[S] Breeding Limits

[derivative]

I do have high hopes for the MCCL and hope that it gets used more, as you seem to think it will be. That'd be awesome. And I agree that the colorists have been really great with their criteria for that and helping unlucky people, I just think that, given how often this issue came up in the breeding suggestions threads and how much people murmur about it... as a possibility, I feel it's a good one.

Since it's just a discussion looking at all sides of it definitely helps and I'm glad to be getting feedback, as it helps me sort out what I was originally trying to say a little better. Yes, I do understand that it's going to suck for the individual sometimes... in the event that they have won two breedings already, the unlikely event, but yes. It will suck if it affects me. Personally? I will sit back and go "Dang it, only one couple from now on." But it will be a half-hearted dang it as I console myself with the two new Soquili I've gotten from breedings that year and congratulate my friends and fellow threadgoers as they win. I'm not saying that this wouldn't bite me on the butt too, that I wouldn't look at it and cringe if I was reduced to a monthly quota of one couple, but I would deal with it because I'd already been lucky.

In all honestly, this wouldn't even be implemented unless conditions were met, so the likelihood if it impacting a great percentage of the store isn't high. And if it does impact a lot of owners? I honestly see that as a good thing because it means there is a higher chance for a wider variety of people to be getting baskets. Maybe it's just a small chance, but every little foot up helps, and once in a while, sacrificing a portion of one person's opportunities to increase everyone else's is appropriate. I think that in the case of a shop this big, in the instance where that particular person has already won two breedings a year, it would be appropriate to reduce their chances a bit in order to give others a better chance.

For any business, pleasing the largest amount of customers you can is a good idea. Making people feel better about their chances, giving a wider variety of people increased chances to be as lucky as their peers who have already won breedings? Good things, in my opinion, even if for the duration of the year (and how many of us even win 3+ breedings a year?) as an individual I am limited.

Sometimes a little limiting is okay if it makes things a little better all around for everyone.  

[Nyx Queen of Darkness]

^_^ Personally, what I'd like to see more of dent wise is some slots like Ririka did, that involve year long low luck or low luck or newbie. I just really seeing something like that making a bigger dent, not to mention there are more colourists now. So that should make chances a bit better after everyone is in the swing of things and holidays over. ^_^

Limits are a good thing. I don't want to be thought of as greedy or whatever, but I just really have a bad feeling about revising "cool down" peroids etc.

Just in the past few days, there's been discussion for it on breedings, auctions, and flaffles which all, already have limits-but I don't think any of them are good ideas.

This is the last thing I'm going to say on it.

Say, all of those things become more limited than they were. People are NOT going to be happy with that. Someone new is going to come in and thinks the new system is still biased. Before long, there are just so many rules and limits to make things more fair that you have to make a conscious decision 6 months in advance which flaffle, breeding, auction you're going to enter without knowing who/what/when/where


That's over exaggerated, but still you don't come to Soq to do mathematics one which thing you can or cannot enter, you come to have fun.

So last thing I'm saying about it in this thread since I probably sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Which maybe I am right now, I been up 21 hours straight.

I don't mind sharing my opinions more on the subject, but I dont' think I'm going to post much more about this particular topic in the threads.

I feel like that weird looney running around going the END IS NIGH!!!!  

[samus x]

i really do have high hopes for the MCCL too. i believe in one of the recent staff meetings we talked about getting it used more often and being open during the whole month instead of the 20 to the end of the month.

i really think the breeding issue came up for people was because we were down a few colorists and had to hire new ones. so there was a kind of a cool down time were the shop wasn't getting out breedings or customs like it was before. but lately things been really active since the new hires have come. xD i can always tell cause my teepee work has been nuts where like 2 months ago it was pitiful cause the shop wasn't really active with breedings or customs or even raffles, ect.

@Nyx >_< sometimes too many different slot types can be insane! Riri was nuts to take on 11 pairs @_______@ which ended up coming out to 27 soquili with 3 stages each that are from unedited to majorly edited. they just cant do tons of slots for every little thing or they wouldn't be able to do anything else like events, flaffles, ect. thats why usually they only take up to 5 slots so they can do other stuff while still being able to get out breedings to people.  

[Syaoran-Puu]

I still disagree with breeding limits, I genuinely believe it will cause more issues in the future than help.

That said... maybe we should give the new staff a chance to settle in and see how breedings/customs go. If there is still an issue perhaps then we should look for a reason. Like Samus said it was becoming impossible at one point to get a breeding/custom because there was simply none available.  

[darknightcavalier]

Isn't there already a cooldown with 1 month breeding 2 months customs. They should add a cooldown for flaffles. Like a monthish. (Unless they already sis without me knowing then I'm an idiot.)  

[Kamiki]

It's it not broke, don't fix it.

(in my opinion) There is nothing wrong with how breedings are handled. There are already limits and cooldowns in place.

It's NOT that common for people to win 2 breedings in a month. Its actually NOT THAT COMMON that people win multiple breedings in a year. It happens sometimes, but honestly its NOT common. Breedings are already VERY hard to come by. And punishing people who have a lot of couples already I don't think is going to be very productive.

I've noticed an attitude in this shop sometimes like... if someone gets lucky for some reason, everyone else feels like they have to be like... "brought up to their level." The fact is - sometimes - people get lucky. It's already extremely hard to get a breeding and as several people have pointed out - if you punish one person for being lucky enough to win several breedings - you're also punishing their partner. There are 2 people involved with most breeding pairs.  

[lysia_nyteblade]

I'd have to say that this sugested cool down of nocking it down to 1 couple a month after gettng 2 breedings wouldn't help but would hinder things in the end. Comming from some one who has 1.5 soq and only having maybe 2 couples entered at best (depending on if I have the breeding for that co-owned soq or not that round) and my only fully own soq being paired with some one who has oodles of couples (again no one's fault) it'd really make things harder for those who have just started out in the shop to now penalize them aswell.

For example. (and I'm using myself here since it's easier)

Kamiki and i haveplans of entering our couple oracle and shoshana, while Solanum and I have entered Mera and sena. Now that's wounderful.. I'll have two good couples entered right? All's well except that this new rule has gone into effect and kamiki has 4 couples ahead of sho and oracle having won 2 breedings already she's down to entering 1 a month till that couple get's a breeding. i'm now by default limited to entering only one couple as kamiki's been trying really hard for the other one and while It's not our fault they've had low luck she's unable to enter sho and oracle both leaving her own long line of couples to be backed up.  

[Andranis]

I have to cast my vote with 'disagree'. Why? Because I have exactly 3 Soquili, and only 1 is in a breeding agreement that I've been trying to get a slot for for what feels like forever. This is my ONLY couple, nothing to switch it with. The breeding agreement is with Em, and I know she's had other couples in breedings. What if she could only do one a month, and posted another couple before I got online to see a breeding raffle had opened? Now I can't enter the ONLY couple I have to enter. The 2-per rule makes it possible for me to keep trying, while Em still gets to enter another couple.  

[Revolutionary Roniel]

I disagree with this too... I'm just thinking about people with co-owners... a lot of soqs have co-owners and if you can only enter one couple then it's gonna be really tough to coordinate with co-owners if you both want rights.

Like others have said, I think that more LL and breeding newbie slots would be a better solution.  

[Selalusia]

It sounds good in theory.. and I actually thought I liked the idea of limiting people who get lots of breedings more ...at first...then I realized that my only Soq able to breed is paired with a soq who's owner won 2 breedings this month xD

So for people like me, who only have 1 or two that they can even enter in breedings, it'd be terrrrrrible!

I liked the newbie breeding and such. For those of us that have never had a breeding or haven't had one for a long time.
Because with that type, as long as one owner for the couple has never had a breeding, they have a chance for it.

I think a great solution would just be for colorists to do more breeding newbie slots
(of course keeping it so only one of the owners of that couple has to be a breeding newbie)

 

[derivative]

Co-ownership was something I had admittedly not thought of, and I can see how that might put a kink in things! And that's why the forum is here, for us to suggest ideas and bounce around off each other, realize what could benefit the shop and what couldn't.

I still feel that people are getting a bit jumpy and antsy about this and thinking "Oh my gosh, it's going to directly affect me right away!" which it wouldn't, but I can understand people's apprehension. No one likes to think that their own chances are going to be slimmed, and if my other posts are read, I'm the first to admit that over and over again. I have just been trying to think in the mindset of having a wider variety of people win, but again, co-ownership didn't quite come to mind with that, which would change things a bit.

Kamiki, thanks for your input. =) I've answered a lot what you said already in other posts, but there's one part in particular I wanted to address, as it offends me a bit -- this idea wasn't me trying to "bring myself up to their level" in any way. I've stated a couple of times that if this rule were in place I would be one of the people only entering one couple, and I would be fine with that because I have been exceptionally lucky this year in breedings. In all honesty, I never looked at this method as punishment because the person would have already won two breedings, just more of an "Oh hey, let me step back a little, I've already won a lot." but that seems to be the general consensus/attitude of shopgoers.

And yes, as I stated before, I am aware there are two people involved in most breeding pairs. o nob As well as the implications of that toward limiting pairs, and I commented on that in another post. I would quote myself but I'm lazy right now, as I just got up, asdhkfa.

In all honesty, guys, I didn't mean to offend anyone with the suggestion nor did I mean to make it look like I was attacking people who have been lucky, out of jealousy or spite or anything -- I just have seen, over and over again, people are discontent with the odds for breeding wins, and this forum seemed like the perfect place to try to offer a possible solution. I know it'll never be a case where everyone is 100% happy, though. I have been very lucky myself, so it's not like I'm sitting back seething because I never have luck; I've been really lucky, and I just thought this might be a good way to help spread the wealth/breeding love a little once people start getting really lucky like I have.

I can't emphasize enough that, as a lot of the people who disagree point out, it is very hard to get two breedings so this proposed amendment wouldn't even take effect except in rare cases, but people seem to be very leery of giving up one of their chances after already winning significantly, so I don't think it would go over well after all. It was a nice thought, though. =)a  

[Nyx Queen of Darkness]

samus x

i really do have high hopes for the MCCL too. i believe in one of the recent staff meetings we talked about getting it used more often and being open during the whole month instead of the 20 to the end of the month.

i really think the breeding issue came up for people was because we were down a few colorists and had to hire new ones. so there was a kind of a cool down time were the shop wasn't getting out breedings or customs like it was before. but lately things been really active since the new hires have come. xD i can always tell cause my teepee work has been nuts where like 2 months ago it was pitiful cause the shop wasn't really active with breedings or customs or even raffles, ect.

@Nyx >_< sometimes too many different slot types can be insane! Riri was nuts to take on 11 pairs @_______@ which ended up coming out to 27 soquili with 3 stages each that are from unedited to majorly edited. they just cant do tons of slots for every little thing or they wouldn't be able to do anything else like events, flaffles, ect. thats why usually they only take up to 5 slots so they can do other stuff while still being able to get out breedings to people.

Sorry, I didn't mean all the time. Yes, Ririka was insane, but awesome 0_0

My only meaning was that instead of something like this, I would think it was more beneficial if in November or December there was a year long low luck slot like this from a few colourist--not a redivisioning of slots or extra slots. Because I don't want to overwork the colourists or anything, but a once a year one slot per colourist (or those who wanted to participate) for one year long lowluck would be more beneficial than limiting down breedings in this way. That way my only point. I got a little garbled last night, sorry about that.

I FINALLY got to sleep after 21 almost 22 hours straight being awake.  

[derivative]

Oooh, Nyx, I like that a lot. At the end of the year having the possibility of a slot like that instead of adding extra slots... it's something to be considered, anyway, if the colorist chooses to do it. That would definitely help out the people who haven't gotten lucky during the year. =)a  

[Felmino]

Hm, but then you have to examine this idea too - what about the person who rarely if ever enters for a breeding slot, and the person who's entered every opportunity that came along? Both would be eligible, but equally deserving? It's a slippery slope - what about the cases where one half of the pairing has gotten nothing (maybe not ever, a breeding newbie) but the other person has gotten many? Do we include that pair, since one half has been very unlucky, or exclude because the other has been very lucky already? Breedings are *especially* tricky because there are most times two owners involved and not one.