Ideas for Collectors and Traders

[GraspingClaw]

Originally Posted by alice

Doesn't change my original argument, that I can see. "It wouldn't be a challenge if ____ had it." (Just substitute "most people" for "everyone".) Or to put it differently; "The fact that very few people have it is what makes it a challenge".

I'm sorry, but I really think you're twisting things in an illogical way. The statement...

"The fact that very few people have it is what makes it a challenge."

...is untrue and rather backwards.

That's like saying:

"The fact that very few people have a gold medal is what makes Olympic swimming a challenge."

Of course that's not the case. What makes swimming at an Olympic level challenging is the time, the effort, the practice, and the skill it takes to compete. The gold medal is simply the reward for excelling at it. Are you of the opinion that gold medals should be handed out to everyone based on the fact that some people don't have them?

Originally Posted by vJosh

For your items to have "value," someone else in the game can not have the item, they must "want" your item for that items "value" to be established.
QED, You want other players to not have items.

For my items to have value, they have to be somewhat difficult to obtain. This doesn't mean that certain people aren't afforded the opportunity to obtain them. True, there aren't enough Green Flips on the game right now for everyone to own a pair, but those who made it top priority could. If it's that important to a player, and if they put in the effort, they have every chance to succeed.

Using your same analogy, you could say that anyone hoping to win a "Best Guset Room" badge wants other people to lose. Since they are competing against many other users and countless other rooms, and because it's not even close to feasible that all users will eventually win, would you suggest that they don't want other people to get those badges? Would you word it that way? Are people in these contests ever labeled as selfish or greedy or mean? Certainly not that I've witnessed, and I can't imagine why they would be.

Should we eliminate any kind of contest on VMK, because there will inevitably be those who don't get the prize? No, because it's more than okay to have a healthy sense of competition, and it's okay if everything isn't completely equal. Where are the people who defend VMK's every bone-headed action with "Life isn't fair"? Why don't we expect people to adjust to the fact that they might not have every identical item that other people on the game have? Why don't we encourage acceptance of that reality, since it is the reality of the world we live in? Putting in effort, time, and hard work is rewarded. Yes, sometimes it helps to be in the right place at the right time, but sitting around and waiting and whining is not how you open doors.

Okay, Neoteny. Your turn. First, would you like to point out the contradiction between these statements?

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

I don't need to offer evidence that the majority of players in VMK are interested primarily in trading and collecting, because I never made that claim.

(And try using the entire quote...)

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

...the game primarily centers around trading. VMK does offer a certain amount of freedom, and players can create and customize their experience to an extent, and some people may not be interested in the trading aspect. I don't think they can argue, though, that VMK was created with a focus on buying and collecting, and that trading is a natural, and often necessary, part of that element. If that's agreed upon, VMK is doing a terrible job of sustaining and motivating the desire to trade and collect.

I'll remind you that I'm looking at things from VMK's perspective; the way they designed the game, the objectives they centered it around. You can sit in a room by yourself and do nothing else but type "lalala" until your fingers hurt, and call that your personal objective on the game, but when you see VMK as what it was intended to do, that unquestionably remains to inspire the collecting and trading of items. I never claimed that the majority of people completely buy into this, although I suspect that many of them (whether they're honest enough to admit it or not) were indeed hooked by this very system.

Originally Posted by Neoteny

The trade value did not go down, because I never had any intention of trading it. Therefore, it had no trade value, and it continues to have no trade value, just as your (nontradeable) Top Ten pin has no trade value.

But I'm not arguing about what you consider to be your personal trade value. What one person considers to be the estimated asking price of an item is inconsequential, unless it's just you and I in a trade. (Also, when we're talking "value", I think it should be assumed we're talking about items that might actually be traded. If your's don't apply, there's no reason to bring them up.) What matters, in this regard, is the overall estimation; that's what determines the market value. On a whole, the VMK population would agree that the trade value for Inferno has gone way down. This means the items I worked for are no longer worth as much, and of course you know if at some point you did trade an Inferno for other items you wanted, you wouldn't get nearly as much as you could have a few months ago. It does have worth, if only potential worth in your specific case.

The emotional investment you've made in the items is in your collection is the same that I've made in the effort to collect mine. If you believe it's selfish to have something that someone else doesn't have, I implore you to open a trade box with the next guest you see and give away the extras of everything you have that he/she doesn't have. Would you even be willing to give away all the items that are currently being sold in stores? And would you continue these give-aways any time someone asked for something until your extras were gone? Or might you resist that idea, and might you suggest that the guest try to obtain those things by earning credits, collecting, trading, and offering things in exchange for the thing you worked to collect? If you would resist the notion of these give-aways, I hope you can appreciate the hypocrisy in your argument.

By saying...

Originally Posted by Neoteny

I am calling it selfish to want other people not to be able to have what I have.

...are you saying you don't want that guest to have everything you have? Are you being a mean and selfish player? Or are you saying that you expect them to put in the effort to acquire what you have, whether that be through offering you a fair amount of credits or comparable items? Of course they could get those items on their own, (using the same methods needed to acquire retired items) but it would take effort, and apparently you don't think people should need to work for what you have. You see, that's the trick here. It really is a double standard and I think it's ridiculous that people are trying to demonize those who respect the worth of an item and want it to stay that way. It doesn't mean they want to make them non-tradeable and it doesn't mean they don't want anyone to have them. It simply means they want those items to be a challenge, and more power to anyone who takes that challenge on and succeeds.

By the way, I still haven't heard why my alternative options and compromises wouldn't work. (Different colors, 2nd Edition tags, etc.) Anyone want to tackle that topic instead of trying to call me out as being selfish?

[vJosh]

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

What makes swimming at an Olympic level challenging is the time, the effort, the practice, and the skill it takes to compete. The gold medal is simply the reward for excelling at it. Are you of the opinion that gold medals should be handed out to everyone based on the fact that some people don't have them?

Riddle me this? Years after the event has taken place do you think these people tell other people "hey years ago I practiced really hard and put alot of time and effort into a swimming event" or do you think they will tell them "I won a gold medal."

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

Using your same analogy, you could say that anyone hoping to win a "Best Guset Room" badge wants other people to lose. Since they are competing against many other users and countless other rooms, and because it's not even close to feasible that all users will eventually win, would you suggest that they don't want other people to get those badges? Would you word it that way?

Yes, this is exactly correct. I want to win best guest room so I DO want others to not win. Thats not to say when others do win I don't appreciate their rooms, but when the next week comes along I want to win.

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

Are people in these contests ever labeled as selfish or greedy or mean? Certainly not that I've witnessed, and I can't imagine why they would be.

No one has brought it up before. But since you have I agree.

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

Should we eliminate any kind of contest on VMK, because there will inevitably be those who don't get the prize? No, because it's more than okay to have a healthy sense of competition, and it's okay if everything isn't completely equal. Where are the people who defend VMK's every bone-headed action with "Life isn't fair"? Why don't we expect people to adjust to the fact that they might not have every identical item that other people on the game have? Why don't we encourage acceptance of that reality, since it is the reality of the world we live in? Putting in effort, time, and hard work is rewarded. Yes, sometimes it helps to be in the right place at the right time, but sitting around and waiting and whining is not how you open doors.

Read my post in this thread several pages back.

I beleve its fine for someone to want to have things others don't have. My hope was to have you stop lying to yourself about it.

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

This means the items I worked for are no longer worth as much, and of course you know if at some point you did trade an Inferno for other items you wanted, you wouldn't get nearly as much as you could have a few months ago.

So what?

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

The emotional investment you've made in the items is in your collection is the same that I've made in the effort to collect mine. If you believe it's selfish to have something that someone else doesn't have, I implore you to open a trade box with the next guest you see and give away the extras of everything you have that he/she doesn't have. Would you even be willing to give away all the items that are currently being sold in stores? And would you continue these give-aways any time someone asked for something until your extras were gone? Or might you resist that idea, and might you suggest that the guest try to obtain those things by earning credits, collecting, trading, and offering things in exchange for the thing you worked to collect? If you would resist the notion of these give-aways, I hope you can appreciate the hypocrisy in your argument.

Guest7294114 = Hurricane Bay pin
MSfabulousrockstar = (said she was here after Halloween) White Mickey Ghost
Guest7297997 = Alice in Wonderland Quest pin.

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

By the way, I still haven't heard why my alternative options and compromises wouldn't work. (Different colors, 2nd Edition tags, etc.) Anyone want to tackle that topic instead of trying to call me out as being selfish?

I am waiting on the same thing.

[Neoteny]

Originally Posted by vJosh

So what?

That pretty much sums up my whole opinion on this matter. So what if somebody else can now get a pin which I had previously had to work so hard to get? Why should I care? Instead, I'll just be happy that other people are also able to get the things they want.

[alice]

Originally Posted by GraspingClaw

I'm sorry, but I really think you're twisting things in an illogical way. The statement...

"The fact that very few people have it is what makes it a challenge."

...is untrue and rather backwards.

That's like saying:

"The fact that very few people have a gold medal is what makes Olympic swimming a challenge."

Of course that's not the case. What makes swimming at an Olympic level challenging is the time, the effort, the practice, and the skill it takes to compete. The gold medal is simply the reward for excelling at it. Are you of the opinion that gold medals should be handed out to everyone based on the fact that some people don't have them?

Sorry if you're not understanding me. My point was that there would be no condition of challenge in the first place if VMK didn't retire items or distribute them in a limited manner. This has nothing to do with the effort required to overcome the challenge, once it has been presented.

How you interpret my comments to mean that I think everything should be handed out to everyone is beyond me.

[GraspingClaw]

Originally Posted by Neoteny

That pretty much sums up my whole opinion on this matter. So what if somebody else can now get a pin which I had previously had to work so hard to get? Why should I care? Instead, I'll just be happy that other people are also able to get the things they want.

Well, I do think you care about the workings of VMK a little more than a simple "So what?" would imply, but of course on the grand scheme, these matters are meaningless. I was bored today and probably wrote more than I should on the subject. I still think the experience on the game would be more interesting and rewarding if they kept things retired. Personally, I like lofty goals that take some time to achieve, because when you run out of those, things tend to get boring. I also tend to like games that require effort and strategy as opposed to patience. Now we all know it's just a matter of time before whatever you want comes knockin' on your door. However, I recognize that the core group on this game lacks the attention span to do things the "hard" way and this is the way VMK will probably choose to keep things, despite the existence of some possible and reasonable compromises. Why? Because it requires less effort on their part.

"Uh-oh, we don't have anything planned for this week. Well, it's Chinese New Year. Hong Kong is in China. Just rehash that stuff from 2005. You know, the stuff with 2005 printed right on it. Yeah. They'll eat that up."

And vJosh, thanks for your super input, but I wasn't lying to myself. I want everyone to have the opportunity to own these items, which is why I'm opposed to "non-tradeable" items. I just want some of them to present a challenge. I've had that opinion from the beginning. And I've maintained it until...

The End.

[mrmyth]

Maybe we should take some of the views more literally here. Lets talk about values as far as costs go. Why do they charge 10 grand for one magic and 5 for another? If we take the everyone should have an equal opportunity to purchase these, why not make every item released the same price. Better yet, every item sold on VMK should only be 10 credits so to assure that everyone can by at least several of each item each day by using NPC's alone.
Now that must sound more fair to many of you.
As far as where is the motivation to play then... well, none there for me.


P.S.- Sorry Priz we seemed to of gotten off track of your original ideas. The entry idea is a fresh look at re-distributing items instead of just releasing things. Same Idea works with the Indian casinos out here. The longer you play the more chances you have to be selected to win the big jackpot each day. There however they track what you have been playing - unlike dreams month where more people played but were not playing at all. I still see dreamzombies in my sleep after that month!

[StarBP]

I think VMK items are good the way they are. People who think more people should have the items should look no further than the examples of the flip hat and red HKDL. People who think that there are too many re-releases should look no further than the examples of the blue generator and boys staff shirt (both of which probably existed at one time, but are only rumored to exist today).

[Neoteny]

Originally Posted by StarBP

I think VMK items are good the way they are. People who think more people should have the items should look no further than the examples of the flip hat and red HKDL. People who think that there are too many re-releases should look no further than the examples of the blue generator and boys staff shirt (both of which probably existed at one time, but are only rumored to exist today).

Wait: You think the boys' staff shirt is only a rumor? You think the boy staff used to wander the Kingdom shirtless?

[Whipstersh]

Originally Posted by Neoteny

Wait: You think the boys' staff shirt is only a rumor? You think the boy staff used to wander the Kingdom shirtless?

The Boys' Staff Shirt has seemingly disappeared from the kingdom. Lasts sightings of it were a while back.

[StitchRokcs]

i think its a great idea

[Neoteny]

Originally Posted by Whipstersh

The Boys' Staff Shirt has seemingly disappeared from the kingdom. Lasts sightings of it were a while back.

But that doesn't mean that it never existed.

[StarBP]

Originally Posted by Neoteny

Wait: You think the boys' staff shirt is only a rumor? You think the boy staff used to wander the Kingdom shirtless?

LOL no. I'm talking about regular players only, not staff; and I never even said it did not exist, just that it might not have existed on regular players. I honestly believe that someone once had a staff shirt other than staff (same with the blue generator).