VP's future/MCM sales - Forum

Olympus
Popstar

Olympus wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:

Olympus wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:
These are items where the user who holds them have their wds closed, I don't think that would be fair

but absolutely for recolors, I am so on board for their release

Why isn't it fair though. I feel there would need to be criteria or something, was it a comp item? was the item promised to never be released again? are these people actually not online?

I guess right now i'm not sure what they lose by there being a few more in game, as it is right now these items with 2ig aren't seeing the light of day ever

I feel like it's a slippery slope, where if we start adding items that are low ig to the game, it'll balloon to other items over time and overall hurt the perceived value of items especially if folks have spent some time/money obtaining them. We don't really have a way of knowing that context, and we might not know if they see the light of day, but the owners potentially do.

I say this as an owner of some very low ig items, and someone who occasionally turns off wd public viewing. I'm totally ok with having wishlist items I added a decade ago that I probably won't ever get to own, if it upholds the integrity of item ownership. I know this is gate-keepy of me, but I need to be honest and say it wouldn't be fair to me or the owners of those items.

I do acknowledge the main issue right now is how to encourage in-game spending and boost the sale of in-game currency, so the big-picture impact of manipulating the rarity of items doesn't matter too much. However, having seen what happens in games (most recent example being CSGO2) where that does happen, the thought of introducing a change like this makes me uncomfortable.

I'm all for re-releasing items with an actual 0ig count (i.e imagine I deleted a 1ig item and freed it from my wd haha), or recolors though since that's not the same as adding more of the exact same item.

I also feel like an exception is the Auction account, where if someone deletes their account their entire wd ends up being saved for bidding, but I feel like that's ok bc the item count isn't really increasing. Something contrasting (tangent, sorry) is when an item gets deleted (even by accident) and general policy seems to be not adding it back ig. I have to imagine something different is happening there.

But see, we have the context of what we're trying to achieve! also, it's not every single item we're reviving either i'm sure they would do a poll of most wanted items. assuming they do go forward with it, it would likely be single items...if they sold 1 low ig dollzmania item every week that's only 52 items....we have so much more items than that here that are extinct and it's not something that would need to keep happening.

I understand the concern of things losing their "rarity" but what does rarity even mean if there's no one to care about it lmao. Not to mention there's barriers they can put in place to keep rarity, low release amount, high cr price ECT.

I personally don't see it harming anyone or anything

Dew
National Star

Dew wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:

Olympus wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:
These are items where the user who holds them have their wds closed, I don't think that would be fair

but absolutely for recolors, I am so on board for their release

Why isn't it fair though. I feel there would need to be criteria or something, was it a comp item? was the item promised to never be released again? are these people actually not online?

I guess right now i'm not sure what they lose by there being a few more in game, as it is right now these items with 2ig aren't seeing the light of day ever

I feel like it's a slippery slope, where if we start adding items that are low ig to the game, it'll balloon to other items over time and overall hurt the perceived value of items especially if folks have spent some time/money obtaining them. We don't really have a way of knowing that context, and we might not know if they see the light of day, but the owners potentially do.

I say this as an owner of some very low ig items, and someone who occasionally turns off wd public viewing. I'm totally ok with having wishlist items I added a decade ago that I probably won't ever get to own, if it upholds the integrity of item ownership. I know this is gate-keepy of me, but I need to be honest and say it wouldn't be fair to me or the owners of those items. If they are on long-term hiatus, they could also come back (I'm guilty of this bc I went away to college).

I do acknowledge the main issue right now is how to encourage in-game spending and boost the sale of in-game currency, so the big-picture impact of manipulating the rarity of items doesn't matter too much. However, having seen what happens in games (most recent example being CSGO2) where that does happen, the thought of introducing a change like this makes me uncomfortable.

I'm all for re-releasing items with an actual 0ig count (i.e imagine I deleted a 1ig item and freed it from my wd haha), or recolors though since that's not the same as adding more of the exact same item.

I also feel like an exception is the Auction account, where if someone deletes their account their entire wd ends up being saved for bidding, but I feel like that's ok bc the item count isn't really increasing. Something contrasting (tangent, sorry) is when an item gets deleted (even by accident) and general policy seems to be not adding it back ig. I have to imagine something different is happening there.

I understand aspects of this, but also, if it helps boost the websites economy to the point of saving it from dying, isn't it something to consider? Sure a few users might not like it, but if the site dies, so do the items anyway, and then there's no worth to them at all.

Aisaenic
Princess of Pop

Aisaenic wrote:

Olympus wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:

Olympus wrote:
Why isn't it fair though. I feel there would need to be criteria or something, was it a comp item? was the item promised to never be released again? are these people actually not online?

I guess right now i'm not sure what they lose by there being a few more in game, as it is right now these items with 2ig aren't seeing the light of day ever

I feel like it's a slippery slope, where if we start adding items that are low ig to the game, it'll balloon to other items over time and overall hurt the perceived value of items especially if folks have spent some time/money obtaining them. We don't really have a way of knowing that context, and we might not know if they see the light of day, but the owners potentially do.

I say this as an owner of some very low ig items, and someone who occasionally turns off wd public viewing. I'm totally ok with having wishlist items I added a decade ago that I probably won't ever get to own, if it upholds the integrity of item ownership. I know this is gate-keepy of me, but I need to be honest and say it wouldn't be fair to me or the owners of those items.

I do acknowledge the main issue right now is how to encourage in-game spending and boost the sale of in-game currency, so the big-picture impact of manipulating the rarity of items doesn't matter too much. However, having seen what happens in games (most recent example being CSGO2) where that does happen, the thought of introducing a change like this makes me uncomfortable.

I'm all for re-releasing items with an actual 0ig count (i.e imagine I deleted a 1ig item and freed it from my wd haha), or recolors though since that's not the same as adding more of the exact same item.

I also feel like an exception is the Auction account, where if someone deletes their account their entire wd ends up being saved for bidding, but I feel like that's ok bc the item count isn't really increasing. Something contrasting (tangent, sorry) is when an item gets deleted (even by accident) and general policy seems to be not adding it back ig. I have to imagine something different is happening there.

But see, we have the context of what we're trying to achieve! also, it's not every single item we're reviving either i'm sure they would do a poll of most wanted items. assuming they do go forward with it, it would likely be single items...if they sold 1 low ig dollzmania item every week that's only 52 items....we have so much more items than that here that are extinct and it's not something that would need to keep happening.

I understand the concern of things losing their "rarity" but what does rarity even mean if there's no one to care about it lmao. Not to mention there's barriers they can put in place to keep rarity, low release amount, high cr price ECT.

I personally don't see it harming anyone or anything

Yeah I see the logic in that, it's more of a long-term concern that I don't think I'll ever be fully comfortable with, but I'm just one opinion and there's a bigger issue at play. I'd rather have VP stay around and keep all my items, than have a couple lose their value. And whatever theoretical criteria there'd be for increasing item count, it might not even impact items with an active user count (me heh).

Good discussion though, it's nice to bring up the pros and cons, and the different thoughts ppl have on the matter.

Olympus
Popstar

Olympus wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:

Olympus wrote:

Aisaenic wrote:

Yeah I see the logic in that, it's more of a long-term concern that I don't think I'll ever be fully comfortable with, but I'm just one opinion and there's a bigger issue at play. I'd rather have VP stay around and keep all my items, than have a couple lose their value. And whatever theoretical criteria there'd be for increasing item count, it might not even impact items with an active user count (me heh).

Good discussion though, it's nice to bring up the pros and cons, and the different thoughts ppl have on the matter.

Yes, I agree! i'm just glad we can discuss anything with even a smidge of hope. how lucky are we, something may actually be done!!

Private
Queen of Queens

Nanami wrote:
- Do you feel as if MCM is worth it for the cost?
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. Now days I feel like we just put in the sets we have and not really care.
- Are there incentives that you feel would make MCM worth purchasing?
We get more cr out of it.
- Does the structure/timing of MCM not work for your budget?
I can buy MCM each month but wont uf I don’t see the sets eorth it.
- Does VP not feel worth investing in?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I have been offline a time now but I feel VP don’t really fight for there ppl. And when they do VP closed bc of bug.
- Do you simply not care about purchasing MCM/MCM sets?
This is a really mean question. As in if ppl don’t buy MCM we don’t like VP or what? I have been buying alot. Old days I did buy 9 times the 96€ package. That is not worth it anymore. This time I only want one set so I did buy from someone else that did buy mcm. I have in the start of MCM payed for the sets, 48€ everytime. Sometimes 2 times to sell. But we lost it. Like Inwrote in another post. I think some shop sets and DM sets was mire worth pay money forthan the real MCM set in 2-12€.