I think this would be a very interesting add up to the site to consider the top collector not by number of pets (because let's face it many pets require high ammounts of money to have) but by pet score which would consider average pet level and rarity of the pets collected.
I think having this option would give some sense of pride on people that level their pets to max level or that collect all the rarest versions of same ones.
Could you please give it a try?
WOuld be nice.
Thanks in advance
Keltoroq / Heyrion Aggra (português)/Blade's Edge Europe servers
Top Collector's By PET SCORE
Re: Top Collector's By PET SCORE
Ok thanks for info then. Didn't know that this was being though off. But great anyway 
-
Dragonwizard
- Posts:918
- Joined:November 12th, 2012
- Pet Score:6685
- BattleTag®:Dragonwizard#1388
- Realm:Hellscream-us
- Contact:
Re: Top Collector's By PET SCORE
Yup they are already in the process of doing just that. http://www.warcraftpets.com/news/pet-sc ... n-filters/ It's the 5th 
down.
down."Even when you are winning soundly, you must always give your opponent a way to retreat with honor. If you don't, then he has no reason to surrender. He will fight until the bitter end, and you will pay a larger price for victory."
Re: Top Collector's By PET SCORE
Thanks, can´t wait for this new top, altough pretty sure my classification can only go down not up lol.
Thanks for link.
Ps: 10 points for each legendary
. That will rock. Hope it will also mean we can customize our super legendary pet with different colors. A red Bandicoon? Count me in hehe
Thanks for link.
Ps: 10 points for each legendary
. That will rock. Hope it will also mean we can customize our super legendary pet with different colors. A red Bandicoon? Count me in hehe
Re: Top Collector's By PET SCORE
Our current goal is to have this active in about 2 weeks. We're thinking March 19th or 20th.
-
Stonewallred
- Posts:48
- Joined:January 23rd, 2013
- Pet Score:1825
- Realm:Malfurion-us
- Contact:
Re: Top Collector's By PET SCORE
cool beans then.
it sort of PO's me to see folks who have a huge number of pets, most of them poor in quality, and no max level pets, and an average pet level 8 or more levels below me, ranked higher.
I routinely and with no hesitation, delete uncommon pets when I find a rare, even if said rare is 10+ levels lower.
"Oh, I was playing then, bought this CE,or was lucky with a TCG buy"; allowing them to rank higher, is a slap in the face of folks who will not, or can not, shell out large sums of cash to get some super-rare pet.
Me?
Every pet I have, I either got because I was subscribed, looted from a mob, bought from an AH, or earned through an achieve. I have never spent any real money for a pet, and will never spend any real money for a pet, up to and including CE editions of the game.
Think it is horribly unfair that money = higher scores.
Makes the playing field not skill or dedication based, but wealth based.
And that is from the perspective of an owner of an HVAC/R company with 9 current employees.
What most of the Vanilla and other "buy with money" pets cost, is about what I make in a week, after all expenses.
Personally think if pet requires real money, being subscribed during a certain period, or being subscribed to a certain geographical area, they should be excluded from any ranking.
Where you live, how much money you have, when you started playing; none of them should be a part of what drives your rankings/score.
it sort of PO's me to see folks who have a huge number of pets, most of them poor in quality, and no max level pets, and an average pet level 8 or more levels below me, ranked higher.
I routinely and with no hesitation, delete uncommon pets when I find a rare, even if said rare is 10+ levels lower.
"Oh, I was playing then, bought this CE,or was lucky with a TCG buy"; allowing them to rank higher, is a slap in the face of folks who will not, or can not, shell out large sums of cash to get some super-rare pet.
Me?
Every pet I have, I either got because I was subscribed, looted from a mob, bought from an AH, or earned through an achieve. I have never spent any real money for a pet, and will never spend any real money for a pet, up to and including CE editions of the game.
Think it is horribly unfair that money = higher scores.
Makes the playing field not skill or dedication based, but wealth based.
And that is from the perspective of an owner of an HVAC/R company with 9 current employees.
What most of the Vanilla and other "buy with money" pets cost, is about what I make in a week, after all expenses.
Personally think if pet requires real money, being subscribed during a certain period, or being subscribed to a certain geographical area, they should be excluded from any ranking.
Where you live, how much money you have, when you started playing; none of them should be a part of what drives your rankings/score.