I still don't know why this is being discussed when ">Keith gave his two cents on it on another topic but ok. -shrug emoji-

Everything I've had to say I've said on the original topic. I don't have the spoons to copy/paste it and it's easy to find. I still don't support this, not even with OPs ideas, or the nickname option because all of those sound too messy to implement, maintain & monitor. Same with the opt in/out ideas.

If the switch to ID is going to be implemented (doubt it but ok the same was said abt zombies having noses), I expect at least a free rename for every existing pet, and a 3 month adjustment period where renames and nameswaps are free. Renames/nameswaps should be cut in price later to keep them interesting as an option for new users.

ID resurrection/reclamation should also be a high-cost option (5-10k CSC) for those who thirst for lowIDs. Because you're going to get bored without the challenge of trying to grab real names, which means you won't spend as much money on the site. Imean, imagine the sheer privilege of getting to own Satan with ID number 666.

A newsletter should also be sent out to notify everyone. You wouldn't want any users to miss out on the free rename window, that would just be dickish.

Bottom line is... I still don't get why this needs to be a thing this late in Subeta's existence but whatever. Personally, I still find very nice pet names (mostly from the pound fwiw) and it's really not the site's problem that some people get more of their creative juices flowing with a real name than they do with a noun, verb, adjective, slight misspelling or a word with the same meaning from a foreign language. [edit]Edited to add the link to the topic

I really love that idea.

Because the default should be "no keep my names unique" which means autorefreshing to murder the site would be moot, which means any inactive user would keep their account as is (and making it far more likely these users might actually return).

And, the nickname idea is interesting, but people will find ways to hide the pet's actual name which really is no different than having non-unique names? Font size 1px & white will technically keep it on the profile and not-hidden, and removing the pet names from your profile wouldn't necessarily be misrepresenting a pet's true name?

Also, I'd equally be happy if the site invested in a means of culling autorefresh use. There's a many option that wouldn't involve freezing people, and frankly nothing is more annoying than being in the middle of something when the DDoS starts :|

I see people bringing up other pet sites (like Flight Rising) as an example of sites that don't have unique names, and how pets/IDs shouldn't really bring any kind of status or pride... but while Flight Rising might not have unique names, there is a ton of competition and status involved for low IDs (and something we don't have, first generation dragons). If Subeta didn't have unique names, I'm confident it would be exactly the same here. And frankly, I don't really see the issue here with taking pride in having unique pets. People are framing it like a really bad thing, but aren't users coveted here for having really rare, private CWs, too? On any kind of pet site, or site with a collection aspect, you're going to have that. People want rare, unique things. I think it's just kind of a human aspect.

That being said, the more I think about it, the less opposed I am to pet names becoming non-unique. While ideally I'd like some sort of compromise or nick-name system, if I woke up tomorrow and suddenly all pet names weren't unique anymore, I'd probably just have a brief moment of feeling disheartened and then go and rename Perce 'Percy' and adopt Adrien like I've always wanted haha. But I just wanted to throw in my two cents about the 'what's so great about having unique names/IDs?' thing. No matter how you slice it, it's going to be important to some people, and not to others, and I don't think anyone on either side of that coin are wrong.

I mean, I put a lot of time into getting the pet names I have, but at this point, I kind of see why unique pet names isn't really a sustainable model, especially as the site continues to grow and the number of allowed pet slots increases. I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but I would understand the change and probably even eventually grow to like it and take advantage of it myself. I do like the idea of the display name, as a means of compromise.

- could you link me to the other topic that Keith posted on please? I did an admin post search but couldn't find it :/

You got it! ">Here it is.

- thank you so much! ❤️

I'd be fine with non unique names. I've spent I don't know how much to change names and it really wouldn't bother me one bit. I've lost count how many times I've changed Ah-Dol's name. lol

I have no idea if anyone wants any of my pet names, but I wouldn't care one bit. At least I wouldn't feel bad because someone wanted to create a fanpet/OC but I was using that name as a placeholder for my "will never get the common name" OC.

coughsI actually brought this up years ago and yeah. I'm kind of glad there's others who are now seeing the issue I saw.

Exactly right, and I think we should refrain from trying to define what someone's pet means to them. Some people love a pet for that unique name. Others love a pet for its character. The problem with either side of this discussion is that EVERYTHING we're talking about is hypothetical. Will non-unique names help user retention? Is Subeta still trying to market itself to new users, or keep its existing fanbase? Will people really mass abandon their current pets to get the names they want, if this happens? Will longtime users truly leave en masse out of frustration? Will there be a new kind of elitism with IDs? A lot of people are phrasing things with "I think that...", which is all just conjecture. So I think we're doomed to go around in circles with our hypothetical problems unless we actually get some kind of Word Of God help, which I don't know if staff is willing to give. ¯(ツ)/¯

The difference is that we can't sell our pets here, so low IDs are most likely staying on the accounts they are on here. While you're encouraged to kinda buy/sell dragons on FR.

Wow, I didn't think about inactive accounts at all, tbh.

You went from "YEAH let's make pet names available to everyone!" to "YEAH LET'S RESTRICT EVERYONE'S PETNAME CHOICES!" surprisingly quickly there.

So... Which of the two is it?

I think this is a brilliant idea.

This is a good point. It means that people who have been away for a while will have the same choice about sharing pet names as people who have been here all the time. (This doesn't include people who have been inactive for so long that their pet names have become available again.)

I would be ok with it with the opt in/out idea. Otherwise, no. I get wanting a name, had those myself before, but I always managed to find a slightly different name that worked too, I'm happy with ones I have and I guess it makes it more worthwhile than taking any first Jane or Joe. If people are creative now, they can still be.

I'm all for non-unique pet names. I train my battle pet, and.... that's it. I have no motivation to work on my pets any further than that because my pets don't have the names I want, and I know they likely never will. Not gonna lie.... that REALLY hurts my interest in the pet aspect of the site, to the point where I hardly ever bother with it.

I'd love to have a tribute pet for my IRL cat. But his name, and all the nicknames I've given him, are taken. All the spelling variations are taken. All the real words I'd use to describe him are taken. Every single name I'd even find acceptable is taken. And so.... I just don't have a tribute pet for my IRL cat at all. It's the same way for every single one of my characters I'd like to create as pets. And honestly? It's frustrating, especially when nearly all of those names I want are taken by people with 80-90 pets already. v.v

The difference is that we can't sell our pets here, so low IDs are most likely staying on the accounts they are on here. While you're encouraged to kinda buy/sell dragons on FR.

While it wouldn't be as cut-throat on Subeta because of this, my point was mainly that no matter what, people are going to find something, whether it be unique names or IDs, to covet, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I applaud you for thinking clearly here. Every scenario we said here was mere speculation. I'd say some outcomes may be more likely to happen than others, but I know I don't have the ability to predict how most users would react. I know what I will do. Other users who have told their stories know what they will do, and maybe what 10 of their friends would do. But does that stand for the entire user base? Are our long-term pet enthusiasts' perspective on this matter the same as the new users'?

What I see is fighting within the community on something that has been causing spite ever since the dawn of time, and it's going to turn nasty as we are trying to see the worst in each other and telling each other to suck it up. Do the staff even see this as a problem? If so, I hope that I can still place my trust in them to collect all the proper historical data and conduct unbiased research to support either one of the two sides. If hard evidence shows that non-unique name is the only way to go, then I would go with it wholeheartedly. But at the moment, I refuse to let the name people taking the blame for poor user retention and a whole bunch of other pet problems, which is merely based on speculation, and on some degree fueled by jealousy.

Yesss this exactly, I'd like your post if I could on mobile, haha. I'm sorry if my original post sounded more like I was blaming pet people for anything! I don't mean to blame, I'm just truly wondering if it is linked to user retention. Conjecture and nothing more. Sorry if I offended anybody. n__n;

Keith didn't exactly say no.

He's saying that the system could change but even though he's saying that, it's not approved or rejected as an idea. It's up in the air, not a definite "no" yet. A neutral statement basically.

If he didn't want to, wouldn't he just say "no, we'd like to keep our system" rather than "we could actually do what you're suggesting, but I can't guarantee we will"?

He didn't exactly say that he would do it with enough discussion and encouragement either, so...

Exactly my point. It's a neutral statement.