Forums » Feedback » Suggestions

Tiered Name Clearing Selection

Go to page: 1

Bookmark Thread

wolfspirit25	10:08am Jan 15 2024 (last edited on 11:04am Jan 15 2024)
Normal User Posts: 1,440	I wasn't sure how to ti tle this but it's probably not exactly what the ti tle sounds like. I have seen a dozen people complain that they get nothing in the clearings despite bidding on over 50 throughout the time they've been active while others talk about how they got 10 in a week. Yes, it's all up to pure RNG, I understand that, but it just feels awful anyway. The solution shouldn't be "just bid on stuff you don't care about to raise your odds of getting literally anything." This suggestion isn't going to guarantee everyone a pet, of course, but it'll make it at least a little more balanced. Now, both of these hinge on the process selecting the winners for one pet at a time but that can be arranged surely if it isn't already being done (it'd be a bit hard to select all at once anyway, one at a time is simpler because you just run through a list). Similarly, it'd be nice if they were selected in some sort of semi-random order and not alphabetically. For both of these suggestions, as people get pets, a counter is added to their names/ids/whatever. This is ONLY for the current week and counters reset to 0 for each week's set of pets. So you get a pet, your counter is 1. You get another pet, your counter is 2, etc. The first option is still slightly more chance of someone getting a windfall of pets but at least there's less chance of getting 0. Every time it's a new pet's turn to be selected, it first checks the list of people that bid on it for any people that have a counter of 0. If there are, it selects ONLY from the people with a counter of 0. This way, those with 0 pets won have higher chances of winning one. If no one has a counter of 0, then it selects from everyone in the list. The second option is a slightly more tiered approach and is even more likely to spread out the pets semi-evenly. Every time it's a new pet's turn to be selected, find the minimum counter number in the list of people that bid on it and only select a winner from that number. So if 3 people bid on the pet and their counter numbers are 0, 0, and 0 then they all have an equal chance. If their numbers are 1, 3, and 1 then only people A and C have a chance at this pet because they've won 1 pet so far and the other person has won 3. This would be pretty simple to accomplish with a "MIN" check because I don't know a single higher-level coding language that doesn't have a MIN function to work with. Get the MIN counter number and then select from people in the list that have that counter number. (for the record, this is my preferred suggestion) Please note: neither of these guarantee that you'll get a pet. If the only pet you bid on has been bid on by many people that also bid on few pets or is early in the random list, you might miss it and not be listed for any others. This is FINE. The point is to at least give people a fighting chance of not getting 0 while someone else gets 10 while they've both bid on all the same pets. I'm not looking to find a way guarantee getting a pet. Then people will only bid on 1 and know "this is almost definitely going to be mine" and that's not how it should work at all.
Avedori	11:08am Jan 15 2024
Moderator Posts: 328	As intersting, and well put (as always) as this is, I don't think it would be feasible. Simply because it truly takes away from the randomness of the raffle. One ticket per pet, per person. Its as fair as it can be :) Forever collecting Drachid creatu & Items!
tututu	11:24am Jan 15 2024
Normal User Posts: 182	I question the randomness of RNG. Take sand quest for example, I gave 1,737 jars and can't get Atquati Scroll 8 for years.
wolfspirit25	11:30am Jan 15 2024
Normal User Posts: 1,440	It takes a bit away from the randomness, but it adds to the overall site satisfaction without making it unfair by allowing those who have a lot of TU or something to get ahead of the others. It's still one ticket per pet per person, just in a way that's more balanced rather than true, pure RNG. I know multiple people who are getting frustrated with the current system already and it's not even been out very long. I also know that if I was a new player that didn't have a lot of TU and had to be very selective with my ticket purchases, I'd probably not purchase any at all because what's the point? The odds will never be in my favor and there's nothing that will help that. Better save my limited TU for something else. Which in turn just means that actually the people who can afford to throw TU at every single pet in the clearing will get even MORE pets from it because people just don't want to bother. I'd rather see a slightly more balanced system that makes the tiny community we have happier overall than generate something purely random that, on paper, is "more even." This "more even" statement is also assuming everyone has equal resources, desire for names/pets/colors, etc. There is something to be said about the factors that make it a more skewed competition to begin with that are difficult to take into account. It's not a perfect comparison but it's similar to the comparison of "equal" vs "fair" that people make in schools to teach kids the difference. There are a ton of them but the first one I think of is "Person 1 comes to the teacher with a cut on their finger. The teacher gives them a bandaid on their finger. Person 2 comes to the teacher with a sore elbow. The teacher gives them a bandaid on their finger. Person 2 says 'why did you do that? My finger doesn't hurt' and the teacher responds with 'I am treating you equally'." So yes, everyone has an "equal" opportunity to get a pet but that doesn't mean it works out "fairly" when all other factors are considered. Again, this isn't an exact comparison but I'm trying to get a general idea across with it rather than a direct point. In any case, I would like to leave this open to some other opinions before considering it "dead" and locking it if that's all right.
Symbiote	11:42am Jan 15 2024
Normal User Posts: 131	I'll be honest, I would be PEEVED if this was enacted, and I got dinged cause I was awarded a pet before one that I really wanted, just because of alphabet ordering. I bid on multiple pets every week, some of them I want more than others... Sometimes, I just lose. It happens. Milk
Bowie	11:53am Jan 15 2024
Normal User Posts: 669	I think this adds an entire la yer that we wouldn't be able to solve. It would make people choose what pets to put tickets into, and that automatically reduces the actual fairness of this even being a ticket system in the first place to me. So say I want to put a cheap ticket into a random sepia because maybe I need to bean something for Kir and want to test my chances - I win that pet, but now because I've won that pet I can't win a cool mythical because another user only put one ticket on that mythical and/or won no other pet in the raffle? At that point, it's not a raffle, it's just a blockade. I also don't understand the need of wanting more pets from the raffles - it feels like so many of them are just colored pets/aren't really even high tiered names, so does it really matter? Besides the first week which had high colored mythicals/CS, there doesn't really seem to be any 'unfairness' in a user getting multiple of the pets. It's like someone buying from a Rancher shop - they have the tu to spend, why not let them spend it? Users shouldn't get punished for putting more tickets on more pets imo. If RNG chooses them, great! They're lucky. For the record, there were a couple times I put a lot of tickets in and won only one pet. I didn't care because the tu really is such a minimal amount that it was worth the risk. I truly don't think it's fair to consider this on the basis of new players because it isn't that hard to make tu with quests, at least in terms of having enough tu for the raffle tickets. The highest ticket price is 1.5mil right now - if a new user does the training token quest (which usually asks for cheaper items and also gives barter tokens) and sells the tokens, they'd easily have enough for any ticket that they want to buy. Even selling 25 training tokens at 300k a piece they'd have 7.5mil, which is a decent chunk of raffle tickets. Maybe for new users we could suggest that there is maybe a free ticket (or a few free tickets, like ticket vouchers or something) they can put into the name clearing raffle? That way they still have a chance and tu isn't an issue. I guess a tldr; I understand the concerns, but it would feel more punishing than helpful to reduce chances to get another pet just because you might have already won one. Especially because the cleared pets/names have such varying values, it would be impossible to make a tiered system fair.
wolfspirit25	12:04pm Jan 15 2024
Normal User Posts: 1,440	I appreciate the deive and insightful views from the other side of this and the examples of why you wouldn't like it or why you would believe it to be less fair. I don't actually participate other than maybe once every two weeks (not that I've won anything but I'm not deeply invested in any of them either except the first week so I buy very few tickets if any) so this suggestion is coming from seeing several people say "I've bought crazy numbers of tickets and never won anything" while also seeing others saying "I won 10 pets this week!" which definitely stings. I'm intentionally not naming any names for any of this but it's often the same people that end up saying "I got 5+ pets" while it's a large number of others that say something like "I bid on half the pets in the raffle and got 0." Maybe I'm just biased towards the people who get 0 no matter how many tickets they seem to buy because I know exactly how my RNG luck goes and it's similar to what tututu has experienced with the Atquati Scroll 8 (I don't actually go for the scrolls but my RNG ends up reflecting that kind of luck if I go for something in general).
Oriette	4:30am Jan 17 2024
Normal User Posts: 449	I don't have too much to say other than I definitely support this idea. I think it would encourage people to be more selective and bid on pets they genuinely want too, which is better for everyone in the long run - more people end up with the pets they truly wanted. Increased user satisfaction is always a good thing imo. I don't see harm in ensuring an extra la yer of fairness when I think that was the entire aim of doing name clearings this way? Anything to makes sure more users don't walk away feeling needlessly bummed out seems like a good idea to me. :)

Go to page: 1