01-20-2012 at 8:35 PM

Ionic, I have hundreds of dogs in trials - well, maybe not literally - and I would rather the entry fee was fixed and wouldn't go up so ridiculously. I rather see my lower TPs do fine in at least Marley still, the way it is now, they do not pay anymore. <br /> <br /> I am just now starting to train more high TP dogs. They cost a lot of money and time to train. Example - an almost 7k TP dog who needed to be speed trained thanks to age used up one MFB and about 15 (at least) MRBs and a revitalizer. If you count all that, even with raking in 7k per trial, the dog (not even completely trained yet) is at Odin and has not made back the money yet. Decreasing the winnings will probably mean that dogs won't pay out what you invested in them. <br /> <br /> Same with my high TP who got the MWB. It will take time before I earn that back so I am not sure if it is really worth it and if I would do it again. <br /> <br /> The energy companions, at least the good ones, costing real money is the main reason for me not to like #4 much, although my dogs, with very few exceptions, do not get energy companions once they are maxed so this would not really bother me personally.

01-20-2012 at 8:06 PM

yeah defently not a fan of #4. energy rasing companions cost a lot of money, and thats accual money as in donating to ala to get say the artic fox when it was being given out. to limit the number of trials would defet the purpous. why not just have a set amount per trial?<br /> <br /> all firstplace's could get like 500, all seconds 400, thirds 300. Set it so no matter what the skills of the dog, the prizes are the same as any other dog. so a dog with 200 skills winning a first place, would get the same amount as a dog with 2,000 skills. <br /> <br /> does that make sence at all?

01-20-2012 at 8:03 PM

My vote would be for a combination of 3 and 5. <br /> <br /> 1, limiting dogs to 2 per trial, I don't support as it will dramatically alter the way some people trial. Some players can large numbers of capped dogs and items to train them quickly, others cannot, depending on what point in the game they are at and how much time/donations they invest. <br /> <br /> 2, I can't really make an informed decision upon, since as a newer player, I've not yet trailed above odie level and the payout reward for this level seems fair to my eyes. I don't know how much higher level trials are making. <br /> <br /> 4, dogs are already limited to how many trials they can enter, that is one of the points of energy. I wouldn't like to see furhter restrictions placed. <br /> <br /> 5 and 3 seem like the lesser of the evils so to speak. I think it should still be possible for players - especially newer players - to be able to make money from trials, otherwise things will get too discouraging in particular when people are just starting out. <br /> <br /> The main drawback of restricting age limit though, would be high capped dogs. I'm training a nearly capped dog myself and I know I'd be heartbroken if I got him maxed only to discover that I could no longer trail him. This in turn might discourage people from buying as many dogs, because of the time spend maxing vs usable trailing time, which will be a negative impact on the economy. <br /> <br /> Anything encouraging users to spend money into the economy, in user shops, buying dogs, that should all help also. <br /> <br /> I saw a little while ago somebody had suggested putting money spent in the main shops back into the game as this money effectively disappeared from the game? What if the main shops acted as 'sponsors' and were putting up prize money for trials? Would this have the desired effect?

01-20-2012 at 7:56 PM

Personally, I am most in favor for solution number 2. Since the problem is that too much cash is flowing in, I think the simplest way to fix the problem is to reduce prize amounts.<br /> <br /> I'm not in favor of number 1. I have a lot of fun trialing my foundation dogs, and I know that if I can't make trial teams with them, they most likely won't ever win. If number 1 was implemented, I'd like to see it put in place more at the higher levels where the payouts are a lot bigger and I believe the competition is a bit more fierce. I think an entry cap of 2 would hurt at the lower levels and ultimately cripple a dog's progression through trial rankings if the dog had lower TP (ex. anything below 500 or so). So basically, I believe that solution 1 would really REALLY hurt lower TP dogs in the trials... and that would leave out a lot of people who either choose not to have high TP trial dogs (because they take so long to train) or simply can't afford a high TP dog (let's face it, they go for $30,000 to about $100,000...or for straight up bones).<br /> <br /> I am okay with solution number 3 being implemented.<br /> <br /> I can see how solution number 4 would make sense also and am partially in favor of it. The only drawback about this option is that a user's dog has reduced opportunity to get bonus skill points from trialing. I know they are only fractions of a point... but still. Those little fractions add up if the dog is matched against another dog with similar stats.<br /> <br /> I'm not in favor of solution number 5. Unless a person already has a lot of perks, items, and companions that will slow their dog's age progression and speed up maxing, I think the 240 month age limit is just fine.<br /> <br /> I think if solutions 2,3, and 4 were all implemented at the same time, that might be too drastic. But if two of those solutions were chosen, I think that might put a reasonable curb on the influx of money into the game.<br /> <br /> I think another option could be increasing the entry amount a dog pays to run based on that dog's winnings. It would have to have a cap at some point so that people could still earn something from wins. I know it's basically a penalty for a dog doing very well in trials, but it might also force people to start trialing with more than a handful of dogs -- which would lead to people entering a larger number of dogs and make trialing a bit more competitive and varied. Personally, I think that would be better than reducing prize amounts for all dogs since dogs with very few wins under their belts barely make any money anyway.<br /> <br /> And finally, if number 1 was implemented, I'd like to see a system that paired up dogs with similar TP instead of the current one where a dog with 250 TP ends up running against a dog with 7000TP. One of the main reasons people trial their dogs in teams is because they don't want to get trial-sniped by someone placing a ridiculously high TP dog against their own. I believe having both TP and win ranges set in place would help lesson the need for teams.<br /> <br /> Sorry that was so long. But that's my 2 cents. :P

01-20-2012 at 7:40 PM

I think increasing it to three would help the people that get there first, but not the people who have to just enter two dogs. decreasing it would do nothing but reduce the amount of trials being run, in my opinion.<br /> <br /> Edit: It takes such a long time to entire dogs into trials, just entering one dog in trial would be very annoying, and very time consuming. Also there is the issue of never having enough trials, and having to many trials, depending on how it works.

01-20-2012 at 7:29 PM

It would make no difference, as the main issue is you can't have a winning dog without a team unless it is a monster.

01-20-2012 at 7:28 PM

I'm seeing many complaints with the number limit on option 1. <br /> <br /> Would it make it better for those concerned with it to increase the limit to 3 or to decrease it to 1? <br /> <br /> I'm not saying this is what we're going to do, I'm just curious.

01-20-2012 at 7:04 PM

It would make it even less feasible to enter dogs in trials where they could only place and not win if you lower the payout for the 2nd and 3rd placings. Lots of times, as long as my dog can still get 3rd place, I enter it anyway. It would be a waste to do that anymore, and calculating how to pair your teams would get even more bothersome. <br /> <br /> As for realism - forget realism in a game with magic items, glitch colors, invisible dogs and so on. We do not have realism to begin with, worrying about it for trials seems weird. <br /> <br /> I voted for 4 because there is no "none of the above" option. It should be at least 6 times in my view though, as it would be better for unbalanced teams to allow feeding a dog to run an additional course. I don't usually run my dogs more than 4 times anyway, except if I trial early and they happen to be at 25 again at night.

01-20-2012 at 6:51 PM

I like limiting the number of trials a dog can enter, I can understand that players need to make money, but when you add energy companions and other items/companions and trial your dog 10-20 times a day, thats a little much.<br /> <br /> I also like the idea of lowering the second and third place prize money, because yeah in reality they wouldn't get near as much money as the first place dog.<br /> <br /> limiting the trials to 2 dogs would cause alot of people to complain, and it would definatly limit the amount of influx in cash to players. But, for players just starting out and trying to make a little money for items for their dogs, it would defenatly affect their desision of weather it's worth staying on here or not.<br /> <br /> I do and dont like the idea of decreasing the age dogs can trial for, on one hand yeah, dogs dont trial up to 20 years of age, but i cant afford timestops for those dogs i have but cant train so they probably wont be maxed by the age of 100 months. New players dont gat many Ts's a day though and it would also take them a while to max their dogs, but then they might not be able to trial their dogs very long if at all.<br /> <br /> I personally think the ideas of decreasing the cash given and the amount of trials a dog can enter would be the best options ^^<br /><br />Of course some people are probably going to complain anyways, no matter what you choose to do ^^

01-20-2012 at 6:37 PM

I think a combination of 4 and 5, along with possibly some lower payouts would help make the system more fair. Dogs, in real life, don't usually run agility at 20 years old. I understand that people with customs and immortals dogs may not like the idea that their dogs couldn't trial for as long as they do right now, but honestly this game is supposed to be "realistic" and 20 year old dogs running agility doesn't really make sense.<br /> On the other hand, number 1 is something I would be seriously against. I trial my dogs in groups like a lot of people do, and my current filler dogs wouldn't stand a chance if I trailed them against higher TP dogs, especially my foundries.

01-20-2012 at 6:21 PM

I believe 4 and 5 are both good choices but disagree greatly with choice number 1. <br /> <br /> I have worked a long time to get dogs into the trial levels that I need them to be so they are teamed up in pairs of 5. With the increased amount of capped dogs on the site, there is no way any of my dogs would ever win with choice number 1 and I would have to stop trialing and earning money altogether. I also believe that choice number 1 would also cause an overload of trials to never run. I know I wouldn't enter 2 of my dogs into a trial with 2 other capped dogs. they'd never win. So only capped dogs are going to run against other capped dogs and there would be stagnant trials just sitting around on the trial pages. <br /> <br /> Number 4 would stop people from using energy companions, rejuvenators and revitalizers to enter their dogs into tons of trials per day, which would lower the amount of cash being added into the game and stop abuse of the trialing system. <br /> <br /> I also like choice number 5 because it would not change the system of the trialing completely, but shorten the amount of time you'd be able to trial with the dog. Even a combination of 4 and 5 would be great. Just anything but number 1.

01-20-2012 at 6:18 PM

I see what you're saying but you can use the TP companions to help bump it up. Not every trial will have dogs in the higher end of the range. For example, a group ranged from 400-600 may not all have dogs around 600. This may also get people buying the TP raising companions like the prairie dogs, spring fawn, and aviator caps. =) Its also easier to regulate cash flow by groups. ^^;

01-20-2012 at 6:13 PM

It is the long term goal to separate trials by TP, but we're still debating a fair way of doing this. Unfortunately, with this kind of segmentation, a dog with high TP (say, 6001 with a trial cap of 6000) that took a lot of effort to train becomes as valuable as a dog with 1 TP, so we need to figure out how we can somehow augment the system to compensate for this.

01-20-2012 at 5:54 PM

I'm copying and pasting what I said the last time this was discussed..<br /> <br /> "I dont know if this has been suggested.. maybe have it broken down by TP? Have to click a link like '500 or less TP' and then the 'odie, toto, marley' levels are within it? Would stop the high tp dogs from blocking the lower dogs as well as creating better competition for the higher dogs whereas before they were unstoppable? Just a suggestion =) Glad some things are being tried to fix the strange economy =)"<br /> <br /> "I think maybe a broader range. If the tiers are too small I think a lot of trials may end up sitting. I think '500 or less', '600-1000', '2000-500', '6000-9000 (aka cap)'. That is just if there is enough interest and it's somehow implemented. It's a tricky situation because you want to make it where people can earn profits but not enough as to where it throws things out or whack or to where it lets people with capped dogs block out the people with lower tp. Just throwing it out there =)"<br /> <br /> <br />

01-20-2012 at 5:52 PM

I am very concerned about the first option mostly because I own and trial mostly customs and Foundies. This is the way I get my money here on ala. I do not sell dogs, mostly because dogs do not sell, and because I do not want my line circulating to much. So the only way I earn money is to Team up my dogs and trial them together. <br /> <br /> Now don't get me wrong, I know a trial team is not very realistic and that loosing is part of the game, there is nothing wrong with that. What I have a problem with is not even getting the chance to win against the Higher TP dogs. If you are going to go along with number one then a system needs to be created for TP and not for the amount of wins a dogs has. <br /> <br /> What I mean buy that is being able to trail dogs that have around the same amount of TP together. Meaning no capped or over the capped dogs going up against a foundie.<br /> <br /> If a TP system instead of a winning system was implemented, then yes number one would be a fantastic Idea.<br /> <br /> I agree with Rash that the Prices in ala are high, and the only way to get a lot of the stuff to boost your kennel is to trial and earn the money.<br /> <br /> I also agree with Shroom in that it will help the rich and hurt the poor. <br /> <br /> If anything a combination of number four and number three would be a little more helpful and a little more embraced then number one(if the system doesn't change)<br /> <br /> Number five has its merits, but what about the custom dogs? They live forever and are worth it if they can trial for a longer amount of time. <br /> <br /> Number two also has its merits, but I think if this was to happen, then the price to enter a trial should go down as well, there is no use trialing a dog if you spending more money then you make. <br /> <br /> Overall, I would have to say a combination of numbers three and four would be the most beneficial to the users as well as the site(Again, if the system doesn't change). I also think that rash's idea has some merit, but i agree that simply reducing prices will not help the economy at all. <br /> <br /> And I want to thank you for coming to the users to ask their opinions, it means a lot to the user base that you are willing to hear our voices.

01-20-2012 at 5:40 PM

I really like the system the way it is (partially because I finally started making money *greedyface*), but I really love the idea of limiting how many times a day a dog can trial. I think 4 times is realistic. That'll keep people from abusing the energy companions/revitalizers/etc in an attempt to beat the system. It'll also still make trialing fun and rewarding for those of us who aren't rich enough to buy revitalizers just to trial all our dogs hundreds of times a day :/

01-20-2012 at 5:36 PM

If I could only enter two dogs to a trial I would make lose money against monster TP dogs. So there would be no point entering without teams :L<br /> Most of my dogs are 400-2000 tp and get crushed by the 9k maxed dogs.<br /> So maybe just decrease money earned?

01-20-2012 at 5:26 PM

I also agree with Rasdashan if option 1 is implemented it will also become much more difficult for newer players to gain money from trialing, if I had just joined and had little chance of gaining money from trialing I would have probably left the site as when I joined that was the only way I found to make more then 3k a day and many of the items and companions I wanted cost 200k + for a new player that's a lot of money.

01-20-2012 at 5:24 PM

People should not be complaining about losing trials--that's the very nature of competition. Running trial teams is unrealistic and totally defeats the purpose of a trial (which is, by very nature of itself, competition). If you are being harassed because your dogs win a trial, you should report that to a moderator immediately. It is wholly unacceptable behavior. <br /> <br /> Attempting to align economy by reducing costs while introducing more money is a recipe for disaster. Any economist will tell you that. Economy is about balancing things out. To decrease prices, we must decrease the influx of new cash. At the current rate of cash introduction, we would have to revalue bones to about $100,000 instead of the current $25,000 for the game to be fair and balanced. This inflation is exactly what we're battling now. <br /> <br /> If none of these options work for you, please help us think of a way to decrease the amount of cash being introduced into the game! We are open to suggestions. This is a problem that we must all fight together.

01-20-2012 at 5:22 PM

I like Ras's idea, but prices DEFINITELY need to come down. Right now, it seems like people are earning less money to buy things that cost more. Yes, the economy needs help, but simply decreasing the amount of money players have will not help. <br />