy with. That's why they tend to be closed as soon as they are found, and that's why we are trying to make sure that there isn't one attached to this suggestion.

It's not a loophole, fuzzbucket, it's an aditional feature. I don't know why you guys don't understand this so my only explanation is the cultural shock.

[KageSora]

It is not a loophole, it's an aditional feature. Again, the problem is that what you call loophole I call feature. It's defiitely a problem of different ways of thinking. It's okay, no harm feelings.

It would be a feature if that were it's own suggestion, or if this suggestion was intended as a way to gain additional hatchling storage.

 

However, this suggestion was never intended for such. As a result, due to the intended usage for this suggestion, you are suggestion a loophole not a feature.

 

 

I don't think it's a case of culture shock--it may be a language thing. A loophole, in this case, is generally something referred to the attempting to add in a 'feature' that's not part of what was intended by the idea, as a means of convincing people that it's a good thing (aka a feature) when, in fact, it may not be. (In this case, it's a balancing issue--the suggestion would unbalance the this feature, meaning that it would be less likely to be added to the game).

[danicast]

I understood, Kagesora, a person can not make more than one suggestion in a feature. I understood, don't worry. I don't plan to keep making suggestions, I learned that different ways of thinking and excessive creativeness are not welcome. It's okay. It must be one sugestion at time, I understood that. It's not how I was raised to think, you need to understand that. Here we are stimulated to make multiple suggestions and improve everything as more as possible. I didn't know this kind of action wasn't welcome in this game.

[Fuzzbucket]

It is welcome. But that is not what you are doing here. You are trying to bolt something that does not fit the original idea on to a suggestion where most of us have agreed on the essential features that are needed.

 

A loophole is something that, essentially, allows cheating. That may be a language thing - but that is what a loophole is. Just like tax loopholes that allow the disgustingly rich to avoid paying their fair share. A way to get around the rules that good players stick to. Something that will disadvantage people who stick to the rules that we have.

 

Most of us who make - yes, CREATIVE - suggestions want them to work so that the same rules apply to everyone. If there is a loophole, those of us who don't choose to cheat won't use it; those who choose to take advantage will, to the detriment of the rest.

Edited July 22, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[danicast]

It is welcome. But that is not what you are doing here. You are trying to bolt something that does not fit the original idea on to a suggestion where most of us have agreed on the essential features that are needed. (And the loophile is a matter of peopel exploiting things, not of

How can you tell that when I am clearing saying that all I want to do is to suggest an improvement?

 

Edited July 22, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Fuzzbucket]

I am sorry you feel that way.

 

(and a passing remark - also sorry you quoted my post that went through for some reason before I had finished, as it doesn't make sense as quoted. I HATE MS Vista...)

[KageSora]

There's a difference between "thinking outside the box" and refusing to see why your suggestion may not actually be the amazing thing that you think it is.

 

Plenty of times we suggest things and get them shot down because we didn't consider all the angles--and how can we, if we're just one person? That's why this is a place to discuss suggestions, not just tell TJ what you want in the game and have him add with with no discussion or questions asked.

 

Many ideas that seem brilliant at first glance turn out to have some unintended issues later. Things that look good on paper don't always translate very well into practice.

 

This is one of those ideas that sounds okay in the theoretical, but will be abused if put into the practical without enough limitations. It has nothing to do with not wanting creativity--it has to do with you needing to understand that not all creative ideas are good ones across the board.

 

 

You can suggest features to add to another suggestion--but, if those features then turn out to transform the suggestion into something that it's not, you're better off making your own thread instead of trying to tack them on to something else. Not every feature needs to be multi-purpose. Some features can benefit from that, not all features can.

 

 

You're claiming you were raised to think about trying to make multiple improvement and to do as much improving as fast as possible. That isn't what the problem is here. What the problem here is would be that you are refusing to accept that not everybody actually sees your suggestions as improvements. Just because you think it would improve the game does not automatically mean it is an actual improvement.

 

Personally, I think it would be a brilliant improvement to the game if lineages and tracking of bred eggs was totally wiped from the game. As in, every single dragon regardless of if you bred it or not is treated as CB, no parent listing or progeny listing or any way at all to trace lineage aside from writing it down yourself. Then a gold would be a gold would be a gold, with none more valuable than the other due to lineages.

 

However, I think you'll find that for a large number of people such a thing would not be an improvement--it would be a devastating blow to the game that they enjoy. So, I don't ever seriously suggest it because I know that it would not be an improvement to the entire game and would in fact hurt a portion of the players.

 

 

That's what you need to learn: Not every idea that you think is an improvement is actually going to be an improvement that can viably be added.

 

Additionally, if suggestions get too complicated with too many features, then they're less likely to be implemented. DC is supposed to be a simple game, so simple solutions to issues and simple means of improving it are favored over complex and convoluted ways of doing things.

Edited July 22, 2014 by KageSora

[olympe]

I understood, Kagesora, a person can not make more than one suggestion in a feature. I understood, don't worry. I don't plan to keep making suggestions, I learned that different ways of thinking and excessive creativeness are not welcome. It's okay. It must be one sugestion at time, I understood that. It's not how I was raised to think, you need to understand that. Here we are stimulated to make multiple suggestions and improve everything as more as possible. I didn't know this kind of action wasn't welcome in this game.

I don't think you understand what we're trying to say, no.

 

First of all, suggestions need to be thought out, with all the possible problems that might arise. And these problems should be addressed. And, believe me if I say so, we players are very creative when it comes to finding and exploiting loopholes, as long as we don't actually cheat. We pretty much know how to check when certain breedings are favorable, for example. Or how to tell whether a ridgewing egg in the Alpine biome is purple or tan. And a number of other things.

 

 

However, if we want one feature to be implemented, we need to consider what would likely be okay with TJ and what wouldn't be. In the past, he has been very adamant about limits for eggs and hatchlings, and it would be wise for us to keep that in mind. It doesn't mean he cannot change his mind, but it's still a good idea to consider it.

 

Now you're trying to insert a "feature" into the unfreezing feature that would allow people to cheat these scroll limits in no small way. What do you think how that will affect the chances of an unfreezing feature being implemented? Remember, the scroll limits are pretty much sacred.

Why some people consider so bad to raise more 36 hatchies a year in a very complicated (because to me is much easier to raise hatchies in the normal way) method? We are not talking in add slots, the person who freezes still have to use the eggs slots and the hatchies slots before freze a hatchie. It's not a big deal and I honestly don't undertand why you guys don't want to improve the game.

If it's not a big deal and doesn't do much when it comes down to numbers, then why do you consider this an important enough improvement that it just has to be added? It's not exactly creative, since everybody here pretty much saw that potential from the very beginning of the discussion. Your suggestion doesn't really enrich the game, only helps people who want to collect more of certain "special" dragons that are supposed to be in very limited supply.

 

Also, as I pointed out way before, a 12-month wait to unfreeze doesn't what it is supposed to do regarding holidays. The breeding season won't be over before you can unfreeze, so the penalty you want for the "freeze-then-unfreeze-holidays-to-get-more-of-them" scenario doesn't apply. As a matter of fact, it can easily be sidestepped:

Step one: Catch and/or breed 7 eggs on the first day of the holiday breeding season.

Step two: Incubate and hatch them as quickly as possible. They should then hatch on day 3 of the breeding week. Freeze at once.

Step three: Catch and or breed 7 eggs on the third day of the breeding week.

Step four: Incubate, hatch and freeze as fast as possible. The freezing should happen on day 5 of the breeding week.

Step five, one year later: It's the third day of the holiday breeding week. Unfreeze your holiday hatchlings from the previous year. Ta-daa, you got 7 new breedable adults.

Step six: Same as step five, only on day 5 of that holiday breeding week.

 

See what I mean? Either, you'd need a wait period of 13 months, or the freshly unfrozen adults need to be on a one-week breeding cooldown. Or we can do away with the wait period altogether.