[ADDED] *modify breeding formula

Equiverse is a "competitive horse sim game".

It's not an art game or a roleplaying game or a chat box. It's not a farm or an art show. It's a competitive horse sim game. If the select few of us that seriously play the game are annoyed that it's not actually fair when it comes to competition should that not be a priority? 

Maple, non-speciality stats are an issue in showing, which is the reason i made this suggestion in the first place.

Yes it is a competitive horse sim game, just about everyone who plays this game plays it for that aspect. Art/role playing/chatting has nothing to do with this topic so I don't really see why you're bringing that into the conversation. I want to be able to play the game without yet another round of glitches that make competitive gameplay on hold (training center being down for months, shows not working correctly, markings completely vanishing in offspring right a bell?)
 The higher stats are annoying and yes it is a priority to fix it, but I still don't think it needs to happen right this second. We still breed for high D stats and low ND stats, we still win shows, it isn't THAT pressing imo.

^{I’m saying it shouldn’t be a priority when it isn’t a game breaking bug, and changing the formula is potentially game breaking. Especially when we have major upcoming updates, and even though it’s a competitive breeding game as you say a  lot of players on ev would rather have new content then to mess around with game mechanics. Everyone is free to play how they like, and a lot of players don’t play the game as it ‘should’ be.You still win shows, you’re still on a level playing field even if is not as skewed in favour of longer generation/strategically treated horses as you’d like. I would love to be able to breed down nonspecs again in the future, but I’m also happy to wait until some bigger updates are out of the way and debugged before we risk having generations of bugged horses. It might not be fair to you now, but it’s also not fair to push for a higher priority when we already have bugs that still need to be sorted.} 

i mentioned those aspects of the game because that’s what is being added with these new planned updates. 

with these new shiny aspects to the game, there will be bugs. 
farms will have bugs, so it’s not a “make less bugs” issue, which is what I feel this discussion has turned into.

the issue is prioritization of which bugs get sorted - the bugs of brand new features that we don’t even have yet, or the bugs to fix a flawed aspect of the very base game: breeding and showing horses.

like i’ve said, i’d be glad to donate financially if the additional coding is a burden. I know others feel the same. 

^{Hey man, we were just stating why we disagree with your suggestion to prioritise it when Abbey already said she was putting it on her list, no need to attack us on our own opinions when they don’t match your own, you’re certainly not changing anyone’s mind. You and Confessor stated you would be happy to deal with broken horses, I just wanted to step in and say I would not be willing to deal with bugged horses until other bugs would be dealt with- including for updates that have been looked forward to and planned in advance for months. I’m withdrawing support from this suggestion for this, while I still support the original suggestion of changing the formula, I do not support the current suggestion.} 

I feel like I both agree and disagree with a lot of what’s been posted here. I do think that the breeding formula needs to be modified, and I think that it should be prioritized over new additions. However, I don’t think that things such as farms or foal art that are already underway should be put on pause, nor do I think they will be. I want the breeding formula to start to be modified in the near future, but I don’t think it should be so rushed that hundreds of horses will be glitchy and unusable. That being said, every major update WILL have bugs. The farms, the foal art, or anything else is just as prone to being buggy as a modification to the breeding formula. While I get the concern that a broken breeding formula will make the game less than functional, I’m sure there are plenty of bugs that could happen as the result of implementation of new features, bugs that we don’t even realize exist. I don’t want the breeding formula to change years down the line, but I also don’t want it to be rushed. I’m not willing to deal with my whole herd being buggy and weird. Like I said in a post earlier in this thread, I would love old bugs that already exist to get fixed before I see new features, but I realize that not everyone feels the same. I would like for this suggestion to start to be worked on in the near future, but I don’t want to see it rushed or hinder other promised developments.

@kazie
There was only one of those things that you mentioned being added to the game, which is farming. Everything else is already on the game for people's enjoyment after they've played with their pixel horses and are a completely separate and irrelevant aspect of game play. You're just trying to bring in irrelevant material to the argument to hammer over our heads so we shut up, which is attacking as maple said^^

I'm not trying to say there should be less bugs at all, I'm stating which bugs I would appreciate being prioritized because that is my opinion and how I would like to play the game. There are a great many players on here who are looking forward to new content and current actual bugs getting fixed (this isn't a bug, just how the game was made which has turned into an annoyance).
Also, I'd just like to mention that it's fantastic we can even get to 2000 stats so quickly, we could still be dealing with the stat breeding cap right now. I am content with how things are at the moment with the eventual minor issue resolved in the future when Abbey has a chance to rework it without being rushed.

I think this issue should be resolved at some point, but I don't believe the majority of us care enough for it to have to be done right now. After all, you did put the asap addition in after support was already close to 100 votes, and I wouldn't have even seen it unless I heard people expressing how they didn't agree with it being pushed to top priority.

I came to express my thoughts on the matter because Abbey deserves to know everyone's opinions, if you would like to continue to attempt to argue over pointless subjects you are welcome to but I've said my piece.

Honestly, after reading this discussion, id just like a change that would make post recode horses to be as competitive as prerecode low spec stats, or a change that would make it possible.

I feel like the horse market is wonky because there's not enough players in each breed and discipline to support a good horse market, so I think a change in the breeding formula would help that.

One thing I'd like to note is that because the current formula makes it easier to progress levels quickly, the higher levels are less competitive because there aren't enough horses to fill up the classes, or get to at least 5 (at least for endurance sometimes and possibly racing and driving). I can only sometimes find classes with enough entries for national 3 and 4 horses. Does anyone else experience this? I think a change to the breeding formula would help this somehow.

Last edited on 2018-02-05 at 13:32:17 by marigold sunshine

If we're talking about "fairness" then surely making only the relevant stats contribute to grading is the most fair way of handling this.  Any point that goes into those stats becomes a flat-rate of importance rather than a ratio based on what other stats the horse has.

Any horse competing in a show will be against others that are in the same grade because of the stats being properly weighted to that grade, rather than there being a huge imbalance caused by essentially unused stats.

If you truly want post-recode horses to catch up, that's the way to do it with immediate effect.


I am trying to address the fact that several members in this topic have deemed this as more important than almost any other update at this point and are requesting it is implemented sooner rather than later, even threatening to essentially quit the game (or put it on hold) until it is implemented.  There has also been the mention of buying more credits to support the game if this was implemented sooner, which I am honestly kind of insulted by as I've ALWAYS tried to say to members do not worry about the monetary factor behind updates.  I work on EV as a passion project and money motivates me very little with regards to it.

Adjusting how grading works is the only update I would feel confident doing quickly and effectively.  If you want the breeding formula modified, which I am already hesitant to do as a feature *regardless* of this recent discussion, then it will be a long time before it's considered.

I am actually leaning towards this idea (priority stats contributing to grading) as an improvement to the game from a newcomer point of view as well as leveling out the playing field for showing a bit, and it may become a "what's best for the game" point of contention.  I know that many members can get confused as to why their horses don't do that well against other horses with the same, or fewer, overall stats, so it could clear up a lot of confusion.

I know there's a lot of debate in this topic, I'm literally just trying to offer a compromise that could be coded in quickly (as in, within the next week).

I do very much want this adjustment to take precedence over other updates for reasons I think that myself and other players have adequately articulated.

However, I would MUCH prefer that it be bumped down in priority behind new features rather than be replaced with the stat-grading option. The stat-grade seem be a quick fix, but it doesn't fix the initial issue, for reasons that I think are already pretty well explained above. I'd be happy to try again though if something is being lost.

I do truly want post-recode horses to catch up, but I've never once suggested (and nor has anyone else that i've seen in this thread) suggested that they want an immediate, even playing field when it comes to shows. What we want - what this entire suggestion is about - is allowing us the ability to breed horses that will eventually catch up to pre-recode horses.

Also, as the person who initially brought up contributing financially, I want to clarify that I didn't mean in a "buying more credits" type of way. I meant it as a: if this is a giant hassle for Abbey maybe she could outsource the work, and since I'm one of the people asking for this extra hassle, I feel responsible for helping out with the financial cost. I'm truly sorry if that came off as insulting; that was not my intention. 

I have no intention of either attacking or threatening anyone, and I don't see that Kahzie has done that either - merely explained their position, that they feel strongly about.  It's OK to disagree and to feel strongly about that disagreement, but I don't see anywhere that they (or I) have put anyone down for disagreeing with us.  I'm very surprised that people see that in our posts.

Abbey, it is your game.  If you want to level the playing fields and make winning in shows easier, that is entirely your right.

However, it is my opinion that the challenges of strategy behind creating a winning show horse is a large part of what makes this game enjoyable for me, and simplifying it like this removes the vast majority of that challenge.

What this proposed change will do will make showing more fun for new people, but significantly less fun for people who are seeking a challenge.  It is entirely up to you which direction you prefer to take the game, and I stand by your purpose 100%.  But I would hate to see you make that choice without realizing the impact it would make on the game for those who seek the challenge.  Kahzie and I are vocal, but we are not the only ones concerned about making showing less of a strategy thing.

I am not threatening to quit the game.  I'm not trying to make ultimatums here.  I want to play the game, but at the same time, if the challenge of it is removed, it's just a natural result that those who love strategy will probably want to play less.  I'm not saying "do it or else," but if showing becomes boring, I will probably end up losing interest.  And I don't want this to happen because I want to continue to love this game as much as I have in the past.

I am saddened that people have been offended by our debate here.  That was never my intention.  People like Kahzie and I feel passionately about this subject because we love Equiverse, and want to continue to love it, and be active, engaged members.  I believe that Kahzie merely wanted to communicate that, if there was an impediment to the change they hope for that was in their power to remove, they wanted to help.

I know that I personally have invested a lot of time freely sharing my strategies for successful showing with anyone who wanted to learn, no matter how new.  I don't want to be a showing snob.  I just love the complexity and strategy of it all, and I want to share that love with others, not see that complexity go away.

<sup>People weren't necessarily offended by the debate than they were by the sudden demand to have this change implemented as soon as possible. Especially after Abbey already stated she was reluctant to add it but was still considering it as a 90% support suggestion. Hardly anyone has a problem with the original suggestion, people would love to breed stats down in the future. BUT changing it to a demand once some form of consideration was given was incredibly rude and forceful, not to mention an unfair edit on a suggestion that was already supported for it's original future suggestion, and not necessarily for the new suggestion of it being implemented soon. 

Also pretty sure Abbey would have some comprehension of how her own game works and has thoroughly considered the impacts of her proposal before suggesting her compromise, and telling her you'd 'hate to see her making a decision without realising the impacts' sounds incredibly condescending and disrespectful. I support her compromise myself, it makes sense to me to do it especially to remove the imbalance currently (imo all horses should have had non-specialities reset on being imported and clearly, you can see why it would annoy a lot of players), as long as breeding down was still considered. That way you could essentially reshuffle those stats that aren't being counted in showing over generations into the speciality stats, you'd still get your breeding goal of low non-specs. Sure, it's not exactly what you asked for or skewed as you like in favour of long generation horses but it's still a decent compromise for now. 

And it's not necessarily whether you thought something was offensive or not, it that it did come across as argumentative/uncompromising and as someone that isn't easily ruffled or angry, that's what it felt and looked like to others. I'm not willing to accept any apology when I made an effort to be considerate of your opinions and arguments myself from the start. Understandably you're both passionate about the subject, but it was no excuse to shoot down opinions just because they didn't align with two others, nor twist words. I never said the current situation wasn't an issue, just that I didn't feel it to be a big enough issue to deal with immediately. The original comment was simply a statement that not everyone is willing to deal with bugged horses again and would rather a new feature to encourage new members to stay (who aren't necessarily strategically playing given this game is aimed at 13+ and most people just want to mess around and have fun).</sup> 

Last edited on 2018-02-05 at 17:43:51 by maplɛ

Maple, you mentioned yourself that  "a lot of other players don't mind or notice this issue and are content to keep on going." I believe that is what Confessor was referring to. Most people don't notice these things - the "serious" players do, and that's why it was brought up.  After being asked if this was solely an aesthetics issue and then having a proposed fix that didn't actually fix the actual issue, I think emphasis was on making sure that everything is absolutely understood by both sides, especially things that "most people" don't even notice.  I'm absolutely certain that it was not Confessor's intent to come off as condescending and disrespectful.




(It was never my intention to make anyone feel attacked, and despite having repeatedly reread my previous comments, I am still unsure as to where that happened. Regardless, I had already privately apologized to those involved and have specifically avoided referring to this in my other comments because i don't feel it's relevant to the discussion. I will say that Confessor captured my feelings quite well.)

Can someone please point out where anyone demanded anything?  I certainly didn't.  Do I want this change very, very much?  Yes, definitely.  Is it personally the thing I most long to see in the game?  Also definitely, because it is hugely impactful on my primary goal in playing this game.

Communication, even passionate communication, is not a demand, not by a long shot.

The reason why this thread shifted to an expression of hope and desire that this be changed sooner is because Kahzie attempted to make a separate suggestion to address this hope, but that suggestion was deleted, I'm assuming because it was considered too similar to this thread.  So they brought the topic back here.  I don't see why there is a problem with anyone expressing not only a wish for a certain change, but a description of how high a priority it is for us.  That seems to be a pertinent detail to discuss.  I personally wish that it could have been its own suggestion, because I know that there is a big difference between expressing a desire for a feature, and expressing how that feature ranks compared to other suggested features.  I was very curious to find out how many people do see this as something they consider vitally important.  I know for a fact there are others who do not feel comfortable coming out publicly and making comments, but who agree with us, so it may appear to you that there are only two, but that is not the case.  A separate thread could have giving those people a chance to weigh in anonymously.

I mean no disrespect or condescension to Abbey, because I feel entirely the opposite towards her.  I hold her in the greatest respect, and I think she has created something amazing.  But I also know that, in a game like this, you can end up with features that were not specifically planned.  I think the impact of non-discipline stats is one of those areas.  I think this because Abbey herself said in this thread that non-discipline stats do not affect showing.  It makes sense to me that she might not know that they do, because it now appears to be an unintended side effect of other features that she did plan.  Also, she does not show, and the effect of non-discipline stats only becomes apparent if you are active in showing.  Is it a sign of disrespect to let her know that something she did not plan for actually enhances gameplay enormously for many players?  I don't see how that is disrespectful in the least.  She designed the game so cleverly, that the features she chose gave rise to new features that made things even more awesome.  Also, Abbey could know every single last detail about how each feature functions while the game is being played, but she can't possibly know anyone's goals or how a certain change is going to impact their enjoyment of the game unless she is told by that person.  So yeah, there are many people here who play specifically because showing is challenging, and the impact of removing that challenge is that those people aren't going to enjoy themselves here nearly as much.  And I intended to let her know that impact, so she can make decisions accordingly.  I fail to see the problem with this, or the offense.
 

I am and always have been a very eager debater, but it is never from a place of meanness.  I don't see disagreement, even very vocal disagreement, as a negative thing.  But I also realize that debate can make some people uncomfortable, and eagerness can come off as aggressiveness.  I always approach a debate with the attitude that this is my opinion, and I will explain (sometimes long-windedly, as I will admit) my position thoroughly, but I do not take offense at disagreement, and I would hope that anyone who disagrees will explain their position with equal thoroughness.  I can and will change my mind if I see someone's argument that makes sense to me.  I've done that many a time, even here on Equiverse.  I also don't make personal attacks.  I don't even say anything disparaging of anyone else's opposing view.  I haven't said that anyone is stupid or wrong, not anywhere in this debate or anywhere else.  If I did that, you would be right in calling it browbeating or an attack, but I haven't done that.  I have merely voiced my hopes, my views, and my concerns on this topic.  I feel I've expressed myself passionately, but respectfully.  I've also defended myself when I've seen someone mistake my meaning or intentions.  And I don't feel that I've done anything wrong in doing so.

I have not "shot down" your opinions.  I have merely stated my own.  I have not twisted words.  And I am certainly not "uncompromising."  I feel strongly about things, and I'm not going to pretend I don't.  There's nothing to "compromise" about because I don't have any choice in this matter.  It's Abbey's game and Abbey's choice and I have never said anything to indicate that I felt any need to force my will on anyone else.  In fact, I clearly stated that I respect Abbey's right to do whatever she wants, even if it is not what I would hope for.  Also, I stated my honest feelings that her most recent suggestion (which she has every right to implement whether I like it or not) would actually take showing further away from what I would like, rather than being a quick fix, and explained why I felt that way.

In short, disagreement is not disrespect, and neither is sharing knowledge that is based on experience.

Last edited on 2018-02-05 at 19:54:37 by Confessor

I never intended for this to get as controversial as it has.  I don't feel there has been any disrespect by any means.  I felt mildly insulted by the funding comment as I've said many, many times before not to worry about the monetary side and it felt like a "carrot on a stick" kind of comment which is not something I appreciate.  That could be me just misconstruing the intent of the words, which often happens on the internet.

My attitude towards EV since the recode is that I'm fully willing to implement whatever members suggest for the game as long as it has at least a 65-70% support rate, preferably higher if possible.  There are some times that I may have to override this general rule (for instance, I imagine a way to earn credits ingame would be wildly popular, but not in the best interests for the survival of the game) but for the most part I'm willing to implement the majority of highly supported features.

The problem here is that this started out as a suggestion that I said I would add to my list but that it was low priority and everyone seemed to be in agreement that this was acceptable.  I was still hesitant over making any changes to the breeding script (mostly because the breeding script is a pain at the best of times to alter) but I wanted to at least look into it.

Then suddenly a note has been added to the front saying "I suggest this change is done ASAP".  This changes the agreement, firstly.  Secondly this is something that I wasn't entirely comfortable with in the first place.  I hope this sort of explains why the word "demand" has been thrown into the mix.

I decided to make the suggestion to change the grading rules because a) it's an easier and quicker fix, and b) it seemed like a good idea, taking into account the fact that I was informed how stats affect shows in a way I had never considered before.

The thing with coding a game like this is you try to consider the outcome of everything, and then something comes completely out of left field and hits you in the face.  It makes you feel really stupid, especially when it's such a simple concept in theory that: if only priority stats matter in shows, priority stats should only matter in grading realistically.

I understand the history behind breeding lower stats and the fact that it would be a big power shift.  Maybe this is where generation bonuses could come into play which was discussed pre-recode.  Something external to the actual stats themselves to acknowledge a strong bloodline versus store horses.

I feel like moving forward if we want to level the playing field a bit then making a shift towards grading based on priority stats would be the most optimal decision, but maybe it would help to introduce a generation bonus alongside this change so that horses with a long history still get a bit of an edge.