Downtime vs Rarity vs Accessibilty vs Luck
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fruity_Snacks
Legendary fish already exist and are already a classification of fish - that is, they are the last fish added in the expansion in the X.55 (or equivalent) patch. Ruby Dragon, Opabinia, Namitaro, Cinder Surprise, Unconditional, Shonisaurus - these are all legendary fish. They do not need their own achievement.
Additionally, why? What value does a separate achievement for "long downtime" fish provide? What does it do? What would you define as a long downtime fish? The achievements themselves are fine as-is.
I'm going to repost something I said earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stelle
Edit: I dont think I was clear on what I meant when I brought up the idea of legendary fishing. I don't want Purse to be separate from Big Fishing, but if XIV decides to continue with intentionally increasing rarity of fish by making them significantly less accessible to the average fisher I think I'd like them to put those fish in their own category outside of Big Fishing, but idk. Purse is unlike any other fish we've experienced so far so it's new ground.
Again, I understand that I was unclear, but as I’ve stated a couple times I am not interested in a separate category simply because a fish has a long downtime. The achievements themselves are fine. I am concerned about XIV using Purse to test the waters with how much downtime they can put between windows and if we'll be seeing more fish with longer average downtimes. The time between windows, an average of 19.5 real world days, makes this fish significantly less accessible to the average fisher because of it's downtime alone. And that's not taking it's rarity/catch rate which I have no idea what that is.
The reason I brought up .5 and .55 fish was because I was discussing how long it can take to catch a fish even if a fish is up more frequently and difficulty/rarity because difficulty/rarity was being discussed. The other reason is because looking at a fish with more downtime impacts other aspects of fishing including rarity and accessibility. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to be concerned with how long a fish will take them to catch, especially when they’re being time-gated by months at a time. And it’s not like fishers who have full time jobs and irl responsibilities are unfamiliar or automatically resentful with the fact that fishing may take them longer than someone else who works from home or is unemployed. I think there can be longer windows between windows or other ways to increase the rarity of fish without causing as much frustration and strife within the fishing community.
Not all of us are exaggerating. Bad luck is also part of the fishing experience ;-;
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fruity_Snacks
I'm also seeing a lot of comparing Purse of Riches to the likes of Ruby Dragon or Cinder Surprise within the context of 'taking ""years"" to catch'. I'm also seeing this comment a lot about 'oh it's only .4 what horrors will the .5 fish bring???'
The former comment is not a great comparison to make. There has been 0 (ZERO) indication or evidence that Purse of Riches will reach anywhere near the level of length as Ruby or Cinder might take even in the usually exaggerated timelines people give (as is tradition with fishing, "years" to catch fish is rarely if ever actually 'years'). It's an empty equivalency.
I think with more challenging and rare fish (like .5 and .55 fish or even blue-backed ocean fish, there is an expectation that those fish can and probably will take longer to catch even if you go to every window.
For Sidereal, it took me about a stack of stardust & 6 months of actively fishing. I was able to make most windows at the time. A friend of mine took about 3 times longer when you don't include breaks and well over a stack of stardust. Placodus I think took me around 8 months? However, I do know people who have spent literal years trying to get Cinder, Ruby, and Whale. Cabinkeep despite not having a low bite rate and a ton of uptime still took me about 300 casts to catch. Meanwhile someone else I knew caught every single big fish that was currently available within a few months. Yes, some people joke how long it's taken them to catch a fish, but for others that is their lived experience.
I mentioned these fish just to point out luck. Uptime, downtime, rarity, etc. At the end of the day, it boils down to luck sometimes.
I have a friend who’s first 3 Purse attempt windows are April, August, November/December. Normally I’d say catching a fish within 3 windows is great! But a time commitment of 15 minutes over 11 months isn’t so great imo. I understand why someone would be frustrated about that. Even if the fish isn’t difficult to catch, that’s still more time invested into one fish than any fish I’ve personally fished for. It would have nothing to do with a lack of effort, skill, or or even bad luck unless you consider having a job bad luck.
Luck, good or bad, is also a huge part of the fishing experience imo and hard to separate. I go into fishing knowing it’s a balance of time commitment, knowledge, and luck and I enjoy that about it. Good luck on a fish like Purse could still be a huge time commitment for fishers, but bad luck on Purse could be devastating.
Maybe I’m being overly concerned over the experience of a few and the idea of a theoretical issue. I apologize for getting off topic and discussing how infrequency impacts other aspects of fishing instead of focusing on infrequency itself and potential alternatives. It wasn’t my intention to derail your conversation T-T