Total Purses in the SIM

[Laura Smith]

The jockey fee, while realistic, has the effect of "punishing" those who make most of their income via racing vs. stud fees or the exchange. Not an idea I love, as stud fees and the exchange are arguably the fastest ways to get rich in the game, as long as you have a large initial investment of either SIM cash for a high end stallion prospect or real money for GPs.

[Tammy Stawicki]

I am feeling loved.

Hopefully, this will not ruin my love but I would be ok with some increased fees. That being said as I am trying to think of things that will not hurt players struggling I would vote for fees on nonessentials. So as I've mentioned before not a fan of increased day rates or jockey fees. But I would be ok with things like increasing the cost for soundness checks or making it cost money to get late bloomer comments. I think those are things that players could still be successful without doing. So while players with more money than they know what to do with will likely just do that on everything (I would) and pull out money from the game those watching their pennies would probably limit it to their most special horses.

Similarly wouldn't be opposed to a 1% increase on stakes entry fees but don't love the idea of entry fees for all races.

I'm not sure where I stand on annual fees to stand stallions. On one hand I agree successful studs are cash cows and I have no issue in giving some of that money back to the sim, I also think you would see some reduction in stallions. While some stallions probably should go away anyway I wonder about the En Fuego's of this world. He's produced 4 stakes winners so he's not a total bum but at the same time he certainly isn't churning out stakes winners left and right so he really isn't heavily used. His stud fee is $2,000 and he had 2 foals bred last year. I like standing him as I figure he gives people a low-cost option but it is very likely if I had to pay an annual fee to stand him I'd stop because he really doesn't make much money. And yes I know I have said again and again I have more money than I know what to do with, but I still try to make sound fiscal decisions (which is part of why I have so much money I refuse to pay $5-6 million for a stewbred turf miler that I know will never make that price back).

I am also 110% behind Pete and his no additional magically created horses (though I'm ok with the goats and would have no objection to turtles). Going back to the idea that us paint specialists don't love the purse cuts due to the problem of making it harder for potential studs to hit that $350k mark I think a far bigger issue right now in paint stud land is that with a few notable exceptions (Hey Brother) even the studs that do hit that mark seem unable to compete with the magic holiday stallions. So you have high demand on them or on quarter horses and then limit drama, etc etc. Speaking of which while all are noting my wisdom (because 2 people = all) have I mentioned lately how helpful it would be if crossbreed eligible horses had separate limits for within and cross breed.

[Jo Ferris]

I'm not sure where I stand on annual fees to stand stallions. On one hand I agree successful studs are cash cows and I have no issue in giving some of that money back to the sim, I also think you would see some reduction in stallions. While some stallions probably should go away anyway I wonder about the En Fuego's of this world. He's produced 4 stakes winners so he's not a total bum but at the same time he certainly isn't churning out stakes winners left and right so he really isn't heavily used. His stud fee is $2,000 and he had 2 foals bred last year. I like standing him as I figure he gives people a low-cost option but it is very likely if I had to pay an annual fee to stand him I'd stop because he really doesn't make much money. And yes I know I have said again and again I have more money than I know what to do with, but I still try to make sound fiscal decisions (which is part of why I have so much money I refuse to pay $5-6 million for a stewbred turf miler that I know will never make that price back).

I am also 110% behind Pete and his no additional magically created horses (though I'm ok with the goats and would have no objection to turtles). Going back to the idea that us paint specialists don't love the purse cuts due to the problem of making it harder for potential studs to hit that $350k mark I think a far bigger issue right now in paint stud land is that with a few notable exceptions (Hey Brother) even the studs that do hit that mark seem unable to compete with the magic holiday stallions. So you have high demand on them or on quarter horses and then limit drama, etc etc. Speaking of which while all are noting my wisdom (because 2 people = all) have I mentioned lately how helpful it would be if crossbreed eligible horses had separate limits for within and cross breed.

Good point on the studs, I've got quite a few junky stallions that I wouldn't bother to pay an annual fee, but the junky ones I have aren't the type to produce stakes winner. Hmm, that's a tough one to figure out.

Also agreed with no new magic horses, and definitely would love the crossbreed horses having separate limits for separate breeds, would also help keep their fees reasonable if there were separate limits since TBs are more valuable than QHs, QHs are more valuable than Paints and Appys, but there's nothing encouraging players to have a reasonable fee for the crossbreedable breeds.

[Cleo Patra]

Hopefully, this will not ruin my love but I would be ok with some increased fees. That being said as I am trying to think of things that will not hurt players struggling I would vote for fees on nonessentials. So as I've mentioned before not a fan of increased day rates or jockey fees. But I would be ok with things like increasing the cost for soundness checks or making it cost money to get late bloomer comments. I think those are things that players could still be successful without doing. So while players with more money than they know what to do with will likely just do that on everything (I would) and pull out money from the game those watching their pennies would probably limit it to their most special horses.

Similarly wouldn't be opposed to a 1% increase on stakes entry fees but don't love the idea of entry fees for all races.

Agree. Increase $$ for soundness, weather and add dollars for maturity comments. If they were 10k each, you'd only need players to check 1875 horses per SIM week to pull 300 million out of the game. If I've done my math right, which I may not have.

Even if you added a 5k vet fee for breeding a foal, there would already be 40 million out of the SIM so far this season (8071 foals born so far). If 20k foals get bred, then that is 100 million removed. I do realise this negatively impacts the breed 1000 to get 1 good one crew of players, and frankly that is a valid method of play.

[Glenn Escobar]

Hopefully, this will not ruin my love but I would be ok with some increased fees. That being said as I am trying to think of things that will not hurt players struggling I would vote for fees on nonessentials. So as I've mentioned before not a fan of increased day rates or jockey fees. But I would be ok with things like increasing the cost for soundness checks or making it cost money to get late bloomer comments. I think those are things that players could still be successful without doing. So while players with more money than they know what to do with will likely just do that on everything (I would) and pull out money from the game those watching their pennies would probably limit it to their most special horses.

Similarly wouldn't be opposed to a 1% increase on stakes entry fees but don't love the idea of entry fees for all races.

Agree. Increase $$ for soundness, weather and add dollars for maturity comments. If they were 10k each, you'd only need players to check 1875 horses per SIM week to pull 300 million out of the game. If I've done my math right, which I may not have.

Even if you added a 5k vet fee for breeding a foal, there would already be 40 million out of the SIM so far this season (8071 foals born so far). If 20k foals get bred, then that is 100 million removed. I do realise this negatively impacts the breed 1000 to get 1 good one crew of players, and frankly that is a valid method of play.

I think we may be closing in on somewhat of a consensus here.

Increase the cost on peripheral benefits, because then you do “get something” for the cash being extracted.

I don’t love the Foal Fee idea because again you get nothing for it, just charged money —- but at the same time if that happened I would probably breed more Foals to compensate for the fees by producing more racers, not less. So I guess in that sense a Foal Fee, while not at all my first preference, also wouldn’t deter me.

[Tim Matthews]

This thread should be re-titled "Ideas to make the SIM less fun".

It seems like everyone is too busy talking about taxes to remember that the Derby is tonight. Go enter my contest here https://www.simhorseracing.com/simforum ... 19#p405919 for your chance to win $400,000 of non-invented money!

I agree 100%. People play games to escape from real life. All this tax talk makes the game much less fun.

This is such a tired line. Do you enjoy paying the day fee?

If you don't like the thread, have you tried... not posting?

Finally getting around to answering a big question: the amount we prefer to have in the SIM economy at any one time is $1.9 billion.

Current amount is $2.2 billion.

(This does NOT count AJ/Steward/Admin bankrolls)

A $300K difference is roughly a 15% difference. Lower everyone's bank balance accordingly.

What about the following compromise?
A 10% drop in bankrolls would yield approximately $220 million.
A 10% jockey commission on purses won would yield approximately $133 million.
Enacting both would yield approximately $353 million.

Such an inadequate proposal, for reasons that so many have explained so many times throughout this thread. And it can't be a one-time thing; a good proposal would be recurring, like a yearly bankroll tithe, in order to control the size of the economy.

I still believe, nearly 200 posts into this and most of us having slept on it at least once, that a fundamental issue here is whether or not there is an appetite to charge players something for nothing.

Because any tax or tithe or assessment or fee or whatever word we want - at least as currently proposed - is basically just a straight extraction of cash. So I'm wondering if it's less of an issue of which plan is better or worse or needs tinkering, and more an issue of "should we charge a fee that returns nothing of benefit to any of the players"?

It doesn't matter if there's an appetite. It just doesn't matter. Because if the game needs to change, then a change should be implemented. Was there an appetite for purse cuts? Plus, as a matter of fact, there is an appetite for the bankroll tithe.

If memory serves me right, and who knows at this point, we have (at least) the Tim Matthews plan, the Pete Vella plan, the Glenn Larson plan and some ideas that have been proposed by a few of our Paint Specialists, and probably some more that I missed. But ask this...........is any plan that adds a fee with no benefit returned going to help?

... yes

What if the discussion veered over not into which tax plan to use, but rather into which existing fees for services could be increased in order to meet the same goal? As it stands you can use the vet or the ask the jockey or the Bloodstock Agent or the Horse Whisperer --- they all have a fee, the time may be at hand to increase some or all of those fees, I'm not sure. But I do know that at least in that scenario, your cash goes toward something of tangible value to you.

The discussion already is that, and has been explained multiple times, increased fees are inferior.

it could be put back in by way of new players.

This was one of the weirder posts I read. There's no such thing as "funding" new player bank accounts. There's no "recycled" money. You could consider the day rate, or the vet fee, as "funding" new players, or purses, or anything. The fact of the matter is that there is money in by fiat, and money out by fees.

[George Knatz]

Tim if you don’t like what I post block me. Don’t tell me to stop posting.

[Rebecca Rose Hepburn]

I feel like a $10,000 soundness fee can have a large impact on smaller stables. As it is, I already only check soundness on horses that seem decent (for my stable) as I can’t afford to do it for all. But that means guessing and losing time to see if a horse needs 2 or 3 weeks rest...or can even manage less than 2 weeks if Very Sound. I’ve seen that done, never personally done that myself.

The maturity comments seem like extra fluff to me, just added for fun. I wouldn’t miss those being taken away, or locked behind a paywall.

This here. Soundness had much more effect on a horse than favorite track conditions or when they mature. I favor keeping it where it is and increasing the other two.

If you really want some more of my money you can make a button that'll tell me what a missing vet piece is for a flat fee so I'm not sitting there and hitting the button over and over again and cursing up a storm. Heck, if you really want to pull money from the wealthy stables put a high sim money price on a button that'll give you a gallop piece.

[Kaine Saracen]

I really should shut up before I begin, but eh, been a decent week.

I love all the small change suggestions...not! People are squawking at purse reductions but baulking at ideas of economical control.

Now, I am all for an annual stud fee to stand a stud, even leaving the initial $50k fee in play, only $5-10k is not enough. For me it needs to be $20-30k because a stud worth standing is worth at least that minimum over a season. If you can't get the cash back from fees then the stud is either useless or folks just don't like your horse. Move on.

Foal fees are also good... Lets face it, if the foal is not worth a small nominal vet fee, is it even worth breeding?

Fees to acquire the second piece of equipment... HELL YES!!! I think the system for acquiring that at the moment is so screwed it is pathetic. Obviously, an edge like that would not be a small nominal fee and would have to be somewhat more substantial.

Improve the random incompetence of the trainer and the vet and increase their fees accordingly. As I recall, new players get a fee reduction initially anyway.

The infamous tax/Tithe is in fact one of the better potential ideas out there if it is implemented correctly. Why? Because it has the possibility to be set up to not impact new players that are still developing their Sim empire while removing a quantity of cash from the game that players don't really need. I put out a offer to buy a horse the other day (yes, the scrooge went hunting a particular horse), however the owners statement went along the lines of "I don't need to sell with the new stewbred limits, I have to much money" (not a 100% quote, but the wast he gist of it).

ok.. I done til next time....

[Laura Smith]

Please no to the "paying for the second piece of equipment" thing. I don't enjoy it either when a horse takes 25 gallops to find a piece, or when you meticulously work it its entire yearling year only to find after five races that the needed pieces were the ones the horse worked 2nd and 6th fastest with...

BUT I love that there are still things out there that you CAN'T pay for.

I know this is a thread about money sinks, and I know this would be a big one, but I think it's kinda important to keep some areas where the only way to solve your problem is by good old-fashioned gameplay.

[Ronnie Dee]

Please no to the "paying for the second piece of equipment" thing. I don't enjoy it either when a horse takes 25 gallops to find a piece, or when you meticulously work it its entire yearling year only to find after five races that the needed pieces were the ones the horse worked 2nd and 6th fastest with...

BUT I love that there are still things out there that you CAN'T pay for.

I know this is a thread about money sinks, and I know this would be a big one, but I think it's kinda important to keep some areas where the only way to solve your problem is by good old-fashioned gameplay.

You made my morning! It is great to hear someone talk about the joy they have playing the game!

Speaking of game play, if you have a little time and want to save a little money on paying for soundness (but if some proposals are adopted it could be much more than $1K), recovery time (after a race) is strongly correlated with soundness. And it is so easy to determine if a horse has recovered by just reading the trainer's initial remark. Unless you are doing something out of the ordinary with your horse, a horse's recovery time is pretty consistent after races. So I usually only note a horse's recovery time after their first race. One could be very exacting (hours and minutes) in determining recovery time but I just check after 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, and 5 days (I have never encountered a TB that needed 6 days to recover). Of course, the reason most players do not do this is because it is tedious and requires discipline (remembering to check the horse daily until it is recovered) and good record keeping (placing the recovery time in the horse's notes).

[Tim Matthews]

Tim if you don’t like what I post block me. Don’t tell me to stop posting.

I would never do that, George! I was just suggesting, if the thread makes you so upset, that you either A) make a post defending your position, or B) not read the thread. It's useless to just vaguely complain, don't you think?

[Stormy Peak]

Just create a Sim Church, and once a week a donation tray pops up... people can donate or not and what's in the tray gets burned to celebrate Festivus --- poof the money's gone. Maybe too even crown the biggest donator as Festivus King or Queen

If that doesn't work...then start talking about taxes. lol (yep, I said this after 14 pages have been produced on the subject...lol)

Stormy

[George Knatz]

Tim if you don’t like what I post block me. Don’t tell me to stop posting.

I would never do that, George! I was just suggesting, if the thread makes you so upset, that you either A) make a post defending your position, or B) not read the thread. It's useless to just vaguely complain, don't you think?

Reading all your posts, I’m pretty sure you don’t want to know what I think unless I agree with you. I really don’t care if we are taxed, tithed or our first born foals are taken away. As I posted pages ago all I would like to know is why a change has to be made, as I don’t see an inflation problem currently.

[Dave Trainer]

Because Emily wants to take money out of the game. This has been said quit e a lot during this thread.