01-31-2012 at 12:43 PM

Yayyy :) I'm glad Ala gets input from its users before it makes a drastic change, that's what I love about it

01-31-2012 at 12:38 PM

Ev, I'm not sure that simply lowering trial payouts would have the intended effect on the economy. Yes, it would introduce less money overall into the economy, but it would only facilitate the same problem on a smaller scale. <br /> <br /> For all of you complaining that this thread isn't visible enough, it was both announced in a news post and is linked obviously on the poll itself. I think the fact that there is 18 pages of discussion really speaks for itself. I'm disheartened by these kinds of comments because it devalues everyone's vote. Not everyone is going to be happy with whatever change is made. We are going to upset people. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the situation and as much we don't want to do it, something must be done. <br /> <br /> "I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but lack of foresight is what led to this problem, and now regular users are being tasked with coming up with solutions to fix it."<br /> <br /> Saying stuff like this really isn't helpful. If you don't want to be part of the conversation, you don't have to be. If you'd rather we just change things without asking the community to weigh in, that's also fine, but that's all you need to say. Pointing fingers about "lack of foresight" is rude and obnoxious--this is about fixing a current problem, not complaining about the ways we can't time-travel to fix it in the past. <br /> <br /> I think that it is likely we will run another poll and open up a new discussion thread with some additional ideas before anything is changed. Some of the suggestions that have cropped up in this thread have real merit, in my personal opinion.

01-30-2012 at 1:31 AM

<i>higher TP dogs make $3.5/pt while lower TP make $1.5/pt. How about all making $1.5/pt?</i><br /> <br /> I like the idea of just lowering the payout for trails than making drastic changes. Why not let the payout peak at toto or marley levels, and then fall back down? Its more realistic anyways, as the further a dog gets in ranks the older it would be too. <br /> <br /> I feel like lowering the payout would be less upsetting to the player community as a whole instead of forcing people to play in a way they are adverse too. Personally I like having trail teams, not for the payout, but because I honestly feel bad about showing my dogs against other people. And honestly limiting the trails to 2-3 dogs per a player means the dogs with 18k [or whatever ridiculousness it is now] STILL have a guaranteed win of 30k per trail because honestly no one can compete with them. I checked one of these dogs today, it entered 11 trains (30k x 11 makes 330k from a single dog). <br /> <br /> Really I believe lowering the payout is a better long term solution since the dogs making the big bucks [ie "monsters"] will be earning less overall. Also since the MFB/MWB are much harder to get to aid in the training of these dogs we'll be seeing less of them. That would lead to a gradual stabilization to the situation rather than trying to throw a drastic change on and hope it actually works.<br /> <br /> Judging from the poll it looks like it was a pretty unpopular option, but it seems like it would actually work the best. Just, people don't like the idea of making less money :p

01-28-2012 at 7:43 AM

<i>"To people who are against getting rid of teams: What if trial TP-sectioning were put into place?"</i><br /> <br /> Many players have suggested this. I think it would give everyone a more level playing field while still allowing people to strive for the highest TP dogs/prizes they can. Instead of having the sections determined by wins, have them determined by the TP. That way we keep dogs of the same ability trialing against one another and give everyone a fair chance at winning. If this was put into place I would have no problem with restricting the amount of dogs a person can enter into a trial.<br /> <br /> Most capped dog owners claim this isn't fair and they should be allowed to compete against the low level dogs. They spent their time and money on that dog and they deserve to win every time. I think it was also mentioned that the trials would never run in the higher levels because there aren't enough capped dogs to fill them.<br /> <br /> Even if it was sectioned off it wouldn't fix the inflation problem that capped dogs are causing. What if we cut back their winnings (no idea how much) and add the addition of rare prizes to balance it? Would it help if those prizes could ONLY be obtained in the higher sections of trialing? What about trophies to display on your kennel?<br /> <br /> I also really like lakaishia's idea.

01-27-2012 at 10:27 PM

I like lakaishia (#6048)'s idea.

01-27-2012 at 8:16 PM

To people who are against getting rid of teams: What if trial TP-sectioning were put into place?<br /> <br /> Also guys, just because a poll has one or two options pulling out in the lead doesn't mean those will be the one(s) chosen :P<br /> What the majority wants doesn't always mean it's the best choice [and I've seen the admins say this in the past so that's my source on this]

01-27-2012 at 4:23 PM

I said I would not post in here, but I've changed my mind.<br /> If we want the economy to flow better, why not implement something that my have NOT been addressed?<br /> I would have really like to see another vote option to tell you maybe the community had a different idea.<br /> The problem is mostly the "monsters" vs. the low TP dogs and the amount of money one "monster" can gain, yes?<br /> Then why not create MORE categories for us to compete in? Currently, the categories are only by wins, but why not make it by TP as well? This way the 9k+TP dogs can trial with other dogs in the same TP range for example. On top of that, someone stated higher TP dogs make $3.5/pt while lower TP make $1.5/pt. How about all making $1.5/pt?<br /> Things like this would make the competition more fair and still lower the amount of revenue made.<br /> I do like the limit of trials each dog can do, too. Dogs trialing a little less would mean less trials and money generated.

01-27-2012 at 4:00 PM

I feel like this whole thing is kinda still at square 1. Many people who've spoken in this thread are against almost all of the options posted in the OP, and have stated the downsides of each.<br /> <br /> If I sounded like a broken record, then I am sorry. But I do believe something like this needs to be looked at from all angles. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but lack of foresight is what led to this problem, and now regular users are being tasked with coming up with solutions to fix it.

01-27-2012 at 3:27 PM

"This thread needs to be more obvious than just a little link in the poll. People need a chance to really think about and discuss this before they make a decision. There were things posted here I didn't take into consideration before."<br /> <br /> I agree with this. I feel like a lot of players who DON'T trial are probably voting, too, since even newbies who don't understand how the site works can just click away at the options. This issue is more important than a poll. I think it might even be worthy of like a huge site-wide chat discussion or something (although I realize that's impossible lol) <br /> <br /> I'm just curious about an admin's opinion on my suggestion from a couple of posts back? I mean so far several people from both sides of the argument have said that it'd keep everyone relatively happy, so couldn't the poll be redone with that as one of the options? <br /> <br /> Or maybe the poll can be redone in accompaniment with another news-post that presents all sides of the argument? I know that a news post was made before, but it was amidst several other news items, too, and I think the importance of this might have been lost with the raffle ticket craze and whatnot.

01-27-2012 at 3:22 PM

Just to clarify something, Jackdaw: I wasn't saying you were earning undue amounts of money with your dog. I didn't mean that. But when you're making that much vs. everyone else making what I was detailing earlier, it still makes no sense to blame the trial teams for this imbalance in the economy.<br /> Additionally, you may not be making a lot of money in the end, but you have a lot more money on hand and in the bank than many other players because your dog inevitably wins any trials in which it is entered. You are making a huge amount more than anyone else winning. That still sets up a huge gap between what you're making and what others are making via winnings, so the end result isn't really what's doing the damage anyway.

01-27-2012 at 3:07 PM

<i>"I have a feeling most of the people voting for option 1 aren't going to come to this thread. I did, but then thought better. I wish I could change my vote, actually. "</i><br /> <br /> This. I almost voted for number one, but thought about it for awhile and I realized I would have NO chance of my dogs ever winning. I have seen people in chat admit to only voting for things because "it had more votes" or "their friends wanted it." :/ <br /> <br /> This thread needs to be more obvious than just a little link in the poll. People need a chance to really think about and discuss this before they make a decision. There were things posted here I didn't take into consideration before.<br /> <br /> Edit: Perhaps doing something like <a href=http://www.alacritysim.com/forums.php?category=Suggest+Something%21&boardid=10217>this</a> would also help if it absolutely must be done by poll.

01-27-2012 at 3:01 PM

I have a feeling most of the people voting for option 1 aren't going to come to this thread. I did, but then thought better. I wish I could change my vote, actually. <br /> But that's not the point, I guess. Majority vote shouldn't be trusted to fix something as complex and intricate as the site economy. I just don't think this is a good idea, leaving it up to users who don't know WHY it's broken. Does that make sense?

01-27-2012 at 2:51 PM

The topic was addressed in the former pages. Miss Kaeli also posted her opinion on it as well. That is why I am no longer pressing the issue or engaging into topics that have been answered unless there is a new development.<br /> <br /> Though to address Rosencrown again in the same as the previous pages, she will not be making anywhere near the amount back spent on her, nor break even (this includes being trialed all the way to Snoopy). It was strictly a project of passion and personal goal. If anything it has costed me a great fortune and a long time of scraping as well as saving on Alacrity ^^;<br /> <br /> As to why trial teams would be eliminated, it is only one of many options on the poll which we offer to the users. It is worth hoping they will post their opinion on "why" as I would not want to represent them. I want it to be recognised that it is a user decision being offered and not an automatic staff implement. We can only offer our opinions on why we added it to the list, so there is not much use arguing with us if we are giving it to a majority vote.<br /> <br /> It was stated already that this will be a test phase for us and if it does not work or something needs to be changed once the poll results have been implemented, they will be reviewed and adjusted. Even possibly reversed if need be.

01-27-2012 at 2:41 PM

I think we were hoping you and the other mods might engage us in discussion about some specific topics, Jackdaw. <br /> <br /> I, for one, would really like to know why trial teams are being eliminated when they don't make nearly the amount of money as capped dogs, as has been pointed out. I trial my dogs in teams when I can because I have relatively low TP dogs. Some are over 1k, but most are just starting to be able to make money trialing. If I put them all in separate trials, someone with a much higher TP dog usually just comes and snipes that win, and I make little or no money. Trialing my dogs in teams is one of the very few ways I can reliably make any cash on alacrity, since the games don't pay enough to be worth the time compared to the price of almost everything being sky-high.<br /> <br /> My trial team (dogs ranging from ~700 TP to just over 1k TP) usually makes under $2,000 with each trial I run, after entry fees. For 4 trials, I might make $8,000. Let's say I trial my teams 8 times a day (which is rare; I'm usually too busy for this) and make $16,000 a day. It will take me about 12.5 days to make $200k.<br /> On the other hand, <a href=http://www.alacritysim.com/dog.php?id=114061>your dog Rosencrown</a> has a TP of over 20,000. He gains something like 13 TP every 5 hours due to his 65(?) Aviator Caps, so he's constantly gaining more. With one win, he makes something like $30,000. If you trial him 7 times, you will make more than my trial team was able to make in over a dozen days.<br /> No offense, since I'm really not trying to place blame or point fingers, but do you see how this might be illogical? Punishing teams for "making too much money" doesn't make sense.

01-27-2012 at 2:28 PM

I am happy to have discussion commence. ^^ <br /> <br /> Though there comes a point where something has been repeated enough times that I feel the need to reassure that it's been heard in case it was felt that it was overlooked before.<br /> <br /> I apologise if it came off as anything otherwise as that can be understandable. :)<br /> <br /> That is not to disallow repeated topics (which you are welcome to continue), but rather to encourage new alternatives and perspectives, again, that is not handicapping which we have discussed is not a view we wish to approach at the moment in concerns to trials. In order to promote a wider variety of options beyond the same one that has been proposed and thoroughly argued.

01-27-2012 at 2:23 PM

I really think discussing this with the admin team is better than having them just acknowledge that we're talking about it. :P<br /> <br /> I'm going to have to agree with Jive on this.

01-27-2012 at 2:10 PM

We're offering our opinions, Jackdaw, not so they can be "noted," but so that they can be <i>discussed</i>. :/

01-27-2012 at 10:46 AM

Miss Ionic, your opinion on the subject has already been duly noted alongside everyone else's. :)

01-27-2012 at 3:22 AM

I'm currently breeding for a line of blue-coated/eyed pit bulls that hit the TP cap.<br /> If I can't trial em good, it aint worth striving for.

01-26-2012 at 11:18 PM

"The intention was to reduce the rate of pure-win trialing as a whole and encourage competition between players as well as a more controlled distribution of money to player as opposed to one takes all. Not to strictly reduce the rate of capped dogs trialing."<br /> <br /> Why as a whole when it's already been stated and proven that people trialing lower TP dogs aren't making what folks with high TP ones are?<br /> <br /> The issue is being divided high TP vs. low TP because<br /> <br /> 1.) Folks with high TP dogs believe the amount of time, effort, and money they have invested in their dogs justifies the amounts they earn in trials.<br /> <br /> and<br /> <br /> 2.) Folks with low TP dogs believe that they already make an abysmal amount as is, and usually are beat out by folks with high TP dogs anyway unless they resort to trialing.<br /> <br /> This argument really does mirror a real world economy. There is no way to lump everyone together under a solution and have everyone still be happy with the outcome. It's coming down to an argument between the "haves" and the "have nots".