Make CB Golds **slighty** less rare

[Dragon_Arbock]

Well, it seems it always cycles around and not everybody is happy with one particular solution..

 

(At the risk of being ignored again) I still think the easiest and least intrusive solution is to just give the rares a 'set' rarity not dependent on ratios.

(And in conjunction, I would also like the 5 minute AP idea to then help uncover more.)

[cyradis4]

If that happens, I know I, at least, will leave. No kidding. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If this site starts to only cater to those players who only want rares, let just those players have the whole site - and deal with the resulting issues. Let them be forced to raise their own commons so they have a chance at rares. Eventually, this policy would probably kill the site - but at least for some time, some people would have more fun, because there would be new challenges and a new thrill to hunting.

I'm not sure how releasing 2 or 3 more true rares would kill the site, nor how it would "cater to rare collectors". The harsh truth is, most adoptable sites have far more true rares in proportion to commons than DC has. The reason is the same as has been discussed already:

Having multiple rares gives multiple targets and allows personal preference to come into play

 

Keep in mind: once I got the rares for my scroll goals, I haven't traded for one since. In fact, I'm only "over limit" by 1 CB Silver. And I've mostly stopped breeding metals at all in favor of uncommons, there's more variety.

 

 

 

Having said that, I think several things are needed to alleviate the problem with rares being too focused in one segment of the population:

 

1. Add an internal to the site method to regulate blockers, such as the "rotate to the AP" idea

 

2. Fix Common x Common and Blocker x Blocker breeding!!!!!!!

There's a suggestion by ADP in this forum, and one in BSA forums by me to do this. This is essential! People will not USE those blockers and commons for lineages if it takes longer to finish the "common" lineage than it does to finish rare x commons, and the sad brutal truth is.... You CAN finish a Rare x uncommon lineage faster than any common x blocker lineage.

 

3. Add a couple of breeds that are true rares, that fall in rarity between Trios and Golds and Silvers.

I'll tell you true, I'll accept CB Magmas long before I'll accept a CB Gold on my newest Gold Shimmer line. Or a passel of hatchies! Many people are like me: they have enough Golds and Silvers. Add in something between Golds, Silvers, and Trios, and people like me (who can occasionally catch them) will be trading those intermediates for the common hatchies we do want. This will produce a far more varied trade market, and it will enable those with slower connections to trade for what they want easier.

 

 

PS: I really love the idea of a Fools Gold pygmy or Drake or Two-Head! Don't make it uber common, make it..... quasi-common, sorta like Pebbles are right now. And if you had the images for the eggs use the same URL with the site updating it to be gold / fools gold only AFTER the egg has gotten to a scroll..... You can kiss scripter's advantage good bye.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[AnanoKimi]

If that happens, I know I, at least, will leave. No kidding. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If this site starts to only cater to those players who only want rares, let just those players have the whole site - and deal with the resulting issues. Let them be forced to raise their own commons so they have a chance at rares. Eventually, this policy would probably kill the site - but at least for some time, some people would have more fun, because there would be new challenges and a new thrill to hunting.

So juts leave everything as is now then with maybe drpping rarity and then just hope the cheaters and fast clickers just arent fast enough so that this new abundance of the like 10 only rare and pseudo rares get to the hands of the slower players?

 

I don't understand your whole "let them raise their own Commons" There will always be people raising commons. Wouldn't it be easier to have commons hatch in minutes or a few hours rather than days? While someone else is locking themselves with a gold and a silver and like 4 other new rares, others could be browsing the category of nice low time CB commons in the AP to snatch up. Not only would that improve ratios on its own without too much work, but users get some of the commons they need at low time.

 

First to help move the biomes a suggestion like the 5 minute AP kick would have to be added in. Something to help move the biomes around. Once that's in place, give it a few months for users to get used to it and get familiar with it, then start adding in a new rare. probably not immediately after but lets say that due to the new change, we let everyone settle in for two three months and then once everyone is settled in have a regular release a moth later. Then another regular release, then one more, and then a rare. New rare, all the hype, next two three months, one regular release, then boom a rare.

 

The biomes are moving so if someone wants a straight from the cave 7day common, go for it, if not you can always check the AP. With biomes moving and everyone getting an equal chance of seeing whats behind all the darn blockers, adding in more rares means that they will be seen easier by the user base. Some people will still raise commons because low time commons why not? I know I would always dedicate some space to low time commons. Everyone loves a low time egg no matter what.

 

Also all of this~!

 

I'm not sure how releasing 2 or 3 more true rares would kill the site, nor how it would "cater to rare collectors". The harsh truth is, most adoptable sites have far more true rares in proportion to commons than DC has. The reason is the same as has been discussed already:

Having multiple rares gives multiple targets and allows personal preference to come into play

 

Keep in mind: once I got the rares for my scroll goals, I haven't traded for one since. In fact, I'm only "over limit" by 1 CB Silver. And I've mostly stopped breeding metals at all in favor of uncommons, there's more variety.

 

 

 

Having said that, I think several things are needed to alleviate the problem with rares being too focused in one segment of the population:

 

1. Add an internal to the site method to regulate blockers, such as the "rotate to the AP" idea

 

2. Fix Common x Common and Blocker x Blocker breeding!!!!!!!

There's a suggestion by ADP in this forum, and one in BSA forums by me to do this. This is essential! People will not USE those blockers and commons for lineages if it takes longer to finish the "common" lineage than it does to finish rare x commons, and the sad brutal truth is.... You CAN finish a Rare x uncommon lineage faster than any common x blocker lineage.

 

3. Add a couple of breeds that are true rares, that fall in rarity between Trios and Golds and Silvers.

I'll tell you true, I'll accept CB Magmas long before I'll accept a CB Gold on my newest Gold Shimmer line. Or a passel of hatchies! Many people are like me: they have enough Golds and Silvers. Add in something between Golds, Silvers, and Trios, and people like me (who can occasionally catch them) will be trading those intermediates for the common hatchies we do want. This will produce a far more varied trade market, and it will enable those with slower connections to trade for what they want easier.

 

 

PS: I really love the idea of a Fools Gold pygmy or Drake or Two-Head! Don't make it uber common, make it..... quasi-common, sorta like Pebbles are right now. And if you had the images for the eggs use the same URL with the site updating it to be gold / fools gold only AFTER the egg has gotten to a scroll..... You can kiss scripter's advantage good bye.

 

Cheers!

C4.

Edited May 28, 2015 by AnanoKimi

[NotBambi]

I'm not sure how releasing 2 or 3 more true rares would kill the site, nor how it would "cater to rare collectors". The harsh truth is, most adoptable sites have far more true rares in proportion to commons than DC has. The reason is the same as has been discussed already:

Having multiple rares gives multiple targets and allows personal preference to come into play

Thank you. That's exactly what I've been thinking.

I like to be challenged and I like catching. I'm bored and quite tired of chasing after Golds and Silvers: at this point, the only real reason I do is because they are the only "currency" that I can obtain since I fail at NDing and I've no CB Prizes. If there were more true rares, I would "diversify'.

 

Edited:

BTW I saw 4 CB Golds in the Alpine in the last few hours. NO, I did not catch them. But they do not seem that rare at this point.

Edited May 28, 2015 by NotBambi

[olympe]

It doesn't matter whether there are two rares (gold and silvers), or 6 rares (gold, silver, red & green copper, pink and orange pyralspite) or more - the thing is that a big group of players is unable to get them. The fact that some people now trade their low-gen prizes for the rare coppers or pyralspites instead of for CB golds/silvers didn't change that at all. Why do you think adding even more unobtainables will change that?

 

On the contrary, adding more rares will make things worse, and for several reasons:

Those who can catch CB rares now will have their fill, or soon. At least sooner as if several new rare breeds are introduced, which everyone will still need their fill of. Thus, the demand on rares would skyrocket.

 

Plus, the fact that some people only catch rares to use them as trade fodder doesn't change with the amount of rares. It only means that they might have to trade rare for rare in order to meet the demand of those they want to trade with.

 

Raising the ratio of the current rare will still make them more available, and the fastest clickers will be locked all the faster, leaving the field to those who click not quite as fast. True, adding more different rare breeds will achieve the same - but raising the ratios of existing rares won't have any of the drawbacks of higher demand due to "NEW SHINY!!!1!11!". And it won't cut people out of the collection of even more breeds.

 

Regarding the "but other adoptables sites..." argument: Other adoptables have alternate ways of obtaining things, too. Adult trading, in-game currency, real currency (Noooo!) and probably a number of others. Other adoptable sites have an ongoing shuffle, leveling the playing field at least somewhat. Other adoptable sites aren't DC.

[Dragon_Arbock]

I wish we had an idea of just how many people script.

I mean.. even if we somehow get more rares to show up, it makes no difference if there are a large number of scripters.

 

I'd hate to say, but if that /is/ the case, I would be willing to opt into the captcha.

[NotBambi]

DC, compared with other adoptable sites, caters to average. And now some seem to want it catering to average ONLY.

[Dragon_Arbock]

DC, compared with other adoptable sites, caters to average. And now some seem to want it catering to average ONLY.

I see nothing wrong with catering to the average. This isn't a pay to win site, so everything should be within the /average/ user's grasp.

When the prizes were given, this disparate gap in wealth was not an intended consequence.

So, /somehow/ we need to find a way to fix it.

[NotBambi]

I see nothing wrong with catering to the average. This isn't a pay to win site, so everything should be within the /average/ user's grasp.

When the prizes were given, this disparate gap in wealth was not an intended consequence.

So, /somehow/ we need to find a way to fix it.

I don't see anything wrong with catering to the average, either. I do with catering to the average ONLY.

 

Edit:

What I've been reading so far makes me think that some people here mean the the following: "you catcher, your playing style has you being thrilled hunting rares; we don't want them being rares so we can catch them and we don't want more rares for the same reason, shut up and go away."

Edited May 28, 2015 by NotBambi

[pederino]

It doesn't matter whether there are two rares (gold and silvers), or 6 rares (gold, silver, red & green copper, pink and orange pyralspite) or more - the thing is that a big group of players is unable to get them. The fact that some people now trade their low-gen prizes for the rare coppers or pyralspites instead of for CB golds/silvers didn't change that at all. Why do you think adding even more unobtainables will change that?

 

On the contrary, adding more rares will make things worse, and for several reasons:

Those who can catch CB rares now will have their fill, or soon. At least sooner as if several new rare breeds are introduced, which everyone will still need their fill of. Thus, the demand on rares would skyrocket.

 

Plus, the fact that some people only catch rares to use them as trade fodder doesn't change with the amount of rares. It only means that they might have to trade rare for rare in order to meet the demand of those they want to trade with.

 

Raising the ratio of the current rare will still make them more available, and the fastest clickers will be locked all the faster, leaving the field to those who click not quite as fast. True, adding more different rare breeds will achieve the same - but raising the ratios of existing rares won't have any of the drawbacks of higher demand due to "NEW SHINY!!!1!11!". And it won't cut people out of the collection of even more breeds.

 

Regarding the "but other adoptables sites..." argument: Other adoptables have alternate ways of obtaining things, too. Adult trading, in-game currency, real currency (Noooo!) and probably a number of others. Other adoptable sites have an ongoing shuffle, leveling the playing field at least somewhat. Other adoptable sites aren't DC.

 

The problem is that we almost only receive releases of commons/uncommons, which is more than nice, I prefer commons than rares, but once in a while we can receive a rare/medium rare instead of every year or so, just to make them more diverse, more "user-friendly", I mean, how many users actually like gold and silver because of how they look/represent instead of what they are right now(currency/rares/valuables)?

In any case, other adoptables sites are not DC, but DC is other adoptable site of hundreds, so it could take some tendencies (the good ones, or at least the neutral ones, like a more balanced proportion of rares and commons/uncommons, and some kind of other way to earn a dragon).

Edited May 28, 2015 by pederino

[olympe]

I don't see anything wrong with catering to the average, either. I do with catering to the average ONLY.

 

Edit:

What I've been reading so far makes me think that some people here mean the the following: "you catcher, your playing style has you being thrilled hunting rares; we don't want them being rares so we can catch them and we don't want more rares for the same reason, shut up and go away."

And the way the "catchers" demand the release of more rares feels like they're saying, "I want more rares. Let the slowlies catch commons if they're too slow to get them. It all doesn't matter as long as I get MOAR COOL SHINEES!"

[NotBambi]

Q.E.D.

[Dragon_Arbock]

Q.E.D.

Yeah.. I see what you're saying there now. :/

 

I really would actually like more rares myself (and plus on release day we can always get a few while there is much greater supply).

 

But this back and forth standstill needs to broken- certainly there must be more people who have an opinion on this that just aren't participating.

[Guillotine]

And the way the "catchers" demand the release of more rares feels like they're saying, "I want more rares. Let the slowlies catch commons if they're too slow to get them. It all doesn't matter as long as I get MOAR COOL SHINEES!"

I would like to emphasize that this is what you guys sound like. We've seen what even desirable uncommons do to the trade market; a true rare would be far worse than even that.

 

The problem would be best solved by a combination of a ratio adjustment and implementing ways to make ultra-commons more desireable (i.e. by dumping to the AP); new rares would just make the game less fun for the average player... and since the average player makes up the majority of the playerbase, it means that DC will probably start hemorrhaging players. We've already seen evidence of this happening just from the perception that rares were released.

 

A new rare will solve nothing.

[Dragon_Arbock]

The problem would be best solved by a combination of a ratio adjustment and implementing ways to make ultra-commons more desireable

'Ratio adjustment'- that's the thing I don't like about this whole thing, because it's not a permanent solution- a more definite solution would be to give them a 'set' rarity; like, instead of them appearing based on the number of existing commons, make them appear a guaranteed, say, 5%-10% percent of the time (I don't know how large the drops are, but if they're say, 100 eggs, then 5 would be guaranteed to be rares.)

 

And as far as adding a new rare- it could temporarily solve part of the problem, but only temporarily.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Dragon_Arbock

[Fiona]

Rare dragons have a "set rarity." All breeds have a "set rarity." It's whatever their ratio is set to. There is no designation anywhere in the code saying "this is a rare, that is a common..." Are you expecting TJ to completely change how his code works? To completely rewrite the game?

 

As I've said before, I believe the ratios themselves are fine. We just have a problem with some breeds of eggs not being picked up as much as the code thinks they should be. Fix that and there will be more breeds available in the cave. More people will hunt. More golds will be showing up.

[Dragon_Arbock]

Rare dragons have a "set rarity." All breeds have a "set rarity." It's whatever their ratio is set to. There is no designation anywhere in the code saying "this is a rare, that is a common..." Are you expecting TJ to completely change how his code works? To completely rewrite the game?

The definition of 'set' means unchanging. Ratios, while a value themselves, produce results that if measured in percents change all the time.

 

And as far as rewriting- I'm not asking him to completely rewrite the code- if he wants to keep the ratios system for commons, then that's fine- but for rares, a system like that just does not work.

 

(Also, the idea of making people take dragon breeds they don't want or like just to 'fix' the ratios does not set well with me).

[Tehya Faye]

This seems like it could run the risk of making Golds and Silvers more common than uncommons like Coppers.

[Fiona]

What you're asking him to do would require him to rewrite the code though, because what is dropped is calculated using those ratios.

 

I think fixing the fact that a lot of breeds' eggs circulate endlessly in the biomes to end up being deleted at the top of the hour will fix the whole problem.

[Dragon_Arbock]

I think fixing the fact that a lot of breeds' eggs circulate endlessly in the biomes to end up being deleted at the top of the hour will fix the whole problem.

I /want/ to believe it could work, but I'm just very skeptical until I see it actually working in practice for over a year (because I could see it working initially, but once more people can grab rares easier for the first month or so, I can see it going right back to being a ratios problem.)

[Beldarius]

I wish we had an idea of just how many people script.

I mean.. even if we somehow get more rares to show up, it makes no difference if there are a large number of scripters.

 

I'd hate to say, but if that /is/ the case, I would be willing to opt into the captcha.

This. Scripters like these make the game less fun for people with slower connections (my connection is decently fast, but even so I haven't seen a single Gold, Silver, Almandine, Spessartine or Copper in MONTHS) - scripters do not deserve any of their rares since they've cheated their way into getting them.

 

That's why I don't script - the only 'cheating' I do is Firefox's auto-refresher (i.e. "Reload Every") to save my hands from carpal tunnel syndrome.

 

I see only two solutions for this: either make CB Golds less rare, or devise a method to block userscripts from running so scripters can't do their thing (or sniffing these cheaters out and then banning them from the site).

[dragonpuck]

How about making some of the blockers "rare" adjust the ratios up and down occasionally

CB Blacks or a time were "invisible" after being "blockers( of course there weren't as many breeds then either) rather than having "new" rares .

 

Make some of the other breeds "seasonal" and therefore more valuable when dropping?

 

More biomes to spread the breeds around??

 

I would love to see more golds/silvers, but would rather have a couple more Anagallis from the Forest ( the jungle ones seem to have come back) .Two releases in a row TJ has had to " fix " how the cave sees the new stuff ,if that process is broken, how do we know that the "ratio" system is actually functioning .????

I don't think the "set is and forget it " approach is working anymore. Some active re- adjusting by TJ might alleviate the need for more rares ( breeds I want to have on my scroll but will never catch on my own and don't have anything to trade for them - my 2nd gen prize is too old to get good things in trade and I will never win one)

( still despondent over the lack of choose your own HM)

 

And yes, scripting , 6 CB gold caught it a few hour 's time seems suspicious to me. "Captcha "was a pain but I'd go thru it to see scripters locked out.

 

I am retired, but I don't like to spend hours hunched over my laptop to get "commons" that AREN'T actually common since they never appear until I quit hunting apparently

 

 

[NotBambi]

That's why I don't script - the only 'cheating' I do is Firefox's auto-refresher (i.e. "Reload Every") to save my hands from carpal tunnel syndrome.

I have now been asked by several different people if auto-Refreshers are OK or not and I don't have any certain answer except to suggest that they ask - so I thought I'd better check and get a definite answer on that, since it seems to be a popular question.

 

Does anyone know for sure - any Mods around?

For fansite reasons/to view your own dragons, that's fine. They should not be used to hunt, though.

[pederino]

'Ratio adjustment'- that's the thing I don't like about this whole thing, because it's not a permanent solution- a more definite solution would be to give them a 'set' rarity; like, instead of them appearing based on the number of existing commons, make them appear a guaranteed, say, 5%-10% percent of the time (I don't know how large the drops are, but if they're say, 100 eggs, then 5 would be guaranteed to be rares.)

 

And as far as adding a new rare- it could temporarily solve part of the problem, but only temporarily.

The problem with any solution we give is that it will never be "permanent", this is a site that changes too much for any solution to be permanent. But take in account that adding dragons is something that we know TJ does every now and then, changing ratios may be something he does also, but we dont really know, in any case, we can be almost sure that adding a dragon is "easier" than changing the ratios for the sole purpose of some breeds to be easier to get/breed, and in any case, both solutions must be done every certain period of time to be effective; stop doing them, and the solution is no solution anymore.

[Beldarius]

QUOTE (SockPuppet Strangler @ May 19 2015, 03:19 PM)

For fansite reasons/to view your own dragons, that's fine. They should not be used to hunt, though.

...I'm using Reload Every to stave off carpal tunnel syndrome while hunting. I'm heavily subject to carpal thanks to flexible joints and, in fact, right now my right hand - my dominant, mouse/clicking and writing hand - has that issue. My wrist keeps freezing at random times and I have to literally pop it to get it working again - it's basically trigger finger, just in the wrist. It's been like this for an entire month now.

 

Let's just say, I'm not going to injure my hand further if there's a way around that. :\

 

...Besides, it's not like auto-refreshers make it any easier to hunt. I have only two CB Golds and four CB Silvers, and I've been here since 2008.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Beldarius