Stallion reservation alternative

[Tammy Stawicki]

Instead of having a stallion reservation system that goes through the owner and brings up the fear of cliques/privateesque stallions as expressed what about the following:

A stallion owner can decide whether or not they want to make reservations available.
If enabled anyone can make a reservation to that stallion. You have to pay the stud fee up front as well as say 500 game points. The owner does not get to approve who does/doesn't get reservations they are just open
You then have a reserved slot that counts towards the available slots for that stallion
There is a limit to 1-2 reservations anyone can make to a single stallion

I could even imagine something where you let a really popular stallion be by reservation only for a period of time so you don't have to worry about one breeder breeding 100 foals out of nowhere from said stallion. Instead everyone gets a shot at a breeding or two.

That seems to address some of the issues of I have a really good mare retiring at the end of the year, or I hate making bookings and then having the stallion be not available but since the stallion owner isn't deciding who gets a reservation you don't have the same fear of cliques.

I do worry a little about the argument of people are doing it anyway lets monetize it as that was also the argument for partnerships and that wound up being quite the dramafest.

PS: I still think there should be separate limits for within breed and crossbreed.

[Danny Derby]

Instead of having a stallion reservation system that goes through the owner and brings up the fear of cliques/privateesque stallions as expressed what about the following:

A stallion owner can decide whether or not they want to make reservations available.
If enabled anyone can make a reservation to that stallion. You have to pay the stud fee up front as well as say 500 game points. The owner does not get to approve who does/doesn't get reservations they are just open
You then have a reserved slot that counts towards the available slots for that stallion
There is a limit to 1-2 reservations anyone can make to a single stallion

I could even imagine something where you let a really popular stallion be by reservation only for a period of time so you don't have to worry about one breeder breeding 100 foals out of nowhere from said stallion. Instead everyone gets a shot at a breeding or two.

That seems to address some of the issues of I have a really good mare retiring at the end of the year, or I hate making bookings and then having the stallion be not available but since the stallion owner isn't deciding who gets a reservation you don't have the same fear of cliques.

I do worry a little about the argument of people are doing it anyway lets monetize it as that was also the argument for partnerships and that wound up being quite the dramafest.

PS: I still think there should be separate limits for within breed and crossbreed.

I definitely prefer this idea to the one that was described on the broadcast.

[Rebecca Rose Hepburn]

Instead of having a stallion reservation system that goes through the owner and brings up the fear of cliques/privateesque stallions as expressed what about the following:

A stallion owner can decide whether or not they want to make reservations available.
If enabled anyone can make a reservation to that stallion. You have to pay the stud fee up front as well as say 500 game points. The owner does not get to approve who does/doesn't get reservations they are just open
You then have a reserved slot that counts towards the available slots for that stallion
There is a limit to 1-2 reservations anyone can make to a single stallion

I could even imagine something where you let a really popular stallion be by reservation only for a period of time so you don't have to worry about one breeder breeding 100 foals out of nowhere from said stallion. Instead everyone gets a shot at a breeding or two.

That seems to address some of the issues of I have a really good mare retiring at the end of the year, or I hate making bookings and then having the stallion be not available but since the stallion owner isn't deciding who gets a reservation you don't have the same fear of cliques.

I do worry a little about the argument of people are doing it anyway lets monetize it as that was also the argument for partnerships and that wound up being quite the dramafest.

PS: I still think there should be separate limits for within breed and crossbreed.

Support all of this

[Cleo Patra]

This works for me

[Laura Ferguson]

As a mare owner, I might use it. As a stallion owner, I wouldn't. In real life, you get to approve what mares go to your stallion. You don't in the SIM. That was less of an issue pre-foal limits (which I still don't know why we don't get rid of, because you can effectively get rid of them by paying game points, and breed a gazillion foals). The Steward's system, or this alternative, would only apply to stallions (i) likely to book full before Week 16 and (ii) unlikely to add tons of additional spots.

Right now, if I have a popular stallion, I make certain spots available to the general SIM population, and then work with owners of top mares to make sure they get a spot, assuming they can't/don't grab one of the general spots first (and if they do, I open up another general spot since I no longer need to reserve a spot for that mare). This helps them, and it theoretically helps my stallion's stats by ensuring that better mares have access to him. If that one mare gets shut out, because someone else jumped on that spot before the mare owner did, my options are to buy 30 more spots, 29 of them unneeded (from my perspective), or to effectively renege on what I was trying to accomplish for that player.

Neither this alternative nor the Steward's proposal is magically going to make a private stallion public - the best ways to do that are (i) to eliminate foal limits entirely, which I don't expect to happen or (ii) to limit the number of mares a non-owner can send to your stallion (which I'm sure there's some sort of loophole for that, too, so that's probably easier said than done). Even then, if a player wants to keep stallions private, there's nothing in the rules to force a different outcome.

The Steward's proposal makes what I'm trying to do easier, and I don't believe it creates any more problems than the existing system already does. So, as a stallion owner, I support that approach over this alternative.

[Danny Derby]

As a mare owner, I might use it. As a stallion owner, I wouldn't. In real life, you get to approve what mares go to your stallion. You don't in the SIM. That was less of an issue pre-foal limits (which I still don't know why we don't get rid of, because you can effectively get rid of them by paying game points, and breed a gazillion foals). The Steward's system, or this alternative, would only apply to stallions (i) likely to book full before Week 16 and (ii) unlikely to add tons of additional spots.

Right now, if I have a popular stallion, I make certain spots available to the general SIM population, and then work with owners of top mares to make sure they get a spot, assuming they can't/don't grab one of the general spots first (and if they do, I open up another general spot since I no longer need to reserve a spot for that mare). This helps them, and it theoretically helps my stallion's stats by ensuring that better mares have access to him. If that one mare gets shut out, because someone else jumped on that spot before the mare owner did, my options are to buy 30 more spots, 29 of them unneeded (from my perspective), or to effectively renege on what I was trying to accomplish for that player.

Neither this alternative nor the Steward's proposal is magically going to make a private stallion public - the best ways to do that are (i) to eliminate foal limits entirely, which I don't expect to happen or (ii) to limit the number of mares a non-owner can send to your stallion (which I'm sure there's some sort of loophole for that, too, so that's probably easier said than done). Even then, if a player wants to keep stallions private, there's nothing in the rules to force a different outcome.

The Steward's proposal makes what I'm trying to do easier, and I don't believe it creates any more problems than the existing system already does. So, as a stallion owner, I support that approach over this alternative.

I don't think that any new features need to be added around stallion reservations, I just prefer the option presented here to the terrible solution that was described.

Right now it costs 9,000 GP to add 30 spots. Given the typical 10:1 exchange rate, that means $90,000 Sim Dollars. It's hard to imagine a stallion so popular that they're fully booked up not being able to easily recoup that investment within 2 or 3 breedings of that 30, so there's practically no downside for a stallion owner to do this, and no barrier for them to make sure anyone they want to breed to their stallion does.

Want to quality control the mares seeing your stallion? That's what a high stud fee is for. Yeah, it's not exactly the same as it is in real life, but neither are most things in the game. Private stallions and reserved spots are going to leave players feeling left out and excluded. There's nothing in the rules right now that prevents it, but why make it easier? I honestly can't understand why that's a direction people are okay moving in.

[Laura Ferguson]

I was a big proponent of getting rid of limits (and I'm still a big supporter of Tammy's idea of separate limits for cross breeding), but I can see the other side of this. Everyone wants to breed to the next best thing, and then you get (i) complaints from the other stallion owners, whether it was due to lower fees, which resulted in the minimum fees/foal limits being imposed in the first place, or all the mare owners ignoring top stallion B in favor of top stallion A who has the flashier hypos and stats and (ii) several years down the line, complaints about lack of diversity.

Lots of players have plenty of SIM cash and nothing to spend it on, so my $90,000 stud fee on a turf miler stallion (where purses are nowhere in the same category as turf/dirt routers) isn't slowing down anything. The first batch of 30 slots went in 6 hours. The second batch, even post three TBS auctions, went in less than three days. Say I go to 300 foals+ this year for Fearless Spirit (which I'm not), so that anyone who wants a Fearless Spirit foal can have one. That doesn't help diversity, and there will be posts from other turf stallion owners. Sure, it can help my bankroll, which really doesn't need help, and maybe it makes the mare owners happy short term, but it hurts other stallion owners with legitimately good stallions in the division, nor does it help diversity. However if you don't provide unlimited access, you can get beat up for that on the forum as well.

And I get that not every player takes the same approach with their stallions, and that there are cliques and private stallions. I get just as frustrated by it as the next player. But I do see the tension between the wants of the mare owner and the wants of the stallion owner. If there are foal limits and a popular stallion, in some cases, not everyone will get to the stallion, just as not every player will get a steward bred in the TBS auction (or the steward bred that they want). When demand exceeds supply, drama usually ensues.

As for me, for Fearless Spirit and any other popular stallion I may retire in the future, I'm going to keep taking a combination approach of mostly general access, even if the general access is staggered throughout the year, up to what I consider to be a reasonable limit, and working with individual owners with top mares for the remaining spots. If other stallion owners prefer Tammy's suggestion, the Steward may want to consider it. I'm just giving my perspective as both a mare owner and a stallion owner - as a stallion owner, I'd utilize the Steward's approach, I would not utilize Tammy's. As a mare owner, I'd probably utilize either approach for certain mares retiring Week 16.

[Tammy Stawicki]

(ii) to limit the number of mares a non-owner can send to your stallion (which I'm sure there's some sort of loophole for that, too, so that's probably easier said than done).

I actually really like this idea and tried to somewhat get at it with the idea of a "reservation only" period in my reservation idea given that reservations would be capped. Though the idea certainly works independent of the reservation system. I definitely agree there is a loophole (you could lease horses to other players to breed more to a stallion) but I think there are limits to the abuse. I see this as something where a stallion owner could decide what limit to single mares a breeder could send to their stallion they would want to make. Again the limit would be general and apply to all players. Let's say it was 5 which seems like a good number. Well if you wanted to breed 10 mares to that stallion you could pretty easily lease the other 5 to 1-2 players and get them all in. But if you wanted to breed 100 mares to that stallion it's going to be a lot more complicated to find 25 players willing to breed your 5 mares not to mention you're now loosing breeder bonuses on 95 horses. There certainly would be angst from people who want to breed more to a stallion (and I imagine you could remove the limit at the end of the year if it appears the stallion still has a lot of slots available) but I'd rather see a lot of people get to breed a few horses to a stallion than a few people getting to breed a lot of horses.


Also for those here that are intrigued by this idea of separate limits for withinbreed and crossbreed that keeps getting mentioned in passing I have discussed my arguments for that including the data to support said arguments in this thread.

[Laura Smith]

I was a big proponent of getting rid of limits (and I'm still a big supporter of Tammy's idea of separate limits for cross breeding), but I can see the other side of this. Everyone wants to breed to the next best thing, and then you get (i) complaints from the other stallion owners, whether it was due to lower fees, which resulted in the minimum fees/foal limits being imposed in the first place, or all the mare owners ignoring top stallion B in favor of top stallion A who has the flashier hypos and stats and (ii) several years down the line, complaints about lack of diversity.

Lots of players have plenty of SIM cash and nothing to spend it on, so my $90,000 stud fee on a turf miler stallion (where purses are nowhere in the same category as turf/dirt routers) isn't slowing down anything. The first batch of 30 slots went in 6 hours. The second batch, even post three TBS auctions, went in less than three days. Say I go to 300 foals+ this year for Fearless Spirit (which I'm not), so that anyone who wants a Fearless Spirit foal can have one. That doesn't help diversity, and there will be posts from other turf stallion owners. Sure, it can help my bankroll, which really doesn't need help, and maybe it makes the mare owners happy short term, but it hurts other stallion owners with legitimately good stallions in the division, nor does it help diversity. However if you don't provide unlimited access, you can get beat up for that on the forum as well.

And I get that not every player takes the same approach with their stallions, and that there are cliques and private stallions. I get just as frustrated by it as the next player. But I do see the tension between the wants of the mare owner and the wants of the stallion owner. If there are foal limits and a popular stallion, in some cases, not everyone will get to the stallion, just as not every player will get a steward bred in the TBS auction (or the steward bred that they want). When demand exceeds supply, drama usually ensues.

[Gwen Morse]

That was less of an issue pre-foal limits (which I still don't know why we don't get rid of, because you can effectively get rid of them by paying game points, and breed a gazillion foals).

I think the answer is in the question here, Laura. The Steward has compromised by keeping limits in place for the players who want them, but giving individual players a tool to remove them on a sire-by-sire basis. It's one of those compromises where both sides get what they want and neither side is completely happy (so no one can complain about favoritism).

[Gavin Guile]

I guess I’m in the minority that liked the 150 limit, didn’t see an issue really and when someone was full I looked elsewhere (I know I’m still new and didn’t know what it was like before the limit)

[Carole Hanson]

I think brilliant stallions get hammered when they’re open for some spots because people are afraid they will miss their chance. If the stallion stood for a high fee and was open all the time, I don’t think people would feel the need to rush to the stallion as soon as slots are open. Take James Dean for example, he stood for a super high fee and was pretty much always available, from what I remember, players didn’t struggle to get mares to him.

Of course there is the issue of diversity but that’s always going to be an issue unless you force players to only breed to each stallion 1-2 times a year, which would be a terrible idea.

[Laura Ferguson]

I think brilliant stallions get hammered when they’re open for some spots because people are afraid they will miss their chance. If the stallion stood for a high fee and was open all the time, I don’t think people would feel the need to rush to the stallion as soon as slots are open. Take James Dean for example, he stood for a super high fee and was pretty much always available, from what I remember, players didn’t struggle to get mares to him.

Of course there is the issue of diversity but that’s always going to be an issue unless you force players to only breed to each stallion 1-2 times a year, which would be a terrible idea.

In part, James Dean didn't fill quickly because of the high stud fee, but also Todd communicated well and said he would buy extra slots if needed. So James Dean has 182 2yos and 211 yearlings (from less than a full season, since James Dean pensioned). If Todd had left it at 150 or 120, that would have been a different story. James Dean's crop the year before foal limits was 223. He maxxed out at 150 (give or take a foal/twin) every year the 150 was in effect, but usually didn't fill until the final week of the SIM year. Dirt routers tend to fill less quickly than other divisions, in part because there are more stallions to choose from.