Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Kamiki]

This isn't so much a rule suggestions as just a general suggestion.

I've noticed a few breeders doing "unedited" slots, so they don't have to worry about babies with edits. Which is totally cool. But I know sometimes there are grey areas of "editness" - especially when it comes to flutters (which wings are custom, which are templated, etc), or older Soquili whose edits are extremely minimal (like a custom hairclip or something).

My suggestion is, colorists should have the option to announce Unedited slots based on the babies instead of the parents. So people could enter whatever couple they wanted into the unedited slots, but they have to understand that the babies would all be unedited. So, say a colorist might open 2 unedited slots and 2 open slots, the entering form might have an option that says "Do you want this couple to be in the unedited slots? y/n?"

Don't get me wrong, I love babies with edits. But I also get that a colorist might get a bit daunted doing 6 heavily edited couples at a time.  

[Iokabrenna]

I suggest that 'low luck' is more defined. xd  

[Devil NightShade]

I know some people may not like what I'm gonna say, but this has been bugging me so I'm going to say it anyway rofl

I agree with Ivory. Low Luck is really undefined and confusing for some people and the whole low luck thing brought up in recent raffles is somewhat weird.

I can understand it from one view if you are attempting to keep people from jumping to different couples to rack up a bunch of LL partners, but it is really unfair in my view to suddenly say that any couple that has been in LL before is suddenly ineligible for one reason or another

Like my couple for example. Myself, Sabin, and Kamiki have been trying since September to nab a slot for Masquerade and Dyson and have had no luck what so ever in getting one. We've entered almost every raffle and occasionally some Bribe Slots but still nothing. We decided one time to hold off on them because Sabin wanted to try a new couple that he has since been entering, now suddenly just because of one raffle they are no longer low luck. That is really unfair and disheartening to us because we love the pairing and have been trying hard to get a slot and now all the work we've put into it has gone to waste.

Or another examples I was given was Kamiki's couple, they have been trying nearly as long but the co-owner of the mare decided to enter her with a different stallion without telling Kamiki in one of King's recent raffles and now they are no longer LL.

I say make a set rules on Low Luck, and if it turns out that the new ruling stays well we'll just have to keep trying, but it would be nice to see set guidelines so people know what constitutes low luck and don't have a new and sudden rule sprung on them.  

[Iokabrenna]

And I back her up xd I entered my pair of Starseeker and Maui a little more than half of the months out of last year. I lost internet in October of last year and wasn't able to afford it until late February of this year. To be polite to colorists holding breedings whenever I DID catch a raffle (from my mom in laws' house,) I entered a different pair (a pair that someone else could handle should they win.) It would have been pointless and rude to have continued to enter my pair (I'm head owner of both Soquili entered) with the possibility of not being able to pay and everything on time.

But now in a lot of raffles, they aren't 'low luck' cause I broke that chain. I'm not complaining, but it IS a downer. I think the 'low luck' category should be pow-wowed on and better defined. So people don't lose out on it like they are now.  

[Manda]

I totally agree on the low-luck thing! I also have a couple of pairs actually that myself and my friends have been trying for for several months now. But like others have said, there have been months where one or the other of us wanted to try for a different pair, or just couldn't get online to post in time or whatever.

And I don't think it should take them out of that category when they have STILL been trying for several months - in a row or not. XD;;

I remember recently, I think zoo had a raffle where you could post ANY five months that the couple had been trying for low-luck. That was a great way to do it, but there needs to be a ruling system for it across the board and not just individual colorists deciding "MY low-luck is done this way" and so on. It gets confusing lol

It would also be nice if EVERY breeding raffle had at least a single low-luck slot, guaranteed. It makes it harder for people who do have low luck to get a spot if say ... there are five raffles in a month but only one of them has a low-luck category. And obviously the more people receive breedings out of the low-luck category the less people will be in it and the better chances others will have.

-----------------------

Also, I have no idea if this was answered somewhere back in the thread and if I'm bringing up a closed topic I'm sorry! But reading over a bit of the first page, I must say I agree with a couple of the things said there.

1. Edits passing down. With SO many Soquili having edits, I really think it's odd to have two fairly heavily edited parents have baskets with little to NO edits at all. I think the system for that needs to be worked on. If people do have heavily edited Soquili, a lot of times the edits are what makes them so special, rather than colors. Cosplays, especially. So it's a bit disheartening to breed two really nice looking cosplays, for example, and get fairly plain babies because under all the edits, the Soquili are just skin-tone and hair colors.

Another possibility (maybe), could be that for any breeding with edited parents, a small extra fee could be added to the breeding to guarantee some kind of edits passing on to babies - which could be an option for the owners of parents to pay. It wouldn't necessarily mean that all the babies would have major edits - there could be a rolling system for how heavy the edits are based on the parents - but then owners would know that they'd get nicely edited babies from heavily edited parents.

2. Ancestors in breeding. For this, I would suggest doing things a bit like SoA does it. Have the OPTION for throwbacks on the breeding form - so that the owners of the Soquili have to hunt down ancestors and put in links to them if they want that. And if not, they don't have to do it. It would mean that none of the staff has to keep track of that sort of thing and it would add a lot of fun into breedings that have multiple ancestors, for both owners and colorists.

-----------------------

Thought of something else! Bribes. And I know this is for breeding things, but really this is kinda my opinion on the Bribe system as a whole. I realize the way it is now ... part of it is probably to ensure that colorists get their work done before they take on extra.

BUT. That's not Bribes. That's extra slots. Which basically work just like normal slots but cost more.

Bribes should be BRIBES. Available anytime that people have the gold to offer for them. A bribe means you pay someone to do work out of turn, generally. Not that you pay them more to do work they could normally do when they've finished all their other work and not before.

So ... my suggestion. The bribe system as it is, make it "Extras" or something else of that nature - and leave it as being one of the only ways to get mutants, etc - because those are special. But ALSO, allow real bribes. Allow colorists to be open for bribes whenever they feel they have the extra time and not only every so many months after this and after that other thing. That way, people who do save up and have the gold to offer for bribes wouldn't be stuck waiting for slots just like everyone else is waiting for slots and continually not winning slots because there's such a limited number and they don't open very often.

I realize there are ways to abuse a system like I'm talking about ... but are the staff here all that likely to abuse it? I don't really think so. Everyone wants to make more money. And allowing colorists to take bribes whenever they can/want to would also allow more chances for people to offer them bribes and get those extra special nice customs and breedings that they want.  

[Syaoran-Puu]

Low Luck Suggestion
I would love to see a few more Low Luck slots -but not just general LL but like UBER LL!! =D

I know from looking at Vance's breeding there are at least five couples (Maion/Sengdroma, Hema/Papillon, Hakumei/Duzi, Kaiya/Raiju & Scæsaris/Dr. Who) that have been trying for about 12 months and it would be great to see them get a chance at getting a baskets at last. Especially considering how long the LL list was this time (about 30 couples).  

[Ktns]

Hmmm how about 'newbie' slots? For those couples that have one or both owners that have never had a breeding slot ever.  

[Dihydrogen.]

Kita - I like your idea :3 I was thinking of almost the same thing earlier. I was gonna give it a try in my next slots.
I was thinking more along the line of special slots for specific couples who have never gotten a slot (even if the owners have gotten breedings in the past, just as long as it's not that specific couple they are entering now) 'cause thinking about it, it's a little disheartening to see someone elses couple get picked a bunch of times and have lots of babies when yours is still waiting to get their first slot. Plus that helps out a bit for a lot of couples waiting on plot baskets.  

[Ktns]

:3 Im glad you like my idea! Lol. The reason tho I say 'newbie' as in at least one person of the breeding that has never had one is because some people own 10+ Soqs and get breedings quite often, just not the same couple. More so than people who are still trying for their first with any of their own.  

[Revolutionary Roniel]

My suggestion is the addition of an option to enter lightly edited soqs into unedited raffles, with the stipulation that their kids wouldn't have any edits.  

[Iokabrenna]

I second Dihi's and Kita's notion! I have a pair who's been trying almost a year now for their 1st kids biggrin Low luck sometimes includes that though.  

[`Swirly]

I've like to agree with the veryvery minor edits can go into the uneditted raffle.. but not something major..

but that situation could get sticky deciding what is minor enough to go...  

[Syaoran-Puu]

Rule change suggestion
----------------------------------

I have been thinking alot about this rule lately, and although it doesn't effect me I believe it should be considered for change.

Currently LL only applies to a couple when trying for their first lot of babies, however this seems unfair to lifemated couples when they try for their second lot of babies as a flinged stallion for example would still be counted for LL with a new partner where as the lifemated couple would not. I do not believe they should be counted as LL as early as couples who are trying for their first set of babies but I think the rule should allow them to be classed as low luck if they have been trying for twice as long as the LL bar for first time couples.

So to explain,
If a colourist says "To be LL you must have been trying for 4months" this would mean that first time couples must have been trying for 4months, but second time plus couples must have been trying for 8months.
After all if they have been trying for so long and still have no children I think it is only fair that they have the opportunity to finally get them.

Thanks for listening smile (or rather reading!)  

[Revolutionary Roniel]

I suppose this might be more of a request than a suggestion... but could RPed couples slots be brought back? It used to be a constant part of breeding raffles and now they're only seldom done...