No support. I'd like to be able to buy other stuff on FR other than the monthly festival skins before they inflate in price.
No support. I'd like to be able to buy other stuff on FR other than the monthly festival skins before they inflate in price.
Pings are disabled.
If writers are supposed to "show not tell," why are we called "storytellers" and not "storyshow-ers"?
I like the idea of having more skins, I think doing so would make a good treasure sink.
[quote name="pokemonbutch" date="2020-03-22 13:59:19" ]
My proposal is that, regardless of the number of slots, they make a guarantee that no breed will get two skins and/or accents per festival, so that even if we stay at the current 14, that is a guaranteed 14 different breeds
[/quote]No thanks. If there are multiple great skydancer skins, one should not get passed over simply because a mediocre mirror skin has to be selected.
I like the idea of having more skins, I think doing so would make a good treasure sink.
pokemonbutch wrote on 2020-03-22 13:59:19:
My proposal is that, regardless of the number of slots, they make a guarantee that no breed will get two skins and/or accents per festival, so that even if we stay at the current 14, that is a guaranteed 14 different breeds
No thanks. If there are multiple great skydancer skins, one should not get passed over simply because a mediocre mirror skin has to be selected.
I'd like to see a couple more slots. I think there could be room for at least one or two more Baldwin skins, and as someone else mentioned if cost is an issue there's no rule saying the price could not be lowered.
I'd like to see a couple more slots. I think there could be room for at least one or two more Baldwin skins, and as someone else mentioned if cost is an issue there's no rule saying the price could not be lowered.
No support. The skins aren't chosen by breed they are chosen for how good they are and how much the staff liked them.
If you want a skin/breed that didn't make the cut you can always check through the runner up list to see what they made.
Also 14 is a good number any more would mean first more money a person has to save up if they want them all and might encourage the staff to chose breed over art.
No support. The skins aren't chosen by breed they are chosen for how good they are and how much the staff liked them.
If you want a skin/breed that didn't make the cut you can always check through the runner up list to see what they made.
Also 14 is a good number any more would mean first more money a person has to save up if they want them all and might encourage the staff to chose breed over art.
Please call me Ace. ALWAYS PING IF NOT MY FOURM..it helps me respond easier.
[quote name="pokemonbutch" date="2020-03-22 13:59:19" ]
My proposal is that, regardless of the number of slots, they make a guarantee that no breed will get two skins and/or accents per festival, so that even if we stay at the current 14, that is a guaranteed 14 different breeds
[/quote][quote]No thanks. If there are multiple great skydancer skins, one should not get passed over simply because a mediocre mirror skin has to be selected.
[/quote]
^^^^^
This. The staff choses the best ones based on art and while it is frustrating you can always go through the runner up list and see what they made. There is actually a whole forum devoted to the festival runner ups sharing their skins. That's like saying that there must be exactly 7 male and 7female skins but some years have more male skins or more female skins. Not because the team is being unfair just that that year there were better male skins or better female skins.
pokemonbutch wrote on 2020-03-22 13:59:19:
My proposal is that, regardless of the number of slots, they make a guarantee that no breed will get two skins and/or accents per festival, so that even if we stay at the current 14, that is a guaranteed 14 different breeds
Quote:
No thanks. If there are multiple great skydancer skins, one should not get passed over simply because a mediocre mirror skin has to be selected.
^^^^^
This. The staff choses the best ones based on art and while it is frustrating you can always go through the runner up list and see what they made. There is actually a whole forum devoted to the festival runner ups sharing their skins. That's like saying that there must be exactly 7 male and 7female skins but some years have more male skins or more female skins. Not because the team is being unfair just that that year there were better male skins or better female skins.
Please call me Ace. ALWAYS PING IF NOT MY FOURM..it helps me respond easier.
People: We need more treasure sinks
When the idea of more treasure skins is introduced
People: NO, NOT LIKE THAT.
Seriously, the argument of "people cannot afford them all" is ridiculously silly.
People know when the festivals are coming up, they're in the same period every year. You know how much skins cost, they've been the same price for years.
Even if like, 4 more by festival are added - it's less than most MP genes.
People: We need more treasure sinks
When the idea of more treasure skins is introduced
People: NO, NOT LIKE THAT.
Seriously, the argument of "people cannot afford them all" is ridiculously silly.
People know when the festivals are coming up, they're in the same period every year. You know how much skins cost, they've been the same price for years.
Even if like, 4 more by festival are added - it's less than most MP genes.
[quote name="Corviknight" date="2020-03-26 11:51:28" ]
People: We need more treasure sinks
When the idea of more treasure skins is introduced
People: NO, NOT LIKE THAT.
Seriously, the argument of "people cannot afford them all" is ridiculously silly.
People know when the festivals are coming up, they're in the same period every year. You know how much skins cost, they've been the same price for years.
Even if like, 4 more by festival are added - it's less than most MP genes.
[/quote]People want treasure sinks but they don't want to spend THEIR treasure, haha.
Corviknight wrote on 2020-03-26 11:51:28:
People: We need more treasure sinks
When the idea of more treasure skins is introduced
People: NO, NOT LIKE THAT.
Seriously, the argument of "people cannot afford them all" is ridiculously silly.
People know when the festivals are coming up, they're in the same period every year. You know how much skins cost, they've been the same price for years.
Even if like, 4 more by festival are added - it's less than most MP genes.
People want treasure sinks but they don't want to spend THEIR treasure, haha.
People want treasure sinks that aren't limited to a one-week window in which its "buy now before this cool thing inflates!" More effective sinks are long-running, go-at-your-own-pace sinks. For example, lair expansions. It's not "get your lair expansion this week or pay more for it!" It's a work as you have time to, in order to achieve your own goals. Small, repeated sinks work well too, such Pipp, Tripp, and Baldwin. But herding players to "buy now before it's gone for good!" is a touch of fear tactics and hunger marketing--the very reason the Scattersight vials were poorly received.
FR has 11 fests a year--players spend a lot of time earning stuff for festivals (especially when the anniversary, food microholidays, and NotN are factored in). If people are that desperate for skins, put some in the MP long-term so players can earn them at their own pace without the fear of inflation. Baldwin has been suggested, which is also better than some type of skin festival quota. Or, if more MUST be added, lower the price all around.
It's not out of fear of spending money. It's out of desire to spend money on other things. I have gene'ing projects to do, and I'd like to do lair expansions again. Throwing out "more skins for treasure!" is just causing the sinks to compete against each other, thus making them less effective. Rather than bunching them all up, scatter them about and let players use them at their leisure.
People want treasure sinks that aren't limited to a one-week window in which its "buy now before this cool thing inflates!" More effective sinks are long-running, go-at-your-own-pace sinks. For example, lair expansions. It's not "get your lair expansion this week or pay more for it!" It's a work as you have time to, in order to achieve your own goals. Small, repeated sinks work well too, such Pipp, Tripp, and Baldwin. But herding players to "buy now before it's gone for good!" is a touch of fear tactics and hunger marketing--the very reason the Scattersight vials were poorly received.
FR has 11 fests a year--players spend a lot of time earning stuff for festivals (especially when the anniversary, food microholidays, and NotN are factored in). If people are that desperate for skins, put some in the MP long-term so players can earn them at their own pace without the fear of inflation. Baldwin has been suggested, which is also better than some type of skin festival quota. Or, if more MUST be added, lower the price all around.
It's not out of fear of spending money. It's out of desire to spend money on other things. I have gene'ing projects to do, and I'd like to do lair expansions again. Throwing out "more skins for treasure!" is just causing the sinks to compete against each other, thus making them less effective. Rather than bunching them all up, scatter them about and let players use them at their leisure.
Pings are disabled.
If writers are supposed to "show not tell," why are we called "storytellers" and not "storyshow-ers"?
[quote name="gemajgall" date="2020-03-26 13:49:39" ]
People want treasure sinks that aren't limited to a one-week window in which its "buy now before this cool thing inflates!" More effective sinks are long-running, go-at-your-own-pace sinks. For example, lair expansions. It's not "get your lair expansion this week or pay more for it!" It's a work as you have time to, in order to achieve your own goals. Small, repeated sinks work well too, such Pipp, Tripp, and Baldwin. But herding players to "buy now before it's gone for good!" is a touch of fear tactics and hunger marketing--the very reason the Scattersight vials were poorly received.
FR has 11 fests a year--players spend a lot of time earning stuff for festivals (especially when the anniversary, food microholidays, and NotN are factored in). If people are that desperate for skins, put some in the MP long-term so players can earn them at their own pace without the fear of inflation. Baldwin has been suggested, which is also better than some type of skin festival quota. Or, if more MUST be added, lower the price all around.
It's not out of fear of spending money. It's out of desire to spend money on other things. I have gene'ing projects to do, and I'd like to do lair expansions again. Throwing out "more skins for treasure!" is just causing the sinks to compete against each other, thus making them less effective. Rather than bunching them all up, scatter them about and let players use them at their leisure.
[/quote]
This. There are treasure sinks, and then there are EFFECTIVE treasure sinks. I want EFFECTIVE treasure sinks, not just any old treasure sink. If there are too many more skins during the festival, I would probably just give up, because it would just be too overwhelming, especially on the times when I might happen to want most or all of the skins. Thus, that treasure sink, which is now working just fine by me, is no longer an effective one, because I am no longer going to even bother trying to obtain the skins. I would probably turn to either the coliseum to get at least half the skins, or just completely skip them.
That is the difference. There are things that would be great treasure sinks, that people would WANT to spend money on and that they could spend money on, and those also tend to be ones that are year round, so that players can take their time earning the money to spend on them.
Limited time treasure sinks have to be carefully done, because if it gets too much, especially with 11 festivals a year, players will just give up, because there is no way to keep up with it.
Plus, the best way to have more treasure sinks is to create many smaller ones, instead of trying to force players to use larger ones. Many people don't even realize that the tax on the AH is a small treasure sink, yet look at how much it takes out of the economy every day. Renaming scrolls are another one.
Not everything has to be a treasure sink, and not every treasure sink has to be huge. I have the feeling that the amount of people who would more or less give up if there were too many skins in the festival would outweigh the people who would be 'ooh, more skins, let me buy them'.
As I said earlier, a great treasure sink would be to have some ancient skin contests and toss the winners in the treasure MP. Have them there a year or two, then add to or replace them with others. If they pick *good* skins (I saw the last skins in there, nice ones, but not really good ones, especially since they were mostly full coverage) then there is your treasure sink, without affecting the festival skins, without causing stress 11 weeks a year for players who like collecting festival skins and more effective than having one or two ancient skins available for a week only.
gemajgall wrote on 2020-03-26 13:49:39:
People want treasure sinks that aren't limited to a one-week window in which its "buy now before this cool thing inflates!" More effective sinks are long-running, go-at-your-own-pace sinks. For example, lair expansions. It's not "get your lair expansion this week or pay more for it!" It's a work as you have time to, in order to achieve your own goals. Small, repeated sinks work well too, such Pipp, Tripp, and Baldwin. But herding players to "buy now before it's gone for good!" is a touch of fear tactics and hunger marketing--the very reason the Scattersight vials were poorly received.
FR has 11 fests a year--players spend a lot of time earning stuff for festivals (especially when the anniversary, food microholidays, and NotN are factored in). If people are that desperate for skins, put some in the MP long-term so players can earn them at their own pace without the fear of inflation. Baldwin has been suggested, which is also better than some type of skin festival quota. Or, if more MUST be added, lower the price all around.
It's not out of fear of spending money. It's out of desire to spend money on other things. I have gene'ing projects to do, and I'd like to do lair expansions again. Throwing out "more skins for treasure!" is just causing the sinks to compete against each other, thus making them less effective. Rather than bunching them all up, scatter them about and let players use them at their leisure.
This. There are treasure sinks, and then there are EFFECTIVE treasure sinks. I want EFFECTIVE treasure sinks, not just any old treasure sink. If there are too many more skins during the festival, I would probably just give up, because it would just be too overwhelming, especially on the times when I might happen to want most or all of the skins. Thus, that treasure sink, which is now working just fine by me, is no longer an effective one, because I am no longer going to even bother trying to obtain the skins. I would probably turn to either the coliseum to get at least half the skins, or just completely skip them.
That is the difference. There are things that would be great treasure sinks, that people would WANT to spend money on and that they could spend money on, and those also tend to be ones that are year round, so that players can take their time earning the money to spend on them.
Limited time treasure sinks have to be carefully done, because if it gets too much, especially with 11 festivals a year, players will just give up, because there is no way to keep up with it.
Plus, the best way to have more treasure sinks is to create many smaller ones, instead of trying to force players to use larger ones. Many people don't even realize that the tax on the AH is a small treasure sink, yet look at how much it takes out of the economy every day. Renaming scrolls are another one.
Not everything has to be a treasure sink, and not every treasure sink has to be huge. I have the feeling that the amount of people who would more or less give up if there were too many skins in the festival would outweigh the people who would be 'ooh, more skins, let me buy them'.
As I said earlier, a great treasure sink would be to have some ancient skin contests and toss the winners in the treasure MP. Have them there a year or two, then add to or replace them with others. If they pick *good* skins (I saw the last skins in there, nice ones, but not really good ones, especially since they were mostly full coverage) then there is your treasure sink, without affecting the festival skins, without causing stress 11 weeks a year for players who like collecting festival skins and more effective than having one or two ancient skins available for a week only.
Not everyone on FR is a completionist though.... Sure, adding more skins may make some people that can't afford them all decide not to get any (I actually think that isn't very likely, but it is possible) but it could also mean players like myself buy more as I only buys skins for certain breeds and never bother buying skins for breeds I dislike.
Not everyone on FR is a completionist though.... Sure, adding more skins may make some people that can't afford them all decide not to get any (I actually think that isn't very likely, but it is possible) but it could also mean players like myself buy more as I only buys skins for certain breeds and never bother buying skins for breeds I dislike.
