Stud fee limits, thoughts on idea?

[Mr. Lord Rich]

We have a hard 120 horse cap on every stud.
An owner can then choose to make a stud cross breedable which increases by 30. An owner can then buy 30 extra slots each season increasing by another 30 (180 total).

What if the cap was split between stud owner and non stud owner?

The stud owner would have 120 cap on there own personal use with their mares. The non stud owners would have a separate cap of 120.

We would remove the increase limits option as they would not be needed. An owner can still pay to make a stud cross breedable but the limits would not increase.

A private owner would only be able to use the 120 reserved for owners. The non stud owners would only be able to use the 120 reserved for public use.

If this change could be implemented, both sides could be happy. Stud Owners don’t have to reserve anything to save for their own mares as they will always have there 120. Non stud owners could breed until the 120 cap is reached without worrying about anything being reserved.
Book full would always mean booked full.

Thoughts??

[The Steward]

If the point was allowing more studs more foals and not having a stud dominate, then it would be more likely to be a 90/90 split, rather than adding an extra 120 or whatever. But some people WANT no one else to use their studs, and they should have that right. Just because you WANT to use a stallion doesn't mean you should get to, if the owner doesn't want it.

[Mr. Lord Rich]

By the way, please please please use this thread for thoughts on this idea. Please don’t turn into any type if drama.

Let’s try to fix our problem, not make more

[Xander Zone]

I actually like these stud rules as they are it has forced me to use studs I may not have before .
I understand why people are upset but it goes to we all play the way we want too.
I do think that what The steward did with the new blood was a two pronged idea -1 get money out of the game as she is always trying to do and that worked for sure and two add new blood and that sort of worked .
I think the idea that someone else said in another post about The Steward standing the studs herself is a great idea.

The problem I see with say a split on owner to public is what if a stud is not fully used by the public and the owner would have used the extra slots ! The owner should not have to spend money on an outside stud if they dont want too.

Pete there is where I would normally add in a snarky jab at you but you said play nice

[Mr. Lord Rich]

Pete there is where I would normally add in a snarky jab at you but you said play nice

Haha well played. Add it to the other thread if you like lol

[Kent Saunders]

Here is my take. I understand the reasoning behind foal limits (sort of). And I agree that stud owners should be able to do as they choose...However...Most people (like myself) think hey if I owned WOGS or Devon Castle I would manage him like this.....Reality is hardly any of the better studs get managed the same way. Some owners are worried they will sell out too early and out of nowhere close the book/some change the fee every few weeks/some open the books then close the books then open them again. It's chaos IMO! I now have to do a stud review every single day to try and make sure I can breed to the studs I want...and I now am forced to breed much earlier in the season or risk breeding to second/third tier studs . And yes I can send emails (I believe I asked about 6 studs this season) and ask pretty please can I get one or two breedings but that stinks. Some owners reply in 10 minutes/some in 2-3 weeks/some never and some just answer no I'm saving the rest for myself. This has taken alot of my enjoyment of the game away to be honest and then you run into a bad deal like a QH sire that had about 12 bookings and then one day his book is full and closed because he got leased out and the new owner bred about 115 and maxed him out you just want to scream! Used to love to just take my time and sit down and try find good mates for my mares...now if feels like a life and death race to the finish full of aggravation and defeat...lol! Do I have definitive answers...nope. We have let the Genie out of the bottle and can't find the way back.

[Ryan Whitehead]

I don't view the limits on stud usage as a real big issue with thoroughbred's and I believe part of the reasoning was to aid in diversifying the mixer division. So personally I think that the rule has been fair and served it's intended purpose. However the Steward is always looking for ways to take money out of the game and I have a simple idea.

When you go out to eat or to the grocery store you see the price on the menu or the shelf. Do you ever sit and figure in the taxes? Probably not unless its a major purchase. So I propose the Steward set a reasonable tax rate on breeding or simply a flat rate on the breeder as well as the stud owner. Maybe charge the owner of the mare 5% of the total stud fee (to cover shipping costs etc...) and charge the stud owner a flat rate 1000 for vet assistance. So a $50,000 stud fee would result in $3500 going back to the game and $46500 to the stud owner.

Just an idea so no need to bash me. lol

[Tammy Stawicki]

To me this doesn't get at the real root of the issue. We are upset about the private stud issues with the new bloodline sires but that would be simply fixed by the steward standing those studs in the future. There was already a hint that these horses won't be privately owned in the future in the other thread. Admittedly that doesn't help with stallions already out there but as a whole, the limits don't seem to be a HUGE issue with thoroughbreds. I real quick skimmed the stud book and it looked like on average you were looking at 1-2 booked full stallions at most amongst divisions with 100+ stallions. So I don't know that this is a big enough issue to warrant doing something dramatic like changing how stallion owners can use their own stallions

I have always felt the bigger issue with limits is in mixers and when I've run numbers in the past this was born out. Whereas thoroughbreds are usually at <1% booked full Quarter Horses in the past were consistently at 10%. Right now it doesn't seem to bad amongst mid or routers but 6 out of 74 quarter horse sprinters are booked full. I don't think any thoroughbred division showed that many horses booked full despite having considerably more stallions total. And it is not surprising that quarter horses are hit hard as 3 different breeds utilize quarter horses studs. It does not appear the extra 30 horses for crossbreeding really made much of a difference. I still stand by my idea of going back to 120 limits but having separate limits for within breed and crossbreed. Yes, you still have the overrepresentation issue mentioned as a problem with the owner thing but at least it is spread amongst different breeds instead of within a single one. Also with current rules it is exceedingly rare that people discount crossbreeding anymore (why would you when you know your stallion will book full and there is just the one limit). Quarter Horses and Paints/Appys don't have the same earning potential so it has become much more expensive to crossbreed and I am guessing it is pretty hard for newer/smaller stables. Separate limits could incentivize owners to lower those crossbreed stud fees again.

Standardbreds are also historically hit hard. Don't know why that is or how to fix that.

Sorry I hijacked your thread to talk about mixers but at least I did it in a drama-free way

[Tammy Stawicki]

Though admittedly there are a lot of booked full mixer studs that are booked full because they are heavily utilized by their owner, so maybe this idea would help though still doesn't seem the most direct route.

I also like the idea of allowing owners to place a cap on how many mares a single outside breeder can send to their horse. I don't think it should be mandatory as I'm sure people feel the more the merrier for unpopular studs (I know I do for mine) but for stallions that are going to book full if the owner wanted they could set a limit to make sure multiple players got a shot.

[J.r. Lewis]

So I propose the Steward set a reasonable tax rate on breeding or simply a flat rate on the breeder as well as the stud owner. Maybe charge the owner of the mare 5% of the total stud fee (to cover shipping costs etc...) and charge the stud owner a flat rate 1000 for vet assistance. So a $50,000 stud fee would result in $3500 going back to the game and $46500 to the stud owner.

Just an idea so no need to bash me. lol

I hope this doesn't come off as bashing but why does it always have to be a tax on breeding? This has come up before and it always ends up a "mass breeder" issue and I'm not sure why. In my opinion, a game should never be set up to either help or hurt a certain group of players. I've got no issue with a tax system but why not make it a flat rate on earnings? I'm a relatively new player and it takes me a lot more horses to make as much money as Laura Ferguson. I saw her spending so much money on Steward-breds when I was a newbie and I was like "I wanna do that." Cash is King and the steward doesn't accept avg earnings as payment so I did what I had to to make as much money as Laura. She was my motivation all season. Nobody wants to enter 16k races but I think we all want to be like Laura Laura, please don't be mad at me for using you as an example as I absolutely admire you and what you've accomplished in the SIM...

[Tammy Stawicki]

Though admittedly there are a lot of booked full mixer studs that are booked full because they are heavily utilized by their owner, so maybe this idea would help though still doesn't seem the most direct route.

I also like the idea of allowing owners to place a cap on how many mares a single outside breeder can send to their horse. I don't think it should be mandatory as I'm sure people feel the more the merrier for unpopular studs (I know I do for mine) but for stallions that are going to book full if the owner wanted they could set a limit to make sure multiple players got a shot.

On second thought if we did 90/90 that would only exacerbate the problem on studs whose owners use less than 90 slots on them so I am against the plan again

[Kent Saunders]

JR...no problem with those comments. I'm a "Mass breeder" myself...why? In my case I'm an action junky that likes to race alot. Pure and simple. When I first started I had no interest whatsoever in Mixers until I got jealous of all the folks racing a ton on Wednesdays and I was sitting on my hands...lol! So now I have about 40% of my horses that are mixers. Sorry for the left turn on the tread, please return to the regularly scheduled program.....

[J.r. Lewis]

JR...no problem with those comments. I'm a "Mass breeder" myself...why? In my case I'm an action junky that likes to race alot. Pure and simple. When I first started I had no interest whatsoever in Mixers until I got jealous of all the folks racing a ton on Wednesdays and I was sitting on my hands...lol! So now I have about 40% of my horses that are mixers. Sorry for the left turn on the tread, please return to the regularly scheduled program.....

Action Junky...I love that...that's really what it's all about (right beside making money)...

[Laura Ferguson]

Here is my take. I understand the reasoning behind foal limits (sort of). And I agree that stud owners should be able to do as they choose...However...Most people (like myself) think hey if I owned WOGS or Devon Castle I would manage him like this.....Reality is hardly any of the better studs get managed the same way. Some owners are worried they will sell out too early and out of nowhere close the book/some change the fee every few weeks/some open the books then close the books then open them again. It's chaos IMO! I now have to do a stud review every single day to try and make sure I can breed to the studs I want...and I now am forced to breed much earlier in the season or risk breeding to second/third tier studs . And yes I can send emails (I believe I asked about 6 studs this season) and ask pretty please can I get one or two breedings but that stinks. Some owners reply in 10 minutes/some in 2-3 weeks/some never and some just answer no I'm saving the rest for myself. This has taken alot of my enjoyment of the game away to be honest and then you run into a bad deal like a QH sire that had about 12 bookings and then one day his book is full and closed because he got leased out and the new owner bred about 115 and maxed him out you just want to scream! Used to love to just take my time and sit down and try find good mates for my mares...now if feels like a life and death race to the finish full of aggravation and defeat...lol! Do I have definitive answers...nope. We have let the Genie out of the bottle and can't find the way back.

You've summed up my complete and utter aggravation with foal limits as applied to mixers. I don't have time or interest in trying to send emails or coordinate, when my SIM time has been more limited this year because of job insanity/stress. The SIM is supposed to be a source of stress relief, and not an aggravator.

My crops have become less diversified, because I can't chance the risk getting shut out of the popular stallions. I also use less freshman sires than I used to for the same reason. I still believe that the problems caused by foal limits, at least as applied to mixers, and the absolute frustration it causes, is worse than the problems it was trying to solve. That said, as long as those are the rules of the game, I'll play by them, but if there's some sort of tweak or relief that would help the situation, I'm all for it.

[Ryan Whitehead]

So I propose the Steward set a reasonable tax rate on breeding or simply a flat rate on the breeder as well as the stud owner. Maybe charge the owner of the mare 5% of the total stud fee (to cover shipping costs etc...) and charge the stud owner a flat rate 1000 for vet assistance. So a $50,000 stud fee would result in $3500 going back to the game and $46500 to the stud owner.

Just an idea so no need to bash me. lol

I hope this doesn't come off as bashing but why does it always have to be a tax on breeding? This has come up before and it always ends up a "mass breeder" issue and I'm not sure why. In my opinion, a game should never be set up to either help or hurt a certain group of players. I've got no issue with a tax system but why not make it a flat rate on earnings? I'm a relatively new player and it takes me a lot more horses to make as much money as Laura Ferguson. I saw her spending so much money on Steward-breds when I was a newbie and I was like "I wanna do that." Cash is King and the steward doesn't accept avg earnings as payment so I did what I had to to make as much money as Laura. She was my motivation all season. Nobody wants to enter 16k races but I think we all want to be like Laura Laura, please don't be mad at me for using you as an example as I absolutely admire you and what you've accomplished in the SIM...

I'm not targeting "mass breeders" but I do think it might help eliminating as many junk horses being bred each season. I hadn't really thought about it in great detail but yeah lets put the 5% fee on top of the stud fee and then charge the stud owner a $1000 as well. That should motivate people to bred better and for fewer owners to stand subpar studs. As far as being like Laura if that is your goal then go for it but try not to end up burnt out. Remember Laura has built an empire over 20 real life years and she has bloodlines in her stable that we could only dream of owning. Having a huge bankroll doesn't necessarily mean you will buy the best available horses in auction either. Sidney sold for a mere $950,000 at auction but turned out to be a once in a lifetime purchase. Still the bankroll doesn't hurt. lol