02-10-2012 at 1:44 PM

With all due respect, Kaeli, being on staff does not mean you know much about the way this will affect the economy.<br /> <br /> That having been said, Evlon made some very good points. The two options listed will do little to fix the problem. I believe it will likely only make it worse.

02-10-2012 at 1:44 PM

Can you please explain that in more detail? <br /> <br /> In my opinion, TP sectioning would be a more natural way of maybe slowing down how often a dog can run as it moves up the ranks than changing energy costs or how many dogs can be entered into an event.

02-10-2012 at 1:43 PM

I will not be voting for any option that is currently on the poll.<br /> <br /> I agree with the others, TP sectioning is the best way to go.

02-10-2012 at 1:42 PM

Because, the staff have discussed them at length and we believe they are both unfair and that they will upset the economy even further.

02-10-2012 at 1:39 PM

<i>Trial tiers are not an option at this time.</i><br /> <br /> Can I ask why, Kaeli?

02-10-2012 at 1:39 PM

Just curious, Kaeli. Why aren't trial-tiers an option at the moment?

02-10-2012 at 1:38 PM

Trial TP tiers are not an option at this time. <br /> <br /> I would also like to remind everyone that this thread is to be kept <b>civil</b>. Keep your responses to each other polite or you will be banned from the thread altogether. Bickering solves absolutely nothing.

02-10-2012 at 1:31 PM

Me too, Ionic. It's one of the best ideas I've read so far.

02-10-2012 at 1:31 PM

I also support TP-sectioning. Not because I always want to win. In fact, quite the opposite, Jambers. I run my GSDs, which are mostly 1k+ in teams so that I don't "mow down" the dogs with less TP.<br /> <br /> It's either teams, in which case I make a little cash, or it goes like this: if can put them in trials with lower TP dogs already entered and win money, but cause everyone else to lose. I can put them in trials with higher TP dogs and lose, but what's the point of that? Or I can choose trials to place them in with no other dogs, but I usually do not win when I do this. Because then people can look at my dogs, see their TP, and only enter if they're higher.<br /> <br /> I support TP-sectioning and I really think that maybe hiding the dogs entered in a trial until it runs could help. That way people cannot pick and choose the trials they enter, even among the sections, and it's fair. You have a chance of landing in a trial with other dogs with higher TP, but you also have a fair chance of being the one with the highest TP, or at least placing.<br /> <br /> (that took forever to post, sorry.)

02-10-2012 at 1:30 PM

I wish the TP sectioning option had been included here. It did receive a decent amount of support in the first thread.<br /> <br /> The only real objection I keep seeing come up is the complaint that the option takes away the ability for high TP dogs to mow down low TP dogs. >.>

02-10-2012 at 1:29 PM

Either of these changes comes back to the issue of trying to target a small select group. I'm a capitalist by nature, so when I see that my 9k dogs won't be making any returns for the effort what do I do?<br /> <br /> I max as many 1k-4k dogs as I can. Its cheap. Its fast. Its easy. I can max a 4k dog before it's 20 months old no problem. Heck, its even cheaper than paying out for that MWB! In fact I do that <u>right now</u> I horde up a ton of dogs under 5k TP and just show them en mass. It doesn't look like a ton, but I can pull about 500k from my lower stat dogs. Why? Just the sheer number of them. Anyone can really do this. I didn't set out to collect them on purpose, but I was working on dog lines. Part of my strategy to lower the expensive cost of working on lines? Show all the dogs in between the customs and finished capped dogs. Over time it will really add up.<br /> <br /> Back to specifically going after the over all worth of capped dogs. This has to do with my largest money sink. Dog Lines. I sink more money into those through MFB and Insta pups than I can even calculate. This isn't counting all the 2nd gens I buy up from people, paying anywhere between 20k-100k per a pup. <br /> <br /> In short? Its way cheaper for me to just eat through the training of some low TP dogs, show them until they are in the higher ranges of the energy limits, retire/sell them and repeat. <br /> <br /> On the flip side! Limiting users to only enter 2-3 dogs per a trail means hey guess what? All the people who already are having a hard time with higher TP will be forced to be competing against them. Its not sporting. Its not fair. But that's what you'll be looking at if trail teams are broken up. I know that after a bit the higher TP dogs will be up in the higher ranks, yada yada... But what about the fact I pretty much always have 3-5k dogs in the lower areas? What then? That makes anything less near impossible to show sense I'd be forced to play in a way that still allowed me to be profitable from my teams. Being profitable means going after shows with lower TP dogs in them than what I want to show.<br /> <br /> What's the point of this post? I personally don't feel that <i>either</i> of these options is going to do a lick of good for the economy or fix the system. My original suggestion was just to simply lower the income from trails over all. This wasn't so much of an issue until we <b>bumped</b> the winnings from trails. Why not try lowering them back to where they were, finding some good spending incentives and see what happens? My bet is you'd find the economy healthily fixing itself. Really, trying to slap a fast fix on the economy is just going to [and is doing] more harm than good.

02-10-2012 at 1:27 PM

<b>Jambers:</b> <i>"Translation- I dont want my low money pit dog running agest someones "cash cow" because they wont win, and i want to always win. And if i win, then its fair. Regardless of the fact that it may not be fair to everyone as long as i see my dogs win, then its fair."</i><br /> <br /> Not exactly. It translates into <i>"I own and trial 7 maxed, capped dogs and I still find it unfair for me to be able to trial my capped dogs against low-tp dogs."</i>

02-10-2012 at 1:26 PM

Not a single one of my teams loses money, Clayton. If you keep filler dogs at the entry level cost for the trial division you're entering, then the entry costs are generally negated by the profits from your winning three dogs. This holds true across the board for me. I've used customs as fillers for second gen dogs in Scooby and I've used ~1k dogs as fillers for ~3k dogs in Otis. Everything in that range profits. The amount of profit is highly variable, though. I would agree that a team of all capped dogs would be a poor choice because A) those two fillers capped dogs could win other trials and B) the three winners of your team might vary every trial, so every dog's trial entry fee will go up instead of just the winners.<br /> <br /> In general, I would be against doing both at once because we won't be able to tell which option caused what outcome. If things improve, it could have been only one option that helped - and one of them could be hurting - but we will only be able to conjecture about it.<br /> <br /> As a trial teamer, I agree that teams introduce a lot of money into the game. I don't think Option 1 would inhibit capped dogs very much, however, which is also a problem. In the higher levels, I'm sure that most trials would run with two or three capped dogs in them each. I wouldn't be able to trial at high levels anymore, but capped owners probably would. That's why I lean towards Option 2.<br /> <br /> For Option 2, I believe that everyone could still make money trialing capped dogs or teams? It's not true that you'll lose money if you win 3 trials a day whereas winning 6 trials a day makes you profit. You profit from each trial you win, you just win fewer and therefore profit less overall. <br /> <br /> It would be more difficult to have energy companions for a whole team than it would for a capped dog. Therefore, a little of Option 1's intention is built into Option 2.

02-10-2012 at 12:58 PM

However, I do support TP-sectioning so that little dogs aren't mowed over by big dogs. Not to mention, it would pit capped against capped and would be fair.<br /> <br /> Translation- I dont want my low money pit dog running agest someones "cash cow" because they wont win, and i want to always win. And if i win, then its fair. Regardless of the fact that it may not be fair to everyone as long as i see my dogs win, then its fair.

02-10-2012 at 12:57 PM

I sort of wonder if revamping the trial system really is the best possible solution to fixing the economy? Or is this the first step to fix it and there will be other changes elsewhere later on (I hope so, I don't think changing how the trial system works will completely solve the economy's problems)?<br /> <br /> Now that I see the comments that folks with dogs in the higher levels are posting, I can understand where they're coming from. It's not so fun if you can't run your dogs that often. Though, if the system was broken to begin with, then 'fixing' it is going to suck regardless.<br /> <br /> I think if things were how they were supposed to be to begin with, people wouldn't have to dump millions and millions into their dogs because that surplus of cash simply wouldn't be there for folks to spend. <br /> <br /> Both of the two options up for debate will hurt a group of people either way.<br /> <br /> Option 1 will absolutely kill trialing for low TP dogs since there won't be a way to separate them from higher TP dogs.<br /> <br /> Option 2 kills the investments (time and $) people have made in maxing out their high TP dogs. I am curious to know how much a dog makes over the course of its trial career now vs. how much it would make if the energy adjustments were made.<br /> <br /> It would be nice if there was a way to implement 1 or 2 without screwing things up for any of the dogs.<br /> <br /> I think it probably would have been best to release a few more (possibly permanent) spending opportunities to get money out of the system first before trying to curb trialing, as it seems like so many people are having a problem with trialing being changed.<br /> <br />

02-10-2012 at 12:55 PM

<b>@Jive:</b> I don't understand the teams. Teams lose money every time they trial.<br /> I've actually seen capped dog trialing teams and I don't understand it.. they cost a couple K to enter and it's just a waste of $$ to enter teams.<br /> <br /> <br /> However, I do support TP-sectioning so that little dogs aren't mowed over by big dogs. Not to mention, it would pit capped against capped and would be fair.

02-10-2012 at 12:47 PM

I'm commenting just to say I've not voted and won't. I don't think either option (or a combination of both) will solve the issue in any way. I think, if anything, it will benefit those with capped dogs and hurt those who can't afford the really high TP trialers and so use teams.<br /> <br /> Neither option has my support.

02-10-2012 at 12:43 PM

"I believe you're misunderstanding what "cash-cow" means"<br /> <br /> no i know what it meens. and i stand by what i say. i think its aful they are called this. Time and money went into them. and i think it is horable that peopke talk about the caped dogs like that. it truely is. if i went around saying something like"oh those money pit dogs" regarding lower tp dogs im sure a lot of people would be ofended.

02-10-2012 at 12:38 PM

<b>@Jambers:</b> <br /> I believe you're misunderstanding what "cash-cow" means. A "cash-cow" is something that is guaranteed to bring in a lot of $$. Like milking a cow.. except the cow is filled with money.. lol<br /> Capped dogs are cash-cows, regardless if you are currently trialing them or not. Cash-cow is also not a derogatory term.

02-10-2012 at 12:34 PM

"cash cow dogs" "will not only cripple the capped dog owners [which I believe is the target of all this"<br /> <br /> really? i spent 80K on my dog and she has yet to run a trial. she wont till shes maxed. cash cow please.<br /> <br /> and if you read the first post you would see its the trial teams. <br /> <br /> the fact is you just dont want a dog like mine competing agest yours. And i think its aful you use terms like cash cow.