reminds me of the biblical meltdown Gaia had when the devs released the eye vials and their stack of Vial of Scattersights got worthless over night lmao
fuck off with this comparison; no one was trying to monopolize or artificially inflate that market.
tbh just a really unfair and unkind way to characterize both gaia and the many others who got severely fucked over by that update.
(and no, I wasn't one of them; I had actually liquidated my stash shortly before the vials released, i.e. what turned out to be the best possible timing.)
No, it’s a fair comparison. I don’t want the devs to keep items retired purely because some users kept them as cash cows. People who poured a gazillion gems into a rare consumable were making a market gamble.
I don’t know what the impact on FR’s financials would be from the un retiring of sprites, but from my perspective it would be a benefit for a majority of players. If a couple of people are mad about it because they “invested”, then they can be mad, but that doesn’t mean the same as being a bad decision for the playerbase as a whole.
I mean honestly it could be a net-positive. A lot more people would probably buy gems if they knew that the amount of gems they could buy could *actually get them* a sprite (ie 1,000g instead of 11,000g or smth). Joxboxes spitting out a specific item is going to take a long time to catch up with backlogged demand (if it even does), so the sprites won't be dirt-cheap but their prices should be more obtainable at least.
if you want to talk about high-value items generally, then sure I guess. I don't per se agree, but it's at minimum a reasonable discussion that can be had!
what I take issue with is the sense of schadenfreude and general mockery, as though treating scattersights as a nest egg item (barely a "gamble" at all, given the established policy that they would remain retired; staff only didn't renege on that one on a technicality) is equivalent to deliberate market manipulation to try to deprive other users.
It’s not the same as market manipulation; however, while I understand that people were caught off guard by the scattersights becoming obsolete, I only sympathize to a certain extent. I do understand that it’s common to “invest” in old and retired items on pet sites. I’m of the opinion that if you’re going to do that, you need to accept the risk of an item being unretired/being rendered obsolete/falling out of favor with the community. And while I sympathize with being unhappy if it happens, I don’t consider it to be the devs’ fault either, and don’t like the arguments of “this would be/has been disastrous for me, you suck, change it back”.
Does it suck when something you thought was worth something is no longer worth anything?
Of course, but, with how many people were complaining, not just about the lack of eye vials themselves, but also how short the event to get the scattervials was and how a lot of people just didn't have the time/ability to get a lot, I expected *something* to change, whether that meant they unretired scattervials, or something else.
And yeah, I never really understood the whole 'investment' thing with petsites. Not in the 'I take this old item, and then I can make money on it in the future' sense, but rather in the 'this is a pet site that can go down at any moment, be sold off to new owners, have a change in vision, and so on, so anything can happen.'
New owners might decide to unretire items because they have a different philosophy. Original owners might have a change in vision and realize that unretiring items can be good for their site. Just so many things that can happen, so why be shocked when something does happen?
The same thing for light sprites and other similarly valued items. With how much has been made over them, I personally wouldn't consider them 'investment' worthy, because there is no telling whether or not the developers will do anything to bring down the prices. They have already had a change in their views regarding various things before (such as the aforementioned eye vials, where they had planned on natural eyes being breeding only, but changed their minds and gave them vials)
Yea, also do not like this comparison. Knew a lot of people who lost tens of thousands of gems, some of which were paid with real money, and got totally played by the FR devs with that scatter vial function. It is perhaps the shadiest things the FR company has ever done, at least from the examples I can think of. Now, one player completely screwing with a very expensive market is less egregious but still damaging to the community.
it was hardly a meltdown, but a really quiet series of actions that took place.
gaia made this post the day of the eye vials releasing: https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/ann/3004107/6#post_47415434
then hours later was demoted from moderator status, wiped their account profile, and changed it to "semi-inactive". the few times gaia has mentioned eye vials since that post have been mostly ambivalent, but sometimes would appear on suggestion threads to offer another implementation use for the scattersight vials.
if gaia was really loud and furious, though, i'd like to know those details.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mindlessflight) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
anonrerising2024-10-08 11:48 am
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-11 11:29 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-11 11:46 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 04:49 am (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 10:31 am (UTC)(link)that said i'm in full support of that bitch's hodl on light sprites exploding in her face.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 11:09 am (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 12:36 pm (UTC)(link)tbh just a really unfair and unkind way to characterize both gaia and the many others who got severely fucked over by that update.
(and no, I wasn't one of them; I had actually liquidated my stash shortly before the vials released, i.e. what turned out to be the best possible timing.)
(frozen comment) Da
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 05:15 pm (UTC)(link)Light sprites are the work of a single player inflating things by buying out all cheap ones.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 07:05 pm (UTC)(link)I don’t know what the impact on FR’s financials would be from the un retiring of sprites, but from my perspective it would be a benefit for a majority of players. If a couple of people are mad about it because they “invested”, then they can be mad, but that doesn’t mean the same as being a bad decision for the playerbase as a whole.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 07:17 pm (UTC)(link)I mean honestly it could be a net-positive. A lot more people would probably buy gems if they knew that the amount of gems they could buy could *actually get them* a sprite (ie 1,000g instead of 11,000g or smth). Joxboxes spitting out a specific item is going to take a long time to catch up with backlogged demand (if it even does), so the sprites won't be dirt-cheap but their prices should be more obtainable at least.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-13 10:17 pm (UTC)(link)if you want to talk about high-value items generally, then sure I guess. I don't per se agree, but it's at minimum a reasonable discussion that can be had!
what I take issue with is the sense of schadenfreude and general mockery, as though treating scattersights as a nest egg item (barely a "gamble" at all, given the established policy that they would remain retired; staff only didn't renege on that one on a technicality) is equivalent to deliberate market manipulation to try to deprive other users.
it is, like I said, just not very kind.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 03:20 am (UTC)(link)It’s not the same as market manipulation; however, while I understand that people were caught off guard by the scattersights becoming obsolete, I only sympathize to a certain extent. I do understand that it’s common to “invest” in old and retired items on pet sites. I’m of the opinion that if you’re going to do that, you need to accept the risk of an item being unretired/being rendered obsolete/falling out of favor with the community. And while I sympathize with being unhappy if it happens, I don’t consider it to be the devs’ fault either, and don’t like the arguments of “this would be/has been disastrous for me, you suck, change it back”.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 04:55 am (UTC)(link)This is my stance.
Does it suck when something you thought was worth something is no longer worth anything?
Of course, but, with how many people were complaining, not just about the lack of eye vials themselves, but also how short the event to get the scattervials was and how a lot of people just didn't have the time/ability to get a lot, I expected *something* to change, whether that meant they unretired scattervials, or something else.
And yeah, I never really understood the whole 'investment' thing with petsites. Not in the 'I take this old item, and then I can make money on it in the future' sense, but rather in the 'this is a pet site that can go down at any moment, be sold off to new owners, have a change in vision, and so on, so anything can happen.'
New owners might decide to unretire items because they have a different philosophy. Original owners might have a change in vision and realize that unretiring items can be good for their site. Just so many things that can happen, so why be shocked when something does happen?
The same thing for light sprites and other similarly valued items. With how much has been made over them, I personally wouldn't consider them 'investment' worthy, because there is no telling whether or not the developers will do anything to bring down the prices. They have already had a change in their views regarding various things before (such as the aforementioned eye vials, where they had planned on natural eyes being breeding only, but changed their minds and gave them vials)
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-16 02:37 pm (UTC)(link)Now, one player completely screwing with a very expensive market is less egregious but still damaging to the community.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 01:29 am (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:02 am (UTC)(link)gaia made this post the day of the eye vials releasing:
https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/ann/3004107/6#post_47415434
then hours later was demoted from moderator status, wiped their account profile, and changed it to "semi-inactive". the few times gaia has mentioned eye vials since that post have been mostly ambivalent, but sometimes would appear on suggestion threads to offer another implementation use for the scattersight vials.
if gaia was really loud and furious, though, i'd like to know those details.