[quote name="May" date="2019-05-18 23:12:48" ]
i think [b]everyone[/b] who's ever had a g1 to gene has scryed them with pretty gem genes, [b]only to give up on the idea[/b]
[/quote]
Considering there are plenty of people who even gem gene non-G1s (the horror, I know /s), please speak for yourself.
In end, I find this reason ("too expensive") to make them cheaper both subjective and non-ending - because if current gem genes are made to be 700-800, then I am 100% sure that very soon there will be another identical thread saying how they are still too expensive. No support due to no actual reasons given.
May wrote on 2019-05-18 23:12:48:
i think everyone who's ever had a g1 to gene has scryed them with pretty gem genes, only to give up on the idea
Considering there are plenty of people who even gem gene non-G1s (the horror, I know /s), please speak for yourself.
In end, I find this reason ("too expensive") to make them cheaper both subjective and non-ending - because if current gem genes are made to be 700-800, then I am 100% sure that very soon there will be another identical thread saying how they are still too expensive. No support due to no actual reasons given.
So I have to agree with everybody else that making existing genes suddenly cheaper is not ok, and wouldn't work.
The only way I could see that being even remotely do-able would be if it's a very slow reduction that only starts happening after a long wait. So say after a gem gene has existed for 5 full years the price begins to drop just a tiny bit. So in the 6th year it's 50g less and then continues to drop 50g each year, and the discount eventually caps at like 500g off the original price or something way down the line. It's slow enough that most people won't just wait for the price to lower, and it probably wouldn't immediately tank the value of gem genes as people expect them to become worth less at some random point in the future. And it might give a boost of interest in older gem genes while not affecting the desirability of new gem genes.
But even then, I don't know that it would be beneficial and actually worth doing, gems are a source of income for the site and gem sinks are important for maintaining that in a healthy way. It might maybe be worthwhile eventually if it looks like the oldest gem genes are steadily declining in popularity and taking a small hit on the price would be a good trade off to increasing the rate of purchases overall, but I've no idea if that's the case or if it would actually work.
I would love to see simpler genes that cost less -for both gems and treasure though. That would be wonderful for a lot of reasons.
So I have to agree with everybody else that making existing genes suddenly cheaper is not ok, and wouldn't work.
The only way I could see that being even remotely do-able would be if it's a very slow reduction that only starts happening after a long wait. So say after a gem gene has existed for 5 full years the price begins to drop just a tiny bit. So in the 6th year it's 50g less and then continues to drop 50g each year, and the discount eventually caps at like 500g off the original price or something way down the line. It's slow enough that most people won't just wait for the price to lower, and it probably wouldn't immediately tank the value of gem genes as people expect them to become worth less at some random point in the future. And it might give a boost of interest in older gem genes while not affecting the desirability of new gem genes.
But even then, I don't know that it would be beneficial and actually worth doing, gems are a source of income for the site and gem sinks are important for maintaining that in a healthy way. It might maybe be worthwhile eventually if it looks like the oldest gem genes are steadily declining in popularity and taking a small hit on the price would be a good trade off to increasing the rate of purchases overall, but I've no idea if that's the case or if it would actually work.
I would love to see simpler genes that cost less -for both gems and treasure though. That would be wonderful for a lot of reasons.
Absolutely [b]NO SUPPORT[/b] for ever lowering the current existing gem genes. We need new gem genes that are cheaper, possibly even more subtle than Filigree, or affect smaller spots kinda how they did with Firefly.
[quote name="May" date="2019-05-18 23:12:48" ]
i think [b]everyone[/b] who's ever had a g1 to gene has scryed them with pretty gem genes, [b]only to give up on the idea[/b]
[/quote]
Nope, that's just you. I have gem gened and scrolled many dragons (non G1s mind you), it's not hard if you save up and don't impulse buy everything you see. Please don't make statements like this for all of us when it's only you.
Absolutely
NO SUPPORT for ever lowering the current existing gem genes. We need new gem genes that are cheaper, possibly even more subtle than Filigree, or affect smaller spots kinda how they did with Firefly.
May wrote on 2019-05-18 23:12:48:
i think everyone who's ever had a g1 to gene has scryed them with pretty gem genes, only to give up on the idea
Nope, that's just you. I have gem gened and scrolled many dragons (non G1s mind you), it's not hard if you save up and don't impulse buy everything you see. Please don't make statements like this for all of us when it's only you.
I'm +10H ahead of FR time!
Replies may be slow, so sorry ;w;
Yeah, I skimmed the first post because of the small text, so don't bite me if it's there.
I see customizing an existing dragon as a luxury. There is always the 'cheap' option of starting a breeding project.
Yeah, I skimmed the first post because of the small text, so don't bite me if it's there.
I see customizing an existing dragon as a luxury. There is always the 'cheap' option of starting a breeding project.
[quote name="PersimmonBird" date="2019-05-19 11:47:12" ]
I would love to see simpler genes that cost less -for both gems and treasure though. That would be wonderful for a lot of reasons.
[/quote]
My sentiment exactly. I think the price should correlate with the complexity of the gene, and some smaller or simpler gem and treasure genes could be perfect for specific dragons.
PersimmonBird wrote on 2019-05-19 11:47:12:
I would love to see simpler genes that cost less -for both gems and treasure though. That would be wonderful for a lot of reasons.
My sentiment exactly. I think the price should correlate with the complexity of the gene, and some smaller or simpler gem and treasure genes could be perfect for specific dragons.
I have similar thoughts about preferring some more simpler genes for a cheaper price. Like "discount" genes of ones we already have. Smirch is a good example, as I've heard it called the "poor man's Stained," Underbelly is a discount Glimmer. Laced reminds me of a less shiny version of Metallic for some reason, and I love scrying with it in place of Metallic.
The reason I like Gem genes is that I like pairing loud terts with quieter primaries and/or secondaries, and the Gem genes are more on the quieter side in terms of patterns: Shimmer, Iridescent, Metallic, Alloy, even Crystal, Facet, Bee and Wasp to an extent. Most of the cheaper and more common genes have busy patterns.
However, I don't really see the need to decrease the price of gem genes. Sure, it takes time to save up, but it's not impossible. I had one G1 I wanted 3 Gem genes for, and since I find treasure easier to make than gems, I bought 2 from the AH for treasure, and the 3rd for gems.
I have similar thoughts about preferring some more simpler genes for a cheaper price. Like "discount" genes of ones we already have. Smirch is a good example, as I've heard it called the "poor man's Stained," Underbelly is a discount Glimmer. Laced reminds me of a less shiny version of Metallic for some reason, and I love scrying with it in place of Metallic.
The reason I like Gem genes is that I like pairing loud terts with quieter primaries and/or secondaries, and the Gem genes are more on the quieter side in terms of patterns: Shimmer, Iridescent, Metallic, Alloy, even Crystal, Facet, Bee and Wasp to an extent. Most of the cheaper and more common genes have busy patterns.
However, I don't really see the need to decrease the price of gem genes. Sure, it takes time to save up, but it's not impossible. I had one G1 I wanted 3 Gem genes for, and since I find treasure easier to make than gems, I bought 2 from the AH for treasure, and the 3rd for gems.
I can't support changing the prices of existing gem genes, but there's nothing wrong with adding some cheaper options along side them. Treasure genes come at a variety of prices after all.
I can't support changing the prices of existing gem genes, but there's nothing wrong with adding some cheaper options along side them. Treasure genes come at a variety of prices after all.
@
May Hello! The formatting of your post has been edited to make it more readable to your fellow players. Please don't post blocks of excessively small text, it's against the forum rules. Thanks!
@
May Hello! The formatting of your post has been edited to make it more readable to your fellow players. Please don't post blocks of excessively small text, it's against the forum rules. Thanks!
Volunteer Moderator :If you have any questions, concerns, or feedback regarding moderation, please feel free to use the Contact Us form.
People would lose their minds if the prices of existing genes were lowered after being so high for so long...
That said- and I've had this same discussion with friends who play FR- I would buy gems way more often (or even regularly) if they went further. Asking the equivalent of t w e n t y real-world human dollars for an unlimited, unretired item on a petsite is absolutely bananas
People would lose their minds if the prices of existing genes were lowered after being so high for so long...
That said- and I've had this same discussion with friends who play FR- I would buy gems way more often (or even regularly) if they went further. Asking the equivalent of t w e n t y real-world human dollars for an unlimited, unretired item on a petsite is absolutely bananas
[quote name="RedWillia" date="2019-05-19 09:30:07" ]
[quote name="May" date="2019-05-18 23:12:48" ]
i think [b]everyone[/b] who's ever had a g1 to gene has scryed them with pretty gem genes, [b]only to give up on the idea[/b]
[/quote]
Considering there are plenty of people who even gem gene non-G1s (the horror, I know /s), please speak for yourself.
In end, I find this reason ("too expensive") to make them cheaper both subjective and non-ending - because if current gem genes are made to be 700-800, then I am 100% sure that very soon there will be another identical thread saying how they are still too expensive. No support due to no actual reasons given.
[/quote]
everyone i talked to about this told me that they often give up pretty, expensive scries because of the price of gem genes. im aware that people who arent like that exist, thank you :) just expressed myself in a wrong way.
and the reason was there, in the first paragraph lol
--
also, sorry for the small text. didnt realize it was so hard to read for some!
RedWillia wrote on 2019-05-19 09:30:07:
May wrote on 2019-05-18 23:12:48:
i think everyone who's ever had a g1 to gene has scryed them with pretty gem genes, only to give up on the idea
Considering there are plenty of people who even gem gene non-G1s (the horror, I know /s), please speak for yourself.
In end, I find this reason ("too expensive") to make them cheaper both subjective and non-ending - because if current gem genes are made to be 700-800, then I am 100% sure that very soon there will be another identical thread saying how they are still too expensive. No support due to no actual reasons given.
everyone i talked to about this told me that they often give up pretty, expensive scries because of the price of gem genes. im aware that people who arent like that exist, thank you :) just expressed myself in a wrong way.
and the reason was there, in the first paragraph lol
--
also, sorry for the small text. didnt realize it was so hard to read for some!
