Low Quality Avatars

[Azrafar]

 

And do we have statistics to show that this is true?

 

I myself have spent a lot of shuffling, not even wanting to buy...just to look.

 

There will always be those that give up on shuffling and there will be those that continue as normal. 

 

In the long term removing all avatars WILL be a knock on funds as fewer avatars means fewer needs to shuffle. Bearing in mind that each avatar sent to shop gains the player $3...we need more shuffling OR place the avatar unlock even deeper.

 

~Sasha

 

I don't think you have statistics either. So the effect of removing low quality avys will be a mystery.

 

You may like to shuffle just for the sake of it, some don't. I bought my avy because it was on sale and it was obvious what I was getting (since it is my first). I may search for otther avy when I have spent more in other parts of the shop.

Repopulating the avy pool with new and better quality ones is actualy preferred. And since dst posted that the quality went up over time I am not worried.

The avy pool can take a little clean up without MD loosing too much income on it, don't you think?

[Change]

Personally, if some lower quality avatars are to be kept, I'd set a lesser quality standard for avatars uploaded for someone to use themselves (not sell to the shop). Yes, they could sell them to the shop later, or they might expire and get into the shop that way, but there wouldn't be a flood of them necessarily.

 

For reference:

 

Uploading to sell to shop: Get 3 credits

Personal use: Costs 2 credits

Discard avatar (goes to shop): Get 1 credit

 

So let's say only high quality 3d avatars were permitted to be uploaded to the shop. If I, Change, could only make medium quality avatars, I couldn't go, 'I'll get around the quality restriction by uploading an avatar for myself, pay 2 credits, and then get 1 credit for selling it! Profit! Wait, no. I just lost a credit.' Yes, I could sell it to people by ATC though, but I'm not sure how often that'd happen.

 

Therefore I think it'd be fine to set the quality standard for personal use avatars to 'medium' and 'sell to shop' avatars to 'high'. The low quality ones could still be gotten rid of though.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Change

[dst]

 

Therefore I think it'd be fine to set the quality standard for personal use avatars to 'medium' and 'sell to shop' avatars to 'high'. The low quality ones could still be gotten rid of though.

 

 

Another one of Mur's rules was: if quality is too low, force the avatar to go to vault (yes, there is such an option in case the avatar was sold to the shop but was pretty low quality wise).

[Rophs]

I think that everybody should get a free shuffle to compensate for all the avatars removed from the gallery

[dst]

I think that everybody should get a free shuffle to compensate for all the avatars removed from the gallery

 

Considering the fact that you get FREE credits from voting, I think nobody should get any free shuffle.

[Chewett]

ok, i will continue the cleanup then

 
 

Honestly, I'm willing to sit there and do it one by one under supervision of the avatar managers, with anyone else who is interested.
 
Edit after seeing above post: okay Mur, yay :P

This has already been discussed and planned by I and the Art team FYI. Please ensure people talk to the right people, before doing things like this and raising concerns.

[Muratus del Mur]

i thin i cleaned everything that was to be cleaned.

 

also, about what was discussed here, i think that variety compensates for shuffle due to low quality. We have enough avatars even now after a major cleanup to have enough shuffles based just on variety.

[Azrafar]

 

Personally, if some lower quality avatars are to be kept, I'd set a lesser quality standard for avatars uploaded for someone to use themselves (not sell to the shop). Yes, they could sell them to the shop later, or they might expire and get into the shop that way, but there wouldn't be a flood of them necessarily.

 

For reference:

 

Uploading to sell to shop: Get 3 credits

Personal use: Costs 2 credits

Discard avatar (goes to shop): Get 1 credit

 

So let's say only high quality 3d avatars were permitted to be uploaded to the shop. If I, Change, could only make medium quality avatars, I couldn't go, 'I'll get around the quality restriction by uploading an avatar for myself, pay 2 credits, and then get 1 credit for selling it! Profit! Wait, no. I just lost a credit.' Yes, I could sell it to people by ATC though, but I'm not sure how often that'd happen.

 

Therefore I think it'd be fine to set the quality standard for personal use avatars to 'medium' and 'sell to shop' avatars to 'high'. The low quality ones could still be gotten rid of though.

 

 

 No, for "Personal use" it reads - Replace your current avatar  (Gives 2 credits). You always gain some credits.

[Change]

Did you read the other prices? First of all, 'get' and 'gives' are different things. Get, means you receive something, and gives means someone gives something. It's undefined as to who.

 

I'm not sure why I worded it with 'get' instead of receives. I was trying to make it easier for people to understand, but anyways.

 

Sell to shop - You receive 3 credits

Personal Use - Replaces your current avatar (Gives 2 credits).

 

If 'gives 2 credits' actually means you receive 2 credits, that's awkward wording. Can anyone confirm that it gives you two credits? It should be changed to 'get' or 'receive' (you receive 2 credits) perhaps since 'gives' is ambiguous. However, it does mean that someone could upload an avatar for themselves, get 2 credits, and sell it for 1 for a total of three.

 

Note the other costs in your vault:

 

Replace current avatar (1 credit)

Replace avatar and transfer current avatar to the vault (2 credits)

Discard avatar, returns it to MDShop (you receive 1 credit)

 

Those always led me to believe that personal use avatars meant that you gave 2 credits to the shop, since every time when you get credits it says 'receives'. Anyways, it doesn't seem like the medium quality ones are going to be removed anyways--I was scared due to DD's original post saying, "I think almost all 2-D avatars at least should be removed."

 

'3d' avatars are quite hard to make, and also hard to make properly. Meanwhile good looking 2dish avatars are easier to make.

 

Perhaps people should be encouraged to post their avatar attempts in the Artworks forum?