.com Forum · General

quote

---

posted by Welsh Corgi Kennels
Also Canyon, we're allowed to disagree, Just like you're allowed to disagree. Being rude to everyone isn't exactly mature..

and I'm aware you're going to make a huge post that in a way, insults me

I'm ready. and I'm about done with this post. I'm going to suggest to Jeff to lock it. So if you have a witty comment, I wont ever see it.

Good day

---

Rich coming from someone that stated:

quote

---

posted by Everkai
Fine, add this feature, I'm sure all of you that voted yes will realize how crappy the economy will probably become. I know for certain I would become a closed kennel, just because I can; and more so to prove a point.

---

Already a closed kennel....Out and DONE with this..

-----
Last edited by Canyon View Kennels on 7/9/2013 1:45:04 PM

There has been a decrease in players in this game for.a long time. This will not solve that issue, sorry.

Canyon, so long as I have a voice, we can agree to disagree. I love it

That was me, sorry, I timed out.

In my experience, the players who stay are the ones who are serious from the get go- who take the time to read the rules, study the game, and make smart choices. I never ran my kennel into debt starting out, instead I took my time and made smart choices and good investments. The other players I've met who end up staying and contributing, do the same.

There is nothing stopping source breeders from maintaining or increasing their balance. It requires sacrifices- you can't keep or breed as many dogs, maybe have to maintain them on lesser food. But it most certainly CAN be done. Just because you can't manage to play within the confines of your budget, does not mean that the budget is the issue.

In my own source/rare breed kennel, I was able to breed quite a bit thanks to taking a long time to build up a balance for that. Once that money was gone, I ran the kennel into debt, and then changed my money management practices so that is is now showing a nice positive balance and continuing to grow. Also, source breeders choose to play like that, it was never really the intent of the game. It's a strategy that takes a long time to see results in the ring- something source breeders know going into it.

For me, I see where people will know they can buy more money, and thus breed recklessly and far into debt, with no consequences. Even if you put a limit on it- say, you can buy out once a year- that's still one time a year when I can recklessly spend my cash TO MY ADVANTAGE, and then not feel the consequences later. It's like a free giant spending spree- and I'm against it. It doesn't encourage good money management practices at all, which are a central part of this game.

The difference between buying your way up, and old timers who have big bankrolls- is that those old timers started with exactly what you did- and then played wisely to get what they have today. You might even be surprised to know that those Old Timers do not necessarily HAVE big bank accounts. My kennel has been in debt more times than I can count, but it's always somewhat strategic, and then I work my way back out. I have slightly more than the average balance at the moment, but I'm hardly rich.

The other thing is that there is a salary cap. Nobody on here works their way up to billionaire status. The salary is capped at $20,000? (I think, or maybe $25,000) in my 9+years, I've only ever reached it once, and then it involved severe cutbacks with the goal of just seeing if I could do it). which means the game prevents you from being TOO successful so the rich's detriment on poorer players is limited in that way.

That was me I timed out. I could also do a list of possible outcomes of implementing this proposal but I think we need to acknowledge the value differences before we start arguing about the details.

grif,

The only way I'd be in favor of this is if there were limitations on it as far as # of times you can do it per month, limits on the amount (say $1000 only) and maybe a requirement that your balance be under $1000 or maybe even below 0. Like, allow you to buy enough to bump you back into the black if you mismanaged your kennel, but not so much that you never feel a need to sell dogs or put dogs at stud (bc you can only buy money every X number of months)

I was just thinking about when I first started playing seriously in 2007, a lot of the features we have today have made the game 'easier'.
The biggest one for me is the fact that litters settle on the date. I remember waiting to check the puppies between 0-2 days for low SS to FH them and that anticipation of day 10. I used to feed all my dogs on Pet House and I didn't understand custom rations at all for a long time.

I feel that a lot of the new players are spoiled.
O/H judges are available so those that don't wish to participate with handlers don't have to. Kennel limits can be increased so no worries about having 30+ dogs.
SOPs are readily available so no going back and forth between a calculator.

Nothing is wrong with these things, but I can appreciate the challenge.

The last thing left is not having to worry about finances, which is probably the biggest aspect of this game. No money means I have to change my approach. The ability to buy money means I can continue to run myself into debt.

So to this:

quote

---

Thus I can feel proud of my achievements in the game because I have earned them through skill, not because I happen to have spare money I can pump into the game.

---

That's right. I'll call my situation nostalgic but that's why I still play.

And thanks for the breakdown, griffin.

No, that reminds me too much of iPhone games where it's simply too easy to get further in the game if you pay for currency/items/etc....no real challenge in those games.

Although, if you were to make it so that you could only buy currency if you had less than $500 in your account, that might be better, to encourage people to keep playing once they get more money.

~HG

-----
Last edited by Holy Grail Shepherds on 7/21/2013 3:22:51 PM

Well realistically MANY top winning show dogs in RL are such through advertising, they get the dogs name and face in all the big magazines and judges see that, the people pay hundreds and hundreds campaigning show dogs, tons of extra money goes into it, far more than your everyday dog show exhibitor. It would be a way in the game to help those in debt and yes some may find a way to use it as an edge but it wouldn't really be any different than RL, most top winners campaign extensively throughout the dogs career. The managed budgets of those who do not utilize this part of the game would have just a good a chance as in RL against a popular known advertised dog. If people didn't advertise their dogs, many many many of those dogs would probably not stick out quite as much (as they probably wouldn't show as much). Those who do utilize the part of the game would have a little extra money for entering more shows. I definantly think a cap and some restrictions should be in order. Have a cap at the amount of money allowed to be purchased at one time, maybe even just make a thing for those in debt, they can pay a fee once every so often if they've been stuck in debt for x amount of time to bring it back to $2,500, basically starting over, or maybe even just up to $1000. Either way I see a lot of benefit to adding at least something like this.

I understand where people are coming from, as the only time my accounts have been above 2000 was when they were new. My kennels have been number 1 in different breeds at different times, because I have to stop showing some breeds while I focus on another breed in my kennel.When I get back to the other breeds it's like starting all over again as I have to prep new dogs to show. May be if we increased the breed amounts that are paid out for best in breed. I might be able to keep showing my winning dogs while I use my other funds to bring along the other breeds. Just a suggestion .

quote

---

posted by Crush Kennels
Well realistically MANY top winning show dogs in RL are such through advertising, they get the dogs name and face in all the big magazines and judges see that, the people pay hundreds and hundreds campaigning show dogs, tons of extra money goes into it, far more than your everyday dog show exhibitor.

---

And IRL serious/top dog fanciers are upper middle class, nouveaux rich, and established aristocrats. There are signs all over the place in RL dog showing from when it was an exclusively upper class pursuit.

Given the horrible levels of inequality all over the world (which have only gotten worse in recent years) I would prefer that element of RL to stay out of the game.

grif,

I'm confused by Crush Kennels post. We don't have advertising here like RL so I don't see the point of anything you are saying...

quote

---

posted by Degree
I'm confused by Crush Kennels post. We don't have advertising here like RL so I don't see the point of anything you are saying...

---

I believe they're saying that since people with lots of money have an advantage in RL they should here too. Which I disagree with, even though I could definitely benefit from such a policy since my kennel is so deeply in debt (if I'd known about the reset option when I returned to the game I would have asked for it, but it's too late now). As a previous poster said, that's one aspect of RL I prefer to do without.

Maybe you guys are right and it doesn't belong in the game, I just see where the benefit from it is. I also had other suggestions if you read my whole post.

IE:

Setting a limit on the amount of money a kennel can get and on a limited basis. You could even put in restrictions like only kennels with -$x are allowed to use this as a tool to at the very least clear the balance. There has to be some way, not everyone can devote all of their time to this game but many, like myself, enjoy the game but find it frustrating to have any success with how fast my kennel goes down.

I too would support this idea if there were limits as have been suggested, for example:

Limits on the frequency (4 times per year)

Limits on the amount (whatever it takes to bring your account up to the starting $2500)

Perhaps that you are at $100 or less (negotiable).

Perhaps these three restrictions would be all that is needed - sort of a modified "reset" so you get to keep your dogs.

The real dollar cost need not be too high, just high enough to make the effort worth while to Admin. If it is brought in, I'd like to see it accessible to all.

quote

---

posted by GaylanStudio9
I too would support this idea if there were limits as have been suggested, for example:

Limits on the frequency (4 times per year)

Limits on the amount (whatever it takes to bring your account up to the starting $2500)

Perhaps that you are at $100 or less (negotiable).

Perhaps these three restrictions would be all that is needed - sort of a modified "reset" so you get to keep your dogs.

The real dollar cost need not be too high, just high enough to make the effort worth while to Admin. If it is brought in, I'd like to see it accessible to all.

---

I'd feel much better about this feature if this was the case

I think there should be a limit on how many times you do it, so people are not doing it on purpose.

I still think any time would be too often, unless it was maybe limited to say, once or twice in the lifetime of the kennel/user.

4 times a year is for sure to frequently.

Eve3n at once a year, that
s one time a year I don't have to care how deeply I drive my kennel into debt, because I get a "get out of jail free card". that's not playing the game as it is meant to be played.

I'm still against.

Grif, Lilliput I am still in your camp. And love Grif's breakdown.

I am also a long time player, and could put money in the game but my choice, my money. Balance is way low here as struggle out, but I would not want to have that option, I have dug out before and I will dig out again, even if it's 'less fun playing' when I can't freely enter shows.

I homed a bunch of dogs, have way to few girls right now. Yes keeping some knowing can't show for some generations hurts, so do enter some from show results (making my dig out harder ;P)

What do you guys think of a monthly bonus everytime your subscription date rolls over or on the first of the month?

A membership perk.... Maybe $500 SD money?

It doesn't help basics but it makes it that extra little bit more enticing to be a paid member.

Will

quote

---

posted by Solimar
What do you guys think of a monthly bonus everytime your subscription date rolls over or on the first of the month?

A membership perk.... Maybe $500 SD money?

It doesn't help basics but it makes it that extra little bit more enticing to be a paid member.

Will

---

Why not just increase the minimum salary instead? At least then there would be some element of strategy left.