Quick poll

[Lance Macisaac]

Can someone explain to me why "having too much sim $" in the sim economy is a bad thing?

In RL, if there is massive amounts of inflation, then basic costs rise and hurt the low income people. I do not see boarding fees increasing or stud fees or shipping costs or any of the basic costs needed to live in the SIM. The players with a ton of money are able to buy any Stewardbred horse they want, but that will still be the case in all the proposed situations above. The limits imposed on auctions and stewardbreds allow for the players with not crazy bankrolls to be able to grab one, not by taking money away from the top top players.

Maybe I'm just missing something? Is the thought that the top players will become bored and give their money away? Or would everyone just start to increase the basic costs?

I mean does it matter if the top players have $40M instead of $60M in their sim bank accounts?

I think (though I'm not sure) the problem is that the more money the richest players have, the more difficult it is for newer players to do a lot of things that make the game fun. For example, a breeding to Reach for the Moon, the dominant top turf sprint sire, cost $100,000 before he was pensioned. Some stables, even if they're trying hard and have a sizable barn, may not make much more than that in a season. It certainly won't be economically viable for many stables to breed to him (or even $50,000 sires, or even $30,000). However, RFTM was consistently booked full every year because players with $20M can afford to send 20-30 mares to him. This becomes a positive feedback loop, because when RFTM and other top sires inevitably produce the best horses, the players that bred those horses win the biggest purses, and so on. New players essentially have very little chance to win big races - or even breed good horses that can win allowance races - unless they get lucky with breeding or go on a crazy grind.

However, when you take money out of the game on a scale that taxes richer players more, you reduce that effect. Maybe a person with $15M instead of $20M only sends 15 mares this year. They'll also probably send fewer mares to those $50,000 and $30,000 studs overall. Players with $4M instead of $5M, for example, will certainly change their breeding patterns. On a large scale, this becomes a noticeable difference and stud fees drop as a result. The better studs become more accessible, smaller and newer barns have better chances at winning those big races, but more importantly, they have more of chance of breeding solid money-earners that will give them a sustainable income. The big players can still have their Stewardbreds and breed their glamour mares to the big sires, but maybe at a lesser scope. The smaller players get better access to good sires and more of a chance to win those expensive races. More fun for everyone collectively.

[Anna Leroux]

See here's the thing. Those of you with big pockets might enjoy having money taken away. But for players like me, it's not. I've played for years. I've had 10-15 million at one point. I hover around 1 million now on a good day. I don't breed all my mares because I can't afford to do it. I pick and choose. I couldn't stand having to pay extra fees. The more and more fees that are charged, the less and less fun I am having. It's to hard to try and earn purse money as purses get cut. If you don't have the funds to secure your own stallion, or breed up you are stuck unless you get lucky. Granted I don't have a lot of time to play this game I as used to but I just feel like this continue decision to take money from players is crazy. If I had 50 million I would just like to look at it and enjoy. Let's not forget the small players when considering all these fees.

[Dave Trainer]

Another alternative is to keep purses as they are and raise the entrance fee for the stakes races. Currently it's 1% so that means that the steward currently has to create 88% of each stakes races prize money. If the entrance fee was 5% then the steward would only be creating 40% new sim bucks. This change could be introduced gradually with a 1% annual increase to see how it goes.

You are basing those on 12 runner fields. There are many small field stakes races.

[David Howard]

Another alternative is to keep purses as they are and raise the entrance fee for the stakes races. Currently it's 1% so that means that the steward currently has to create 88% of each stakes races prize money. If the entrance fee was 5% then the steward would only be creating 40% new sim bucks. This change could be introduced gradually with a 1% annual increase to see how it goes.

You are basing those on 12 runner fields. There are many small field stakes races.

Perhaps make it 10% then

[Louise Bayou]

See here's the thing. Those of you with big pockets might enjoy having money taken away. But for players like me, it's not. I've played for years. I've had 10-15 million at one point. I hover around 1 million now on a good day. I don't breed all my mares because I can't afford to do it. I pick and choose. I couldn't stand having to pay extra fees. The more and more fees that are charged, the less and less fun I am having. It's to hard to try and earn purse money as purses get cut. If you don't have the funds to secure your own stallion, or breed up you are stuck unless you get lucky. Granted I don't have a lot of time to play this game I as used to but I just feel like this continue decision to take money from players is crazy. If I had 50 million I would just like to look at it and enjoy. Let's not forget the small players when considering all these fees.

I totally get your feelings on this and I agree!!! I've finally gotten myself back over 20mill and its taken me years to do that. I'm constantly struggling to get myself back to where I was and where I want to be. No matter the number in the bankroll its always about where you want to be. I've been playing a long time and always feel like I'm playing catch up to be able to afford what I want. NEVER once have I wanted the game to tax people with more than me to make it "fair" or think I should just be on a level playing field just because. These kind of changes makes this game not nearly as fun. I mean its a fake freaking horse game meant to let us get away from real life for goodness sakes. To the "omgggg it has to be even more realistic!!!" people, does it though??? Isn't the point of the game to have enjoyment away from real life? Now its about taxes and %'s etc It really does make the enjoyment in the game take a huge hit for me. Coming to the place I use as a getaway from real life only to see pages and pages (NOT meaning this post specifically!) of stats, tax breakdowns etc just makes me not enjoy the game. That is why I usually just click out of any types of discussions like this. And I'm sure I'll regret even posting this but here it is.

[Ronnie Dee]

Here's a reframe to the question:

Do you
(a) love the Sim and support Em's gradual adjustments to the larger stakes purses
or
(b) hate the Sim and support Tim's incorrectly* labeled proposal

*Definition of tithe: one tenth of annual production or earnings

I voted for (a). Previously, some stakes purses were reduced and MSW purses were raised to $25K. One benefit of this change was that players with more modest stables earned more purse money. But the disparity between the larger purses and MSW purses is still considerable compared to RL purses. By gradually lowering some of the larger stakes purses, this disparity is decreased.

In RL, wealth tax have not been very successful. The only state (that I am aware of) to have a form of wealth tax was Florida. This intangible personal property (stocks, bonds, etc.) tax was repealed in 2007.

[Andrew Chillin]

I hate this thread.

[Gwayne's World]

Hopefully the Steward doesn't crash and burn like the owner of another racing SIM when it's players drove him to the brink. (Of course I had nothing to do with this, Wink Wink). These threads start out innocent enough but seemingly always turn into an 'Animal House' food fight? Maybe it's time to close this thread before someone slips on a banana peel and hurts themselves? Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, this is mine.

[Stormy Peak]

I would still love to see some kind of volunteer effort tried before we stick everyone with a tax.

At the beginning of the year, the Steward could post how much she would like to see removed from the game, and on our stable pages could be a button with a percentage...where people could gift away what they felt they wanted to after they see how their results went...how their stable is doing that week...whatever. At the end of the year...have like a festivus bonfire and burn/delete the donated funds. Personally, I wouldn't mind donating when...and if on weeks my stable is doing fine and I felt I could afford to give away $25,000 that week.

Another thing that could happen... Most here know that since the program started for the pensioners to win prize money, that I've posted how much my pensioners have earned each year in the Favorite horse forum.
While I love the pensioners program where they can earn prizes in rodeos and events... maybe it's time to shut that down? I don't know how much in prizes are given out or if it would even put a dent in the problem...but it's more for fun than to really help people out anymore. Most of the stables that have a huge amount of pensioners also own their own farms and have money. I doubt newer/poor players who are farming all their horses out to $20 farms are keeping pensioners like that hoping they pay out enough to balance out the costs.

I've always been in a habit of helping others out here behind the scenes...and I would do the same for the Sim, but geesh, I would sure like to have some control on how much I send and When I can send it. As sometimes my stable is really low on funds and sometimes I have a good amount of money.

Stormy

[Durzo Blint]

Can someone explain to me why "having too much sim $" in the sim economy is a bad thing?

In RL, if there is massive amounts of inflation, then basic costs rise and hurt the low income people. I do not see boarding fees increasing or stud fees or shipping costs or any of the basic costs needed to live in the SIM. The players with a ton of money are able to buy any Stewardbred horse they want, but that will still be the case in all the proposed situations above. The limits imposed on auctions and stewardbreds allow for the players with not crazy bankrolls to be able to grab one, not by taking money away from the top top players.

Maybe I'm just missing something? Is the thought that the top players will become bored and give their money away? Or would everyone just start to increase the basic costs?

I mean does it matter if the top players have $40M instead of $60M in their sim bank accounts?

I think (though I'm not sure) the problem is that the more money the richest players have, the more difficult it is for newer players to do a lot of things that make the game fun. For example, a breeding to Reach for the Moon, the dominant top turf sprint sire, cost $100,000 before he was pensioned. Some stables, even if they're trying hard and have a sizable barn, may not make much more than that in a season. It certainly won't be economically viable for many stables to breed to him (or even $50,000 sires, or even $30,000). However, RFTM was consistently booked full every year because players with $20M can afford to send 20-30 mares to him. This becomes a positive feedback loop, because when RFTM and other top sires inevitably produce the best horses, the players that bred those horses win the biggest purses, and so on. New players essentially have very little chance to win big races - or even breed good horses that can win allowance races - unless they get lucky with breeding or go on a crazy grind.

However, when you take money out of the game on a scale that taxes richer players more, you reduce that effect. Maybe a person with $15M instead of $20M only sends 15 mares this year. They'll also probably send fewer mares to those $50,000 and $30,000 studs overall. Players with $4M instead of $5M, for example, will certainly change their breeding patterns. On a large scale, this becomes a noticeable difference and stud fees drop as a result. The better studs become more accessible, smaller and newer barns have better chances at winning those big races, but more importantly, they have more of chance of breeding solid money-earners that will give them a sustainable income. The big players can still have their Stewardbreds and breed their glamour mares to the big sires, but maybe at a lesser scope. The smaller players get better access to good sires and more of a chance to win those expensive races. More fun for everyone collectively.

Yes, however the top players with the big $$ are the ones with the studs. Therefore, the money just circulates between the top barns with breeding. So I'm not sure if the stud fees phase them at all. Meaning, taking money out will not change the breeding behavior and will not lower stud fees. I have only been here since Y51, but I have not noticed stud fees increasing. Obviously there are studs like DMB, but Jon does a great job managing him and gives him access to people like me. Additionally, I've been able to breed to top sires with help (Louise Bayou just gave me sim$ to breed to a top sire, as did Stormy Peak last year - Mike Springer and Nini Hunter have been extremely generous and the list goes on (apologies for those I missed, I know there are a lot of you that have helped me with advice and breedings, etc.).

My point being, I do not see how reducing the sim $, or alternatively, I do not see how the top players having a ton of $ causes problems within the game. Again, unless people think the boarding fees, stud fees, shipping fees, entry fees, etc (the basic costs to play the game) will increase.

[Rold Gold]

You can’t really have any successful plan to reduce money in the sim while the exchange exists, can you?

I mean I voted tithe anyways just because slashing the sheema from 5 to 1.5 over 2 seasons is absurd, but how is any “taking money out of the game” initiative going to work when any player can turn -100 bucks into -1,000,000 sim dollars any time they want?

I don’t really see it…..good thread though.

[Tammy Stawicki]

You can’t really have any successful plan to reduce money in the sim while the exchange exists, can you?

I mean I voted tithe anyways just because slashing the sheema from 5 to 1.5 over 2 seasons is absurd, but how is any “taking money out of the game” initiative going to work when any player can turn -100 bucks into -1,000,000 sim dollars any time they want?

I don’t really see it…..good thread though.

The exchange does not bring any sim money into the game as you are exchanging with other players not the game itself, it actually takes money out as there is a fee taken from all transactions. It does bring more real-life money into the game as you can buy game points with real-life money to use on the exchange, but the game needs real-life money to run, so I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Tammy Stawicki]

Hopefully the Steward doesn't crash and burn like the owner of another racing SIM when it's players drove him to the brink. (Of course I had nothing to do with this, Wink Wink). These threads start out innocent enough but seemingly always turn into an 'Animal House' food fight? Maybe it's time to close this thread before someone slips on a banana peel and hurts themselves? Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, this is mine.

I am continually amazed that she doesn't say @$%$# you all peace I'm out. I would have 100 times over by now.

[Brandon Schultz]

Another Quick Poll:

A) We came to a consensus and the sim is in perfect harmony
B) Lol

[Tim Matthews]

{cracking my knuckles like in the movies}

NEVER once have I wanted the game to tax people with more than me to make it "fair" or think I should just be on a level playing field just because. These kind of changes makes this game not nearly as fun.

I have never said anything about it being fair or anything about a level playing field. It is not at all about that. Again: game admin has said that the size of the economy is a problem. So I am assuming that it is a problem. They are currently addressing that problem through purse cuts.

My idea is that there is a different way to do that. It is not meant to punish you or hurt you personally, because remember, virtually everyone would be losing some money. Because money has to come out of the game. So think of it in a different way - and this is important: The size of the economy would be reduced. The total amount of dollars would be lower. For everyone. But really not that much lower. And the order of rankings of players by money would still be the exact same. And no purse cuts!

Maybe even think of it like this: a certain, *tiny* percentage of the purses coming IN to the game will be removed at the end of the year. The money comes out one way or another. Just don't think it's about fairness or punishment.

A big part of why I posted this is because a lot of people are opposed to all the extra fee proposals and things of that nature. Some of those proposals are interesting and have merit, but I can see why they would be annoying to people. My proposal is as simple as could be. No thinking involved. And it's not at all realistic. There is no mechanism in real life that just poofs away a certain percentage of the economy.

Again, since it's clear that this will never happen (lol), it's really nothing to get worked up over in my opinion. Mostly just a thought experiment. Participate or don't, it's fine either way!

Here's a reframe to the question:

Do you
(a) love the Sim and support Em's gradual adjustments to the larger stakes purses
or
(b) hate the Sim and support Tim's incorrectly* labeled proposal

*Definition of tithe: one tenth of annual production or earnings

The only thing that you added here was pedantry*, and falsely accusing myself and others of hating the game. Have I ever said that you hate the game?

Let's break this down:

(a) Purse cuts. That's what they are. It's lower purses.
(b) No purse cuts. That means higher purses.

So yes, you established what my earlier post was: That this is merely a poll about whether you prefer high or low purses. You can just say you prefer lower ones, there's nothing wrong with that. Clearly many people agree with you!

*I've already explained why "tithe" was used. Words are all made up. They can be used to mean different things in different contexts.

But the disparity between the larger purses and MSW purses is still considerable compared to RL purses. By gradually lowering some of the larger stakes purses, this disparity is decreased.

Real life has nothing to do with this discussion. As Louise wisely said earlier, it's just a game. The ratio of stakes to maiden purses is entirely irrelevant.

In RL, wealth tax have not been very successful. The only state (that I am aware of) to have a form of wealth tax was Florida. This intangible personal property (stocks, bonds, etc.) tax was repealed in 2007.

There are so many reasons why this is a terrible analogy. You should know them.

Maybe it's time to close this thread before someone slips on a banana peel and hurts themselves?

Why? It's been totally civil. I'm behaving!

I hate this thread.

Mission accomplished. Now go away!