I'm sorry if the title is... Weird? Makes no sense? I don't think I could accurately describe this suggestion. If it's a no-go idea, though... -Shrugs- Worth suggesting, anyway, worst response I'll get is a resounding no!
I am also by no means saying this should be applied to the current event going on, this is only for future events.
So, let's talk a moment about what all you can win in events in Soquili.
Except, maybe... That first one. I've gotten to join exactly 1 auction, and boy howdy did that last a VERY short amount of time, because I have a whopping 33bil pure to my name, and I'm watching these auctions hit the multi-trillion region very consistently, with average starting bid being 100bil, a bit more than 3 times what I have.
I'm not saying that's not fair. People can do what they want with their gold.
What I'm proposing is... How to word... I'm bad with wording, I'm sorry. A thread, where those of us who KNOW we have 0 hope in auctions, can post to swap 1 auction pony/familiar chance for 1 freebie pony/familiar chance. Not the raffles, JUST auction for freebie.
So, we go to this thread, which can be stickied under the auction thread, and post a form, "I, [username], am forgoing any opportunity to bid on auctions, even if I get an item worth quadrillions, in favor of being able to get a second freebie instead!" No take-backs, that's it. Once you post it, you cannot enter ANY auctions, even as a co-bid, and like anything, deleting a post is an automatic DQ for the rest of the event(Outside the raffle).
Why am I suggesting this, you're probably wondering. Because as it stands, it LOOKS on paper like everybody has the exact same opportunity to get up to 3 ponies and 3 familiars, but... It's... Not. Not really, no. And while we could abstain from auctions in favor of a second freebie, that's not a guarantee we'll actually WIN said second freebie, since we'll still have all the same luck everybody else does in competing for that rare extra freebie. And this would ONLY apply to big events. Anything else? Standard rules would still apply.
I wouldn't give up the single Soquili I've won in the present event for the world, because I love Mareep. But there ARE other Soquili I'd love to enter for and can't because I absolutely don't want to give up that Soquili, in part becaues I absolutely love Mareep, and there's no guarantee I'll win anything else. But I can't enter the auctions, because even if items were accept(Which they're not, and it's 100% logical as to why... Thanks, Dev Team!), I know for a fact I'd never be able to compete with people who have literal trillions in gold to bid on something(And no, I'm not trying to guilt trip about that. Again, what you do with your gold is your business).
I hope the suggestion and the reasoning behind it made sense. Like I said, I'm bad with wording, and I also know that the worst that can be said of it is "Nope"
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:25 am
Hello, and thank you for the suggestion! As a note, this is not an Official Answer, but an opinion from my own experience with events. I feel as if I'm bad with wording as well (although I thought your post was fine!) so please do let me know if there's anything I can clarify, or if you would like me to expand upon anything:
I think the point of miscommunication stems from the fact that the suggestion appears to imply that users can equally expect to win 3 ponies and 3 familiars from the event, whereas from my understanding we're trying to maximize freebies first and then offer paid pets as bonuses—as an extra, not a staple. I don't think swapping an auction slot (or even multiple paid slots) for a freebie will fly, because they carry different weights and different intentions. If people can't access auctions, then—and I don't mean this rudely—it's not perceived the same as people being unable to access freebies. Allowing users to win more freebies would go against the goal of maximizing freebie winners, as it would make it more difficult for users with 0 freebies to win a freebie at all.
From my understanding, the event allocations weren't made with the intention to equally distribute winnings. We don't expect there to be an equal chance to win an auction as a raffle or a freebie between all users. In the Prehistoric event there were roughly 170-290 freebies and only 37 raffle and 11 auction pets. In the Pokemon event there seems to be about 250 freebies (counting the current pool of won pets and Last Chance pets, but otherwise not counting any unreleased game pets), 49 raffle, and 31 auction pets. Taking just numbers into account and not even gold, there was no hope of ever being an equal opportunity for every user to access all three options in either event, because the number of freebies far exceeded everything else combined.
I think we are striving for more people to win less things, than less people to win more things; breadth over depth. Either scenario have their pros and cons so I don't mean to imply that what we have is inherently better, but I hope this explains where we're coming from. The suggestion would be more likely to be accepted, I think, if we were the latter, or if we had freebies falling out of our ears, but I don't think that's where we're at right now. If we consistently ended events with leftover freebies it might be something to consider because it would still be in-line with the goal, but I don't think I've ever seen an event like that since I joined the shop. The Pokemon event is possibly the closest contender (this is purely from observation alone, based on the number of games with too little entrants, and has no mathematical backing), but the number of freebies it has is comparable to the Prehistoric event, which still had a minimum of 60 users who had not maximized their freebie wins (meaning they won 0-1 freebies) during the entirety of the event. Even if the Pokemon event ends up being the first with leftovers, the outcome is unlikely to change our stance on freebies because it would have been an exception but not a trend.
From having been a customer myself, I can definitely sympathize with the difficulty of falling in love with a lot of pets, yet being able to win only one out of literal hundreds. It means so, so much to know how much users like them, and we are always trying to make our patrons happy, so we appreciate your suggestion!! ;o; <333 If implemented, it can certainly make users happier, but it would be a different kind of happiness, I think, than the one the shop is currently going after. Like mentioned before, one isn't better than the other, but I hope this explains why I believe it's unlikely the suggestion will be accepted. I appreciate the level of thought you put into your entry as well, with the reasoning behind it and the ideas for putting it to action, and I tried to do the same; I hope it provides a better insight into (my understanding of) the shop's stance.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read it all! <333 As always, I'd be happy to clarify or expand on anything upon request!
Sources
Prehistoric Event 37 Raffle and 11 Auction 170 Freebie estimate came from going to the OL and searching for Theme: Prehistoric Event 2016, resulting in 218 entries. 218 entries - (37 + 11 in paid) = 170. However, the OL doesn't include familiars or pets that were never certed. 290 Freebie estimate came from manually counting the list of pets in the staff forum which resulted in 338 - (37 + 11 in paid) = 290.
60 Users with Unmaximized Freebies It was considered a minimum because it's possible people got rolled for their first win of the event (if they had 0 pets and received 1 from the Last Chance Raffle (LCR), they would have been counted as part of the "0-1 freebies" category even though they were no longer numbered on the list) and because some users had been skipped due to having too small a pref list, despite not winning a pet from the LCR.
Pokemon Event 49 Raffle and 31 Auction 250 Freebie estimate came from counting the Winners List and manually counting the (possibly-still-growing) pool of pets intended for the LCR, located in the staff forum.
Manual counting is always prone to errors, but they should still serve as good estimates.
Reply
