Ty for the feedback. The only thing I disagree with is " but wouldn't be good for KI's business or for player participation. " because the research myself, and others have done on this, clearly suggest the reverse. But, I will be the first to admit that even the best research is not a guarantee. I do believe from all the debate the pet process has initiated, that something needs to change to help the game. Many avid pet fans/trainers have already fled this game for greener pastures, and the exodus will continue unless things change for the better. "Show Me the Talents", may not be the best solution, but it is a proposal that tries to install a little more interest in what is, and can be a very tedious, and frustrating system that instills apathy, and does not inspire further participation. I have seen many other suggestions just as good, or better, but sadly KI has turned a deaf ear to all of them so far. As stated previously, good members have already left, more will continue to do so, unless certain needs are addressed, and no longer ignored.
Sorry, I don't see evidence that this is anything but a shortcut. KI would lose sales of snacks, snack bearing seeds, and energy. Any gains are speculative at best.
Sorry, I don't see evidence that this is anything but a shortcut. KI would lose sales of snacks, snack bearing seeds, and energy. Any gains are speculative at best.
You offer no proof that they would lose money, only your opinion, and yet you like so many state your opinion as fact, which is false and misleading to so many. I cited valid research by myself and many others( which KI would not print), to support my suggestion. I even admitted that research is not infallible, yet it still should be given more weight besides a simple opinion with nothing to back it up. I close with your last sentence, " any gains are speculative at best". Indeed they are. Losses are also the same, yet you fail to mention that your opinion is not infallible, unlike my own post.
Sorry, I don't see evidence that this is anything but a shortcut. KI would lose sales of snacks, snack bearing seeds, and energy. Any gains are speculative at best.
Could you cite me some research to support your stance, other than just your opinion? I did some research on the author's stance, and found a wealth of information to support it. I have an open mind though, and would love to see evidence to support your theory as well. I looked, but couldn't find anything to coincide with what you are suggesting. Thanks.
I disagree. Issues regarding KI's revenue stream aside, I think a change like this would be damaging to the game. Agreeably, it's frustrating to spend time and resources on pet training only to have the pet "fail" but that's all part of the process. Much like farming Waterworks for the gear. To be able to see in advance what talents your pet manifest would, in my opinion, cheapen the experience. It seems to me that implementing a change like you suggest would actually be detrimental to you and the others that are members of the "pet group(s)" you mentioned. Groups like that are based on a degree of enjoyment in the gathering of data, cross-referencing talent possibilities and balancing the likelihood that certain pet parents will produce possible talent pools. By simplifying the procedure it would appear, at least to me, that you are removing a large reason for groups like that to even exist. I'm surprised that so many people would agree to a change that would render most of their research useless.
Dakota, I have submitted answers to this twice now, including one that was very vague, just in case they don't want me to divulge certain places, or info. Neither has been posted. I'm afraid I cant help in that. Just continue your searches, the information is out there. Sorry.
Hmm. I looked around and found a few discussions about ideas like this, but didn't find any with more than a few supporters. The largest official site had a poll with 5 for and 6 against, so I must question claims of 'research' and massive support. This doesn't seem like a good idea for KI or the game. I'm sure some people would like it to be that easy, but I think there are better ways to improve the pet system without giving so much away. Just having better snacks, faster energy refills, and more games or other ways to train would help a lot.
I disagree. Issues regarding KI's revenue stream aside, I think a change like this would be damaging to the game. Agreeably, it's frustrating to spend time and resources on pet training only to have the pet "fail" but that's all part of the process. Much like farming Waterworks for the gear. To be able to see in advance what talents your pet manifest would, in my opinion, cheapen the experience. It seems to me that implementing a change like you suggest would actually be detrimental to you and the others that are members of the "pet group(s)" you mentioned. Groups like that are based on a degree of enjoyment in the gathering of data, cross-referencing talent possibilities and balancing the likelihood that certain pet parents will produce possible talent pools. By simplifying the procedure it would appear, at least to me, that you are removing a large reason for groups like that to even exist. I'm surprised that so many people would agree to a change that would render most of their research useless.
As per usual in your posts, you offer up valid arguments, and present opinions, as just that. There is nothing I can list to refute anything you have just said. Sadly, too many others are focused on simply "winning" the discussion, and present simple opinions as facts. You explained your opinion emphatically, and did not embellish, or resort to "internet trolling" as some others have done. I always enjoy a healthy opposing viewpoint. Well done.
Could you cite me some research to support your stance, other than just your opinion? I did some research on the author's stance, and found a wealth of information to support it. I have an open mind though, and would love to see evidence to support your theory as well. I looked, but couldn't find anything to coincide with what you are suggesting. Thanks.
Again with 'research' .. sorry, until i see it, it's just wishful thinking. Obviously if you ask players "do you want the game to be easier?" or "do you want something for free?" many will say yes. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Training a pet to mega takes about 86 rank 9 snacks, or a greater number of lower rank snacks and at least 535 energy. Those resources have a cost to players in time, crowns, or both. KI profits financially from the crown cost, and the time investment slows player progress, keeping players active longer, extending subs and promoting activity. Assuming conservatively that even the most successful hatchers have fails at least half the time, implementing a talent preview would instantly cut that revenue and participation in half.
The only way that revenue would be offset would be if those players then hatched and trained more than twice as many pets. That is extremely unlikely, since most players would get their 'perfect' pet and stop.
It would diminish the value of existing pets and the effort put into making them, and basically be a handout. I'm against it. There's no question that pet hatching can be frustrating and takes effort, but many have done it and accept that. The rewards are great so that effort is not unreasonable, and now jewels give us an added 'sure thing' talent for free.
I disagree. Issues regarding KI's revenue stream aside, I think a change like this would be damaging to the game. Agreeably, it's frustrating to spend time and resources on pet training only to have the pet "fail" but that's all part of the process. Much like farming Waterworks for the gear. To be able to see in advance what talents your pet manifest would, in my opinion, cheapen the experience. It seems to me that implementing a change like you suggest would actually be detrimental to you and the others that are members of the "pet group(s)" you mentioned. Groups like that are based on a degree of enjoyment in the gathering of data, cross-referencing talent possibilities and balancing the likelihood that certain pet parents will produce possible talent pools. By simplifying the procedure it would appear, at least to me, that you are removing a large reason for groups like that to even exist. I'm surprised that so many people would agree to a change that would render most of their research useless.
Like most of the time, I echo TucsonWizard. I've disagreed with the suggestion from the beginning but had trouble putting my thoughts into words. S/he said what I couldn't articulate.
For the record, I am one of those who finds pet hatching to be too daunting and my pets are particularly "bad." Like, my questing teammates jokingly insult them often, bad. While the suggestion would benefit *me*, I don't feel that it would benefit *the game*.
I see a couple of huge flaws in the opinions of the people who are against this suggestion. The first being participation. I am a huge pet enthusiast, and spend the majority of my game time in pursuit of those efforts. I hatch multiple times per day on each of my wizards. My hatching is usually not to further my own pets, but to accelerate the development of good pets for others. To people like myself, who spend so much of their game time in commission of pet activities, a pet failure is a daunting, and discouraging thing. So much time, energy, and hard dollars are wasted, and this lessens participation, not advances it. The hard result of this is KI loses revenue, instead of gains. I'm guessing any true pet enthusiast would agree on this point. The really nice thing about the authors suggestion is that it doesn't change the pet, or make it any easier, it simply removes the waste of needless time and money on a failed project. I can't speak for anyone else besides myself, but this would certainly increase participation, and money spent on the game for me. I am not affiliated with any of the authors groups, but after questioning mine, they feel the same. The second problem I see is that too many people say things that are simply not true because they disagree. Several people alluded to the fact that KI would lose money. That is not a fact, it is just an opinion. Some even suggested the validity of the author's research, simply because they could present no research, or evidence of their own. I took the higher path, and did my own research, and confirmed what the author stated. I have yet to see anything but unsubstantiated opinions, and even some "trolling" on the ones who disagree. I would also like to remind the people of another thing here called credibility. The author has proven himself in that arena, time, and again. Does anyone here enjoy the "membership benefits"? The author was the one who started, and continued that crusade, and it was a win for all.
I see a couple of huge flaws in the opinions of the people who are against this suggestion. The first being participation. I am a huge pet enthusiast, and spend the majority of my game time in pursuit of those efforts. I hatch multiple times per day on each of my wizards. My hatching is usually not to further my own pets, but to accelerate the development of good pets for others. To people like myself, who spend so much of their game time in commission of pet activities, a pet failure is a daunting, and discouraging thing. So much time, energy, and hard dollars are wasted, and this lessens participation, not advances it. The hard result of this is KI loses revenue, instead of gains. I'm guessing any true pet enthusiast would agree on this point. The really nice thing about the authors suggestion is that it doesn't change the pet, or make it any easier, it simply removes the waste of needless time and money on a failed project. I can't speak for anyone else besides myself, but this would certainly increase participation, and money spent on the game for me. I am not affiliated with any of the authors groups, but after questioning mine, they feel the same. The second problem I see is that too many people say things that are simply not true because they disagree. Several people alluded to the fact that KI would lose money. That is not a fact, it is just an opinion. Some even suggested the validity of the author's research, simply because they could present no research, or evidence of their own. I took the higher path, and did my own research, and confirmed what the author stated. I have yet to see anything but unsubstantiated opinions, and even some "trolling" on the ones who disagree. I would also like to remind the people of another thing here called credibility. The author has proven himself in that arena, time, and again. Does anyone here enjoy the "membership benefits"? The author was the one who started, and continued that crusade, and it was a win for all.
"Proven"? How? Anything any of us post here is one person's opinion; nothing more. There are some very experienced players here with well-reasoned rebuttals, and no actual evidence for any 'research'.
Players spend snacks, energy, and gold to get pets. Those have the same costs no matter how the pet turns out. Fewer fails mean fewer snacks and energy needed, so less investment. Some might train more pets if it were a sure thing, but more would just get what they wanted and stop.
Ya know, instead of everyone arguing over who is right and wrong, or who did what research, maybe offer alternatives. I've seen a few player ideas get implemented in the game. If we can come up with an acceptable idea that generates support, maybe it'll eventually be added as well. If you don't like the idea the OP posted, that's absolutely fine. Try and offer up your own idea, maybe it is something we can all get behind.
"Proven"? How? Anything any of us post here is one person's opinion; nothing more. There are some very experienced players here with well-reasoned rebuttals, and no actual evidence for any 'research'.
Players spend snacks, energy, and gold to get pets. Those have the same costs no matter how the pet turns out. Fewer fails mean fewer snacks and energy needed, so less investment. Some might train more pets if it were a sure thing, but more would just get what they wanted and stop.
I'm firmly against this idea.
I don't know about the thread you are responding to, but I think you are misinformed on some of mine. As for as research, I don't post falsehoods. If I say it was researched according to valid and acceptable parameters, then indeed it was. The evidence is there, even if you can't find it, or don't like it. What concerns me even more though, is your constant suggesting of your opinion as fact. You state some opinions, as certain facts again, and again. I clearly list my own opinions, as just that, to avoid misunderstandings. I re-read the authors response, and he cited it as his own personal opinion. It is almost as if you wish to embellish the truth, and win the debate, simply because you don't like the idea. I could care less if you like the idea, or don't. I am simply trying to help the game, as I have always done. I present things truthfully, my passions are not interjected at all. Think carefully when you post, and word your opinions, because an opinion presented as a fact, is simply the opposite of the truth.
"Proven"? How? Anything any of us post here is one person's opinion; nothing more. There are some very experienced players here with well-reasoned rebuttals, and no actual evidence for any 'research'.
Players spend snacks, energy, and gold to get pets. Those have the same costs no matter how the pet turns out. Fewer fails mean fewer snacks and energy needed, so less investment. Some might train more pets if it were a sure thing, but more would just get what they wanted and stop.
I'm firmly against this idea.
I'm not sure why my post seems to ruffle your feathers, as it was directed at no one, just some inherent flaws in the "con" arguments I have noticed was all. My "proven" reference was to emphasize the authors track record here. He has posted multiple opinions, that have been adapted by KI. None of these have had a detrimental effect on the game, but a positive effect, just as was suggested by him. I am trying to enlighten people to see things they may not have considered at all. My post was not an attack on you, or anyone else. It was meant to inspire thought, not to generate hostility.
"Proven"? How? Anything any of us post here is one person's opinion; nothing more. There are some very experienced players here with well-reasoned rebuttals, and no actual evidence for any 'research'.
Players spend snacks, energy, and gold to get pets. Those have the same costs no matter how the pet turns out. Fewer fails mean fewer snacks and energy needed, so less investment. Some might train more pets if it were a sure thing, but more would just get what they wanted and stop.
I'm firmly against this idea.
Personally, I like the idea of any "shortcut" I can have while playing this type of game. I love opportunities to lessen my grinding of levels, and resources.
It is human nature to want to do the least amount of work for the most reward possible. Unless there is an incentive to continue working for an equal, or better reward, most won't do it.
This idea for the game is just that, an idea. I don't feel the word "research" is applicable here, because KI has never implemented the concept into the game, so any statements arguing for, or against it, are speculation, nothing more. As many responses have stated, similar opinions on an idea do not make that idea fact, just popular.
I can't speak for others, but I play on multiple accounts, and I can tell you that as soon as I train a decent pet for a specific wizard, I stop and move on until all my wizards had a decent sidekick. There are those that hatch pets for PVP vs. PVE play, and others maybe just for looks; I'm not one of those players.
For those that spend their own (real) money to help out others with hatching good pets, or any other aspect of this game, I salute you, but those helpful players are the minority in this game, and any other similar game.
All opinions presented here by anyone are just that - opinions. Claiming one person's is 'truth' or 'fact,' or should carry more weight is the logical fallacy "argument to authority". Any compelling case has to be based on evidence we can actually see, and sound reasoning, not "____ knows best".
In terms of alternatives, several posters in the past have suggested being able to 'untrain' a level. I like that idea, as it isn't a complete pass on risk or effort, but provides us a chance to fix a fail on an otherwise good pet. It wouldn't cut into snack or energy sales, yet would increase players odds of success.
Personally, I like the idea of any "shortcut" I can have while playing this type of game. I love opportunities to lessen my grinding of levels, and resources.
It is human nature to want to do the least amount of work for the most reward possible. Unless there is an incentive to continue working for an equal, or better reward, most won't do it.
This idea for the game is just that, an idea. I don't feel the word "research" is applicable here, because KI has never implemented the concept into the game, so any statements arguing for, or against it, are speculation, nothing more. As many responses have stated, similar opinions on an idea do not make that idea fact, just popular.
I can't speak for others, but I play on multiple accounts, and I can tell you that as soon as I train a decent pet for a specific wizard, I stop and move on until all my wizards had a decent sidekick. There are those that hatch pets for PVP vs. PVE play, and others maybe just for looks; I'm not one of those players.
For those that spend their own (real) money to help out others with hatching good pets, or any other aspect of this game, I salute you, but those helpful players are the minority in this game, and any other similar game.
I've been thinking about this and am still opposed. I've said before that my pets are *far* from perfect. Like all out BAD. My main reason is that the sheer number of tries required tests my limited patience - especially when after training a "fail" talent appears.
I'm the exact player this suggestion most benefits. If I had known in advance that mana was a possible manifest, I wouldn't have trained. I'd have just trashed and rehatched.
And that's exactly why I don't think it's good for the game. This makes it infinitely easier to get perfect pets, but I don't think perfect is something that someone as lazy as I am (about this aspect) deserves.
I think that this just deepens the divide between the casual, just for fun player, and those of us who have *and* spend more time on the game. (I don't "do" pets, but I do a lot of farming. A lot. A lot of Crafting. A lot of gardening.)
If one doesn't PVP, one doesn't really need a perfect pet. If one does, then one should expect to have to work, repeat, work, repeat, work ad nauseam. That quad damage critical, or double resist infallible double block might be the difference between Leaderboards and not. It shouldn't be easy. (I did PVP before pets. I no longer do, because, well pets. I didn't enjoy it enough to put that much work into it. I do enjoy farming difficult dungeons and instances, so I'm often found in Morganthe even though I have all her stuff for all of my Exalted, in Darkmoor even though all my Exalted have full gear, and I've been known to do The Galleries just because.)
Maybe my opposition is ironic because I don't think Darkmoor needs to be nerfed and it can arguably be a divider, but in general I'm not in favor of things that make any of the game easier. Make things more organized, yes. Make things more convenient, yes. Make things faster (Khrulu) anyone?, yes.
Thus removes what I think is an intended stumbling block. I don't think it's good for the game if everyone is running around with "perfect" pets.
100
88