superheroantics
ooga booga
Hm. For now I guess we can just say it's improbable until someone proves it right or wrong.
-
Guest, you're invited to help build our new TBT time capsule! It contains three parts, with some of its elements planned to open in 2029 and others not until the distant future of 2034. Get started in 2024 Community Time Capsule: Blueprints.
Duping Villagers
- Thread starter Farobi
- Start date
Hm. For now I guess we can just say it's improbable until someone proves it right or wrong.
That was me proving it wrong. I've accidentally done what you just described. Nothing out of the ordinary happened. The villager remained in my town and never showed up in their game.
superheroantics
ooga booga
How many times did it disconnect on you?
I don't want to actually dupe villagers I just want to know if it's impossible or not
I've never felt the need to count how many times it's happened in total (last month I was easily giving away 10+ villagers each day sometimes). One time I was thankful the trade was finished because it had taken us three attempts due to an unsteady connection - and then it went down just as I thought it was about to finish saving.
Last edited:
superheroantics
ooga booga
Myth busted, then.
Definitely not. I wouldn't even accept a duped villager. I could care less if someone abused the campsite trick, or if someone reset a ton of times for the villager. But duping would just be stupid; I mean, my goal is to get Marshal (mostly because he's cute and has a "you stole my cupcake..." look to him, not because he's popular. XD) and I want an actual sense of accomplishment when I get him.
Assuming there were no risks involved with breaking your game or losing characters, I don't really see the point of making up ethical dilemmas about pixels in a game. Oh no, this guy made two Marshals so he could keep one and give another to his friend for free, how ethically unsound! How ever shall I make 30 million bells off of my popular characters now?
However, I could totally see people trying to make money off of such a thing, and that would be unfortunate - but then again, anyone who happens to obtain Marshal would have the choice to dupe him repeatedly for money, or give him away repeatedly. One, we have a ton of charitable individuals on this forum; and two, nobody is going to pick the guy wanting money over the one giving characters away.
Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I just can't see this as being a big deal. Item duping has real and serious issues and consequences, and I certainly wouldn't risk my file for it. But if we could get dream characters for people without hassle or risk, why is that such a moral issue?
I mean, we spend hours getting a million Marshals and Marinas and so on for people while sending everyone else to the void. There are already tons of Marshals running around, how is it any different if it were to make it easier for people to get their dream villagers? Why would #legit even matter - is it so you can feel superior that you got them from the campsite instead of from a friend who copied the one they got from the campsite?
It just feels like we're trying to moralize a thing that shouldn't be moralized, like time traveling and differing play styles.
I'm sorry, I know it sucks when you work hard for something and then a change comes along that makes it much easier for people who come after you. I've been there, and I've been resentful of such a thing. I've bought a 30mil dagger just for the economy to shift and be 3mil within weeks. However, this is an issue that appears in every online game, particularly MMOs - and feeling stress, sadness, or superiority over how much effort you put into something is not a legitimate reason for that thing to remain being so difficult for everyone else. It's called growth. This is a good lesson for use in later online games, as well as in life.
Fortunately I don't think we're going to find a way to dupe villagers, and even if we did, I really can't imagine that it would be safe to do so. At least it was great fun to ponder the ethics and challenges of a changing game and community. And I don't know about you guys, but if I could copy my Marina to all the people who also fell in love with her without risking my game, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
EDIT - I do want to add that I apologize if I came off as harsh. I don't want to upset anyone or be mean. I just think the whole idea of "legitimacy" and so on should be more closely examined, particularly in the gaming world where people still condemn others simply for having different playstyles. Tl;dr, eh?
However, I could totally see people trying to make money off of such a thing, and that would be unfortunate - but then again, anyone who happens to obtain Marshal would have the choice to dupe him repeatedly for money, or give him away repeatedly. One, we have a ton of charitable individuals on this forum; and two, nobody is going to pick the guy wanting money over the one giving characters away.
Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I just can't see this as being a big deal. Item duping has real and serious issues and consequences, and I certainly wouldn't risk my file for it. But if we could get dream characters for people without hassle or risk, why is that such a moral issue?
I mean, we spend hours getting a million Marshals and Marinas and so on for people while sending everyone else to the void. There are already tons of Marshals running around, how is it any different if it were to make it easier for people to get their dream villagers? Why would #legit even matter - is it so you can feel superior that you got them from the campsite instead of from a friend who copied the one they got from the campsite?
It just feels like we're trying to moralize a thing that shouldn't be moralized, like time traveling and differing play styles.
Touko said:
I'm sorry, I know it sucks when you work hard for something and then a change comes along that makes it much easier for people who come after you. I've been there, and I've been resentful of such a thing. I've bought a 30mil dagger just for the economy to shift and be 3mil within weeks. However, this is an issue that appears in every online game, particularly MMOs - and feeling stress, sadness, or superiority over how much effort you put into something is not a legitimate reason for that thing to remain being so difficult for everyone else. It's called growth. This is a good lesson for use in later online games, as well as in life.
Fortunately I don't think we're going to find a way to dupe villagers, and even if we did, I really can't imagine that it would be safe to do so. At least it was great fun to ponder the ethics and challenges of a changing game and community. And I don't know about you guys, but if I could copy my Marina to all the people who also fell in love with her without risking my game, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
EDIT - I do want to add that I apologize if I came off as harsh. I don't want to upset anyone or be mean. I just think the whole idea of "legitimacy" and so on should be more closely examined, particularly in the gaming world where people still condemn others simply for having different playstyles. Tl;dr, eh?
Last edited:
* Preface: I use a term here that I call 'privileged availability'. It's not meant to be seen as a negative term in any way whatsoever, and it doesn't suggest any political connotations. I'm friends with all. ;u; The term simply means 'the ability to accomplish something (in this case, in Animal Crossing) much earlier than the usual means of luck and time, either through legitimate mechanic modifications (time-travelling), friendly connections, or a vast amount of legitimate currency (in this case, bells).' Everyone plays in their own way and ways that are intended game mechanics (time-travelling and online play/interaction) are not negative. ♥
I must tip my hat off to Nao. c:
Also, to add to the conversation, I'm afraid that being upset over a reduction in prices, although perfectly justified, should be a mutual understanding when it comes to privileged availability*, as it is a sword with blades on both ends. While it gives us the ability to further create connections and enliven our town, particularly for older gamers whom have other responsibilities on their plate and therefore not as much time to spend on time and luck-based mechanisms, we are also paying (or otherwise putting forth an effort) for the privilege of achievement earlier.
Most of the things we buy are pretty inevitable with time and patience (hybrids, villagers, seasonal items)- so while yes, privileged availability does require a lot of effort (saving bells, repetitive motions, making connections), and while we are perfectly entitled to being upset when we later discover easier means to get what we had wanted, we are paying (or working) to remove luck and time from the equation; like mathematical equations, something must be done to the other side of the equal sign to keep the equation balanced. So while privileged availability removes time and luck from the situation, it also adds risk of overpaying. To me, that doesn't sound at all unfair; If I paid to get my dream villager today, and in two months a friend of mine received hers via a lucky move-in, I feel we've both put forth equal effort: mine in bells, his/hers in patience.
I must tip my hat off to Nao. c:
Also, to add to the conversation, I'm afraid that being upset over a reduction in prices, although perfectly justified, should be a mutual understanding when it comes to privileged availability*, as it is a sword with blades on both ends. While it gives us the ability to further create connections and enliven our town, particularly for older gamers whom have other responsibilities on their plate and therefore not as much time to spend on time and luck-based mechanisms, we are also paying (or otherwise putting forth an effort) for the privilege of achievement earlier.
Most of the things we buy are pretty inevitable with time and patience (hybrids, villagers, seasonal items)- so while yes, privileged availability does require a lot of effort (saving bells, repetitive motions, making connections), and while we are perfectly entitled to being upset when we later discover easier means to get what we had wanted, we are paying (or working) to remove luck and time from the equation; like mathematical equations, something must be done to the other side of the equal sign to keep the equation balanced. So while privileged availability removes time and luck from the situation, it also adds risk of overpaying. To me, that doesn't sound at all unfair; If I paid to get my dream villager today, and in two months a friend of mine received hers via a lucky move-in, I feel we've both put forth equal effort: mine in bells, his/hers in patience.
I don't see why duping villagers would be an issue to some people. It's not about the villager's rarity/price... It's about getting the villager.
- - - Post Merge - - -
- - - Post Merge - - -
I don't see the difference between getting Marshal from reset tricks or sales or giveaways as opposed to him being duped. To say you don't want him just because he's popular then say you wouldn't want him to be duped is kind of contradictory. I'm sure his rarity has some value to you, because you wouldn't want him if everyone else could.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
