02-12-2012 at 6:29 AM

Honestly, I'm done arguing about this, because it seems more and more like any opinion offered that does not conform to what has already been decided upon is being either ignored or actively shot down without appropriate justification.<br /> I'll likely be selling most of my dogs if this affects my breeding programs and money the way I think it will. Alacrity seems to less and less give a crap about what the players are saying about issues like these. when we can't even get a definitive, sensible answer to rational reasons these aren't good options, I think it might be time for me to go.<br /> <br /> I won't be posting any more unless something is specifically directed at me. This is disheartening, and as a long time player, I don't want to go, but I have a feeling this is going to kill most of what was "fun" for me about this site.

02-11-2012 at 10:45 AM

They aren't. Trial participation is going to decrease with either option.

02-10-2012 at 9:05 PM

i'm still not all for a change but these option's seem a LOT more fair than the first ones thank you for changing them up

02-10-2012 at 8:56 PM

"If EVERY player has to do that, then Ala will probably need to up the amount of auto trials are being put out as well."<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that trials will stay open longer because players aren't running their trial teams through them :) If we do find that trials are in short supply (and we shouldn't, as this will be more indicative of an even larger problem), we can make adjustments then!

02-10-2012 at 8:24 PM

So why should a player with time limits be punished? Not everyone lives on Ala, like me :) And even if you do, it kinda messes you up with the time you need. <br /> <br /> Anyway, what about severely reducing the entry fees, making them fixed and, then allow only 1 or 2 dogs per trial. Once the entry fees aren't such big money drains people will probably not mind entering only a few dogs. <br /> <br /> Would still suck for me because I have so many dogs, same for some others. But it might just be more realistic. <br /> <br />

02-10-2012 at 7:24 PM

At first, I thought lowering the trial limit to two dogs was a bad idea, my lower tp dogs would never win, but then I decided I would test it to see if my theory was right. <br /> <br /> For over a week I trialed only two or three dogs per trial. It surprised me when they were still moving up the tiers at a regular pace, even in odie and toto. I was wrong when I thought limiting trials to two dogs per person would mean I would almos never win.<br /> <br /> My trial dogs are pretty much all foundie - 700 tp, most in the 400-500 range. They dont have monster tps, they arent amazing, and they arent difficult to max, not even really for newer players. <br /> <br /> I am glad I testes my theory of this, because now I know that if the trials are limited, my dogs won't be worthless, and that I have nothing really to fear. <br /> <br /> However one thing I did notice that I didn't expect during my experiment was just how many trials are needed to enter only two dogs per run. I dont have an enormous amount of dogs like some players and it took me about 30 trials to run all my maxed dogs.<br /> <br /> If EVERY player has to do that, then Ala will probably need to up the amount of auto trials are being put out as well. <br /> <br /> I like both ideas, and I think both would help the problem. I feel the energy toll increasing through the tiers is very fair, but if you have a high teired dog and can only get on once a day then you can only trial that dog twice a day, but every plan is going to have flaws.<br /> <br /> No matter what happens, it's not going to be the end of the world. As Kaeli said, anything changed is still reversible if it doesn't work out.

02-10-2012 at 5:39 PM

I dislike option 1 because of the fact that there are many maxed and capped dogs out there trialing. Limiting it to two would really hurt newer players if alacrity, especially in those higher trail levels. Option two is better and more realistic because of the fact that higher trailing levels in real life put more strain on the dogs, so it would make sense that they put more strain on the site. There should be lots of consideration when voting, and I decided option two would be the best.

02-10-2012 at 5:36 PM

I am not sure why people feel entitled that they should always win trials. I kind of like hiding who is in a trial. It would make things more interesting and such. I don't really know which option I support and mainly am following what people are saying. This is a tricky situation. I think perhaps I'd rather limit 2 per trial than have the huge energy gaps. Trials are a competition, we're supposed to compete against others.<br /> <br /> On a side note, I'd -love- if more counted towards trialing like Crev said. Height, weight, more speed and drive counting, and maybe a little luck being included =).

02-10-2012 at 5:16 PM

There would need to be a good reason why the TP cap should be raised or enforced from a practical perspective other than it is not preferred.<br /> <br /> Whilst I acknowledge your statement that you are not interested in the costs or the repayments, it is a significant factor since 1 Soldier Helmet can cost a 1/3 the price of a Magical Water Bowl going in user shops (Alacrity cash wise, as far as averages go).<br /> <br /> Which means the player is losing more money than a player that does not use these items and enters trials strategically. They will earn more money and profit more.<br /> <br /> Raising the TP cap would be an issue since two capped dogs breeding will no longer be 8999.91 but whatever the new cap is assuming it's about 14180 (TP of two capped parents + 2 perks + 2 chances).<br /> <br /> Bypassing the breeding cap is not considered cheating as the cap only applies to breeding and nothing more.<br /> <br /> It is possible to bypass the cap simply by trialing, since your TP gains will naturally increase over it even if it doesn't reflect next to the dog's name.<br /> <br /> It is largely a personal goal or a means of paying an investment to guarantee odds of winning that is accessible to any player willing to pay the amount, but do not have to if they are patient enough to sort through their competition.

02-10-2012 at 5:08 PM

I am a causal player. I get on an hour or two a day at most usually. I trial my dogs to earn some money. I do this all once a day, and I trial my dogs in "teams" based on just who I have at what level, and I'll throw dogs into half filled trials if I have some that don't fit the group of 5. <br /> <br /> <br /> I have no dogs over 2K TP, with the exception of my one capped dog I half maxed with a MFB. She will bring me in some good money, and courtesy of 5 months of give a ways (where I got the MFB) she has already paid for herself. For the most part though, since I'm on here just for fun, I don't like to train high TP dogs. <br /> <br /> <br /> And you know what?<br /> <br /> <br /> I have no problems with the current way the trials are run. I think there are other users like me out there too. Just casual users who would be hurt and who would have less fun if stuff was drastically changed in the ways that have been suggested. I agree I would like to see inflation go down, but I don't think completely revamping the trail system is the way to fix it.<br /><br /> <br /> I honestly think the best way to fix the economy is to fix pay outs to make them WAY less and make more money sinks. Money sinks that DON'T pay you back $500 every day. <br /><br /> <br /> As a suggestion, I would love it if these explore games gave out TS as a thing you could find as an alternative or in addition to cash. I don't think many players would complain about more training sessions!<br /><br /> <br /> Also, If you want to talk about realism, people DO NOT get rich doing canine agility in real life. In fact, more than 90% of the time there is no cash reward involved. So it's kind of crazy when on here my half maxed capped dog can earn $14,000 a trial at a low level of trailing! I realize the idea of capped dogs was probably not really considered when the trial system was built, and some changes will have to be made to accommodate how they've changed the game. However, I don't think a complete overhaul will fix anything. I think it's a good system. It's just paying WAY too much in rewards.<br /> <br /> <br /> Also... I think it's completely unfair a dog can get over capped TP. I'm sorry, but I really don't care how much money has been put into a dog and if it will be earned back. That is the players choice to spend the money, and the game does not come with the promise they will get their money paid back. The cap should actually be enforced. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't like that you can still basically cheat the "highest levels" of the game with items. I didn't even know that was something that could happen until I started following this thread, and to be honest I'm kind of annoyed it is allowed. If it is as common as it seems to be, maybe the TP cap should be raised in addition to payoffs being adjusted.<br />

02-10-2012 at 5:08 PM

It actually makes more sense to trial your foundations/customs as is without winning.<br /> <br /> The TP boost is the same for wins/losses; and if they do not win then your entry fees will stay consistently low.<br /> <br /> Which means you will gain more TP for less money over time.<br /> <br /> It shouldn't affect you either way the system changes being if you lose then you will need less energy to trial again, and if you can only place two dogs per trial you can spread them out and hopefully still lose to keep the price low.<br /> <br /> Though I believe you may be exempt from the personality/speed boosts at most.<br /> <br /> Which is entirely trivial at this point in time since the trial system does not really factor either.

02-10-2012 at 4:53 PM

I think that raising the energy needed (option 2) is only going to increase frustrations about trials... if both are chosen and we are limited to two dogs, meaning trialling takes longer, then reducing the amount of trials a dog can enter in a day is going to risk driving people off trialing altogether. I have customs and foundies I don't make any money from trialing, I trial them only for the small training/speed boosts. It would barely be worthwhile under the new system. <br /> <br /> In the end I voted for lowering to two to trial because I believe it's the least harmful option, but I don't really agree with it either... it's just a 'lesser of two evils' option.

02-10-2012 at 4:39 PM

Lowering the prizes overall was an option on the last poll and it received very little support. That is why it is not on this poll. But, if you don't want to vote, that's entirely your choice :)

02-10-2012 at 4:15 PM

I completely agree with Evlon, and am afraid I really can't vote truthfully (so I'm not planning on it) :/ Just lowering the prizes won would do a lot more good than the options listed.

02-10-2012 at 2:07 PM

As to masses of dogs - yes, I have 100s of dogs, literally, and all that are capable go in trials. Most of those are lower TP (under 1k) and do fine up to Marley. I make at least 1k per trial, usually. I might have to get a lot more dogs to offset the energy change but that would also be more time consuming. <br /> <br /> I have a lot of 1+ and 3+ energy companions, so I could fit all my high level teams with them. Just a bit harder to train dogs then :)

02-10-2012 at 1:57 PM

Awesome. Hopefully that option will be taken more seriously now.

02-10-2012 at 1:56 PM

Looks like Hemp beat me to it: <a href=http://www.alacritysim.com/forums.php?boardid=10298&category=Debate>board here</a>!

02-10-2012 at 1:52 PM

Go for it Jive.<br /> <br />

02-10-2012 at 1:47 PM

We have offered constructive criticism with regard to the current options that shows that neither is likely to fix the issues you say you want to fix.<br /> <br /> Edit: If someone would like to create a debate board, I would love to discuss this further. If not, I will. I just don't want to create more than one.

02-10-2012 at 1:45 PM

This is not really the place to discuss why we intentionally left TP Tiers out of the poll. However, if you wanted to make a suggestion or debate thread about it, I'd be happy to explain our reasoning :) <br /> <br /> This thread is about discussing the current options. <br /> <br /> EDIT: <br /> We know a lot more about game dynamics than the average player, Jive. As I said, I'd be happy to discuss this elsewhere, but this thread is not the place for it.