comments on this post will no longer be read by the poster. Do not make any attempt to reach out to me- you will be blocked. Feel free to still leave comments as you, the reader, wish. To the people in the comments who left constructive criticism and/ or good alternative suggestions without attempting to argue with me directly, telling me that I'm just lazy and
to suck it up, making judgements of my character or financial status, or being off topic- thank you for doing so.

Honestly after getting near 100 lions it is pretty ridiculous how tedious it is to feed/play with them all, if a n y t h i n g maybe the price of the FAPA could be substantially lowered, another idea is that you could automatically receive FAPA after hitting a certain number of lions (both these ideas could have totally been brought up in the comments already but I didn’t read em all lol)

You have liked this post!

^Regarding that, something I kinda wish devs did was let you pay once and apply the FAPA across both linked accounts.

You have liked this post!

The first time I learned about FAPA i was like… why isn’t this a one time payment? Lolll

You have liked this post!

My same thought 😅

You have liked this post!

I support, just cos I'm always busy, and don't have job+always on auctions and it makes it hard to EVER feed and play with all my lions, and I can't imagine how hard it is for people with a lot of lions, I have like 7 and other people have upwards of 150, which probably takes forever to do manually.

You have liked this post!

⪘ SiRah (#159527) :: I had the thought of "An earnable currency to buy FAPA in smaller batches". Like something earnable through event currency purchases that you could buy like 5 days at a time with. Maybe an event you could earn non-transferable tokens to pop when you need the boost, kinda deal.

But according to the OP, they don't have the time / energy / ability / other reason to even farm that.

I struggle to view it as discriminatory, and this is my reason:
You do not HAVE to have a large pride. It is not mandatory. It is a choice.

Discrimination covers cases where users are barred from necessary, basic functions required for standard gameplay or are not accommodated.

For example, if hunting was a mini game you had to play but you had motor skills issues and couldn't play it, it would need adjusted. This biases players who have full motor skills and can play, and players without would regularly lose their prides.

I think it actually does a great disservice to arguments about accessibility to say FAPA is discriminatory or disadvantages disabled or differently abled players. Because having a large pride, again, is your choice. A huge part of living with a disability is working within your means and ensuring you don't over extend yourself.

That applies to real life and video games. To apply this to another game I play, I wish I could sit at my PC for hours at a time to play FF14 raids to get items I want, but I need to manage my health and work within my limitations. I cannot just say, "Square Enix should give me these items because my back injury prevents me from doing the raids and it's discriminatory". I want those items. I don't need them.

I do not technically need to keep an account with 80+ lions for my project. But I keep that many because I'm hella impatient and wanna get my breeding project done faster. I recognize that's my decision, so it's my responsibility to stay on top of all of them.

I cut corners a fair bit. I use zoom out (make page smaller) to see more of my lions' pages at once, so i can click breed > tap enter > click breed to breed VLF lions so i dont have to pay the 50 SB just cuz scrolling down is hard for me. I also only feed my lions every 3 days to penny pinch and not have to hunt as much coz im cheap and tired lmfao.

It rubs me the wrong way. At some point, we have to choose to find work arounds for our disabilities. Yes, accommodation for disabilities is a very, very good thing. But 5 GB once a month is crazy easy. Hell, if you just farm 2 Buff Scrotums during feb and sell them when they're around 24 GB, that's like 9 or 10 months worth of FAPA funds in 2 items.

Also like, OP spent at least 160 GB on territory and at least 87 on 10 male slots in 2 years, but FAPA is too much...

You have liked this post!

Hi.
Personal affordability is not why I made this post. I have said this so many goddamn times I can only assume any comment about how much money I do or do not have is made by a person who is wholly unable to understand what nuance is and is barely even literate.

If your main criticism of my suggestion is what I personally can or cannot do or afford, your criticism is invalid and in no way constructive and more often than not hurtful. Keep your opinions of me to yourselves please- its not like I called yall poor to your faces when "oh boohoo you cant afford it?" comments were made when I absolutely could have. I've spent quite a lot of money and made absolutely zero attempts to hide that on this game which is part of the reason why I made the suggestion- I thought it was obvious enough that I could afford it and this post wasn't about me- I was mistaken apparently.

The criticism of "oh large prides is a choice" isnt even valid either bc I had issues feeding lions at the count of 20, and you can get 40 territory for free. I'm not the only one either. My personal decisions as a player do not influence this suggestion at all.

Can yall just focus on the topic instead of who I am as a person when that doesnt matter at all? Please? So I can actually read the comments without taking mental damage?

You have liked this post!

So I'm concluding that this is an issue of intent and tone. The part that I think I'm not understanding from you is: "My hand issues are the only relevant issues to this discussion." It's unclear what that refers to, and at first comes off as hostile and dismissive of other users' disabilities.

Note: I came into this post long, long after all the edits in the main post so the current main post was my first impression.

Text tone and intention is very much not super clear on the internet as a lot of us probably know. And my very first impression of this post was the original post, which comes across as very hostile, demanding and confrontational. So that's shaped the impression I am getting of this suggestion.

Maybe clarification and a re-wording of the original post might better convey the message. I've had to do that several times with some of my own in the past.

It reads as both "my issues are the only issues relevant" OR "only hand issues are relevant" depending how it's read.

Is it "Only hand issues are relevant" as the intended statement of affected disabilities?
Because I *do* have hand and wrist issues as described and would fall into the group mentioned/ affected. Which is why I am attempting to weigh in at all in the first place. If I wasn't in the affected group, I would refrain from commenting, even tho any number of issues can affect ability to play games and use the PC or mobile devices.

Or is it only your issues that you experience being relevant?
Because that's where why questioning if it was a selfish request came from.

## tl;dr i think the main post has some tonal confusion and its intent isnt clear, and thats why the request is coming off how you dont intend (greed rather than need)

To better understand the nature of this post:
#1: With the abundance of clans dedicated to keeping peoples' prides fed and amusement up, are players taking advantage of those support networks?

#2: Would you be willing to support alternative suggestions about improving features in the game which take excessively from players (ie, 40 amusement toys, x number of food uses to take part in an event) and disproportionately affect new players and those who struggle with gathering and care?

#3: Do events which offer increased food drops or food bundles aid in efforts to gather?

#4: If the issue is the method of caring for lions, would you support an overhaul of the function if it was do-able? ie, feed/play with lion from individual Den Pages rather than lion pages?

You have liked this post!

Unrelated to previous post:

Shadow (Main) (#73284)'s comments about how technically it's more than feed all play all is especially important. I wouldn't support FAPA as it is being free. Not at all. But something more like WD's tool? Sure.

Wolvden's tool for example: you MUST have all items in your inventory already. It doesn't protect pups. It ONLY automatically feeds and plays. I'd be okay with that being a thing players can enable on their accounts for free.

But FAPA as it exists should remain premium IMO.

---

Wolf & Ghostling🌈🐯✨️ (#474664) also brings up another super important accessibility thing that hinders a lot of users: LD's mobile UI badly needs updated. I can't use it on my phone at all. Everything is tiny and I don't have enough function in my hands to properly click things. Shout out to my homies stuck on mobile for years and somehow still sane. You're the real ones.

You have liked this post!

I definitely feel like the earnable currency angle would start to address only the alternate means of affordability aspect (which as we've seen is 'very much not the point') but wouldn't address the 'it should have been free' angle. It seems like a good compromise for those who don't think it should be free (it's a 'service' (which feels like arguing it's been this way all along so nothing's wrong :/) that requires real-world resources (server time?) so should take some, large prides take server strain and should be compensated, help pay for server space), but who do understand and empathize with the aches pains etc that make some manner of gameplay difficult.
Totally valid, just thinking back a bit.
It doesn't quite give an alternate service to purchase for GB from Oasis, likely because of the negligible cost, rather approaches from the earning perspective
This can induce frustration for those who are seeing it as an intrinsically important stance to take, and results in another tone issue or outburst from those eager only for the productive aspects of the post. (My opinion, thoughts and ideas are to be shared in this forum but attempts at controlling the angles are often met with more of the 'wrong kind of feedback'.) I am not trying to silence anyone just thinking 'aloud' here.
I don't think players are ever going to stop seeing the 'if you actually play the game it's ridiculously easy to afford' angle, which is why I wrote the latter half of my later-pages response to try to remove some of those angles of approach. However, I do see how it reads as both supportive of this thread and detrimental to the userbase in question.
I can mark where in my first post I switched to speaking from the angle of a supporter, or rather trying to shift an angle of approach from the perspective of support, though I don't think that's important.
In any response players will choose which elements to respond to, and regarding the last repeat of stop using affordability as an angle I don't think it's productive to respond back to only one line even though that too is a valid sharing of opinion and essentially throw out posts/players with something valid (the suggestion!) to add to the conversation as it will inevitably result in many of the same points being made (or wrongly asserted, however thought of) as other players share and express the same sentiment out of emotional neutrality or equal frustration at their thoughts not being heard.
I'm glad some have suggestions and ideas!!

#4 could be an alternate 'free version of FAPA' that is severely reducing the number of clicks required while not quite providing the convenience of a single click or few (if needing to use multiple carcass types) from the den page.
It seems almost built on or an alternative to the providing a two-tiered FAPA (one how it is now for higher cost, one with just feed & play without the items or survivability benefit but for free, for example) - I can see how both of these don't really address the 'it should've been free' assertion which was covered by other thoughts shared in the post before but I think that's the point, these are suggestions from someone who doesn't think it should be free as is. Much appreciated!

Related,
The third post with "Wolvden's tool for example: you MUST have all items in your inventory already. It doesn't protect pups. It ONLY automatically feeds and plays. I'd be okay with that being a thing players can enable on their accounts for free.

But FAPA as it exists should remain premium IMO." (from here)

Seems like a perfect way to share both a personal stance and suggestion without perhaps leading to another sort of your point isn't the/my point.

Again, not trying to quiet anyone just sharing my own thoughts about how to make a productive conversation whatever the personal angle without eliminating a reason many of us would bother to willingly engage with it (those same thoughts, emotions, caring about a passtime we choose to spend time on in some capacity, etc)
To be perfectly honest I think I could strip back my response here to just the ooo good ideas aspect, as well, but am leaving this in because of the callout with a nice good suggestion and own opinions directed to a call for ideas (Yay!) but also addressing the 'it may be actually damaging to call it accessibility' assertion, so I feel like i'm perhaps being misaligned in some respects.

While I personally can get behind the intrinsic value of the stance, my main point was how to actually make it happen as I couldn't really see the intrinsic argument working effectively.
I personally very much appreciate the thoughts and ideas being shared.
Instead of arguing the validity of 'it's super affordable for anyone who plays' meaning it's both possibly not making an actually significant contribution to the company's bottom line and a mainly superfluous expense that 'feels discriminatory'.
i.e. "If the cost is so small it doesn't even matter, why isn't it free?" (This then Loops back through company's bottom line & GB sink, server space (how much or an impact can $2.50 really have even extrapolated across the almost entire userbase except statty-feeds?), both of which can be considered negligible for the sake of argument which then if all are negligible 'it's affordable' could be used for both sides (just make it free; just pay - not a problem, then why suggestion? Intrinsic support, hey not helpful- Etc etc ) which is why I personally don't find it as productive.)

(Edit: There's a suggestion to make beetle battling your entire mound with one-click as a paid monthly service similar to other Oasis services, with a much higher cost since beetle battling has the ability to generate small amounts of currency and large amounts of herbs, and possibly skips the animation requirement which serves as a timesink and counterbalance to the newly generated funds-
This could open up an alternative more effective money sink as well as another area of site gameplay that is 'easier' to choose not to engage with.
Just thought i'd mention it here as it could address that 'any alternatives?' aspect, though I don't think anyone would argue that optional beetle battling is as inherent to gameplay as pride?)

There are some good suggestions being shared here, so I hope everyone on both sides can come to a good understanding!

You have liked this post!

"My opinion, thoughts and ideas are to be shared in this forum but attempts at controlling the angles are often met with more of the 'wrong kind of feedback'."

That's sort of where a lot of my frustration is coming from. I've read through this entire thread, the OP and all replies, and the feeling I get is the only correct feedback is agreement. Coz there's been a lot (a LOT) of different kinds of feedback and it feels like only agreement isn't met with negativity.

There's also the frustration with this post being about accessibility, but from the pages I've read back on, it feels (to me) like those users with disabilities are actually the voices that matter the least here. Such a thing is not only discouraging, but also a common issue that disabled individuals encounter in real world conversations about inclusion and accessibility, and also online in conversations about inclusion in video games and website and app development.

Most responses which include some variation of "I am disabled / in the affected group", actually seem to be not in favor of this change, and these responses feel like they're getting the most negativity despite being highly upvoted comments. We obviously can't make assumptions of those who choose to not disclose for personal privacy or safety reasons, but it doesn't feel good to see those willing to share their disabilities and experience shut down.

"In any response players will choose which elements to respond to, and regarding the last repeat of stop using affordability as an angle I don't think it's productive to respond back to only one line [...]">

This.

"I can see how both of these don't really address the 'it should've been free' assertion which was covered by other thoughts shared in the post before but I think that's the point, [...]"

From what I've gathered, the primary issue is 'individually feeding and playing is difficult with X Condition(s) and it's an accessibility concern', so I feel like making a basic function which uses existing assets you already own and just auto-applying them perfectly covers that without giving (for free) extra benefits of not needing items or a nanny.

We also need to consider that LD may be less likely to implement changes to make Oasis content free because that's basically their "cash shop", and most game developers aren't typically willing to make cash shop content free, but rather allow you to earn currency in-game (which LD already does).

"[...] how much or an impact can $2.50 really have even extrapolated across the almost entire userbase except statty-feeds?"

So the highest I've seen online at any given time is roughly 5,200 people. If we're going to presume that even 1/4 of those users pays for FAPA each month, that's technically the equivelent of about 3,250 USD monthly... That's not exactly small. And if we use current daytime numbers (about 2,000 people daily) and presume even 1/4 to 1/2 of them has FAPA, that's still 1,250 to 2,500 USD monthly.

LD is a small, independently-owned business, not a corporation. That's a sizable chunk of recurring income that would go away.

You have liked this post!

Gods forbid I be autistic on the internet and not want to be told to just suck it up over and over over an implication I cant even see I guess. Or getting upset about being misread, trying to clarify, being misread again and told I'm a bad and selfish person who only cares about myself and reacting to that.

Ive tried to say there is no subtext and I meant what I said as I said it but thats been ignored. Theres not much of a point in me even replying or reading any of this. I've made no mention of me being autistic previously bc its not really relevant and hasnt been until now since there are now several dissertations of how my tone is wrong, I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad about anything theyve said. That being said I'm going to go back to ignoring comments and I'm not going to try to reword or edit the post for the 9th or 10th time just to be misunderstood again as good intentioned as the advice to reword the post is- which is appreciated. I just wanted constructive criticism rather than telling me to suck it up, arguing, etc.

I understand now that no matter how I word anything or react there will always be an issue. I can't control anyones perceptions of the suggestion or myself as a person. Everyone here can continue to comment naturally, yall have fun.

You have liked this post!

Aight

You have liked this post!

Now THIS is something I can actually say something about...

Being autistic doesnt excuse being rude and telling everyone they're wrong in a defensive and rude way.

People have been telling you left and right about alternative solutions because making fapa free is just not realistic for current-day lioden.

And you've been very defensive about any and everyone who disagrees with your thread.

Dont get me wrong, I perfectly understand having a lot of trouble with tone indication, I struggle with it too...

But when someone tells you that what you said sounded a little rude and your immediate reaction is excusing your actions without a singular apology and saying you are autistic will not solve the problem (In fact usually it will make people more incline on disliking your opinion or being annoyed.)

On the other hand, apologizing and saying is not what you meant is an alternative that will seriously only calm everyone down.

I am now aware you did not mean to be rude to anyone, but that does not change what has been said, as sad as it is.
Now, please do take this lightly! I am attempting to be friendly and to give you a small advice, as I would hate to see anything get out of hand

Back to the topic at hand though,

As said in some previous comments, more or less 3.2K USD worth of gb being put into fapa MONTHLY, pays for a LOT of what we see on LD! (I'd mostly say It pays for the art/code teams.) Now, the artwork pay for the art team members is... 45$ USD if i remember right? or the code team... i dont remember...

But let's say every LD artist is paid 45$ an hour. This means that the hypothetical revenue of Fapa could theoretically pay for 72 HOURS of work.

Meaning that Fapa could possibly play a BIG PART in the pie of how much content we get monthly (bases, apps, decors, art fixes/updates, and many more!)

Basically, what I am saying, is that removing the equivalent of 3k $ from the game monthly would sadly be very unrealistic and possibly set the game back by a LONG shot!

This is why I disagree

Thank you.

You have liked this post!

Originally I typed out a lot of words but its not worth the energy and it'll just be misconstrued again

If saying the reason my tone that I cant read in a sentence is not one you like is an excuse and that you have put words in my mouth to attack me for when you by no means have to, followed up by demanding an apology when in my perspective Ive only defended myself and tried to get the discussion back on topic- quite frankly, no. You've just made it 100% that I never will. If I did not say it in plain english then its not something I meant to say.

If having any reaction at all other than bending over and giving you what you want is bad and something I deserve abuse over then so be it. If thats not your intention you're free to clarify but to me thats what it says in black and white considering Ive read the majority of comments and remember what they said

If yall want a positive reaction don't come at the other person with immediate aggression and condescencion because a lot of commenters have and I am tired. All for a misunderstanding because I said something wrong, and when Ive clarified it hasnt mattered in the slightest.

Excuses and reasons are different. Learn the difference please.

You have liked this post!