What do you do when a stallion is closed?

[Gigi Gofaster]

I will almost never chase up an owner. Honestly the few times I have, it was a very easy transaction, but my resulting foals weren't worth the effort - that's just the luck of the game course, but it does make me less likely to pursue a particular stallion since in most divisions there are so many good horses to choose from. the restricted stallions tend to be pretty pricey to, so the risk is higher.

If I'm going to be totally honest, I've gotten to a point where if s stallion is restricted I really won't bother asking. there are just too many good studs available that I can go to at my convenience - and often for lower fees - that I just won't put in the effort. The only exception to this if it's a stallion that I think maybe got forgotten (like came back from a lease). those I ask about in case the owner just didn't realize they weren't available.

I used to restrict spots for Devon Castle, but that was to hold spots for top mares at the end of the season (which once we could add spots I didn't really do after that), and to keep a few cut-price or free slots for newer players so that everyone had a chance to get a castle breeding. If I had a horse of that type of demand again I would probably do the same, but to be honest I was surprised how little take-up there was of that offer.

This is a different topic, but when an older stud (Pensionable age) that is of decent quality gets posted at a last minute cut price fee I will use him a ton for my formidable mares. At that point a stallion's stats don't matter for marketing, and I love the ability to use a stud that I've liked a lot but didn't hit my top ten at whatever fee they'd been at. I've gotten some very nice stakes foals out of that and I will say to owners of 14+ yo studs I REALLY appreciate that.

[Rochelle Bos]

I don’t care if people restrict their stallions, it’s their horse to do with what they want. I wouldn’t let my boy have infinite foals if I had a top stallion. Limiting stallion use increases the gene pool for future generations.

[Carole Hanson]

I don’t care if people restrict their stallions, it’s their horse to do with what they want. I wouldn’t let my boy have infinite foals if I had a top stallion. Limiting stallion use increases the gene pool for future generations.

I think a high fee already limits the amount of foals a stallion will have. You’d have to be absolutely crazy to send more than 10 mares to a stud that stands for 100k or more knowing full well that you’re not getting 10 freaks or stakes. As for the diversity, like I said earlier, I personally don’t think it’s a stud owners responsibility to ensure a breed is diverse. That’s on the people breeding to that stallion. And in TBs especially this is really not a huge issue because in no division is there one stud that absolutely trumps everyone else, Fearless Spirit and DMB are the closest to that but they certainly don’t dominate the breed and there are other options that are not too far below them at lower prices.

[Mara Jade Vess]

I don’t care if people restrict their stallions, it’s their horse to do with what they want. I wouldn’t let my boy have infinite foals if I had a top stallion. Limiting stallion use increases the gene pool for future generations.

Limiting a stallion's book does not automatically equal genetic diversity because he'll only cover 120 mares a year as opposed to 150 or 180. If he sees a range of mares from all abilities? Sure. But not when he sees the quality of mares the current DR superstar sees yearly.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to rag on Jon or his handling of DMB, this is just how I see it and I'm being rather blunt.

If you have a generational stallion like DMB who has a very controlled book and the highest stud fee in the game, you're not sending regular, run-of-the-mill mares to him. You are sending your best. You are sending mares that are proven or have immense back-class. Go through the elite mares that are currently breeding – how many of them have seen DMB? I'd wager at least 75%.

DMB's first crop is now starting to retire to stud, and that first crop was before his book was limited. FIVE of his sons were in the first crop, ONE in the second. There are FOUR that are slated to retire this year, with the youngest being 5. That's TEN in his first two crops. For reference, James Dean has 31 TOTAL from ten crops (although looking at his unretired, unaltered stakes winners, 5 of them are above $350k, so maybe 36 when it's all said and done). That also doesn't include anything on the broodmare side, of which there are plenty as he was a great broodmare sire. And, while James Dean did see quality mares, his book was not controlled to the level of DMB.

Now, the jury is still out on if DMB will be a sire of sires or a top broodmare sire, and I'm not saying that the DR division is headed toward a complete bottleneck. It is actually very lucky that DMB is basically a complete outcross otherwise I'd be far more concerned, but the worst you'd get is a 3x2 to Doctor, in which case you'd probably not send your Doctor mares to him. DR studs are far more plentiful than other divisions and outcrossing will always be an option. DR has also seen the additions of well-hypoing studs like War Like Me, Parts Unknown, From Now On, Torque, World of Color, etc. And, like Carole said, it's not on the stud owner to decide genetic diversity, especially when the breeding mantra of so many is "breed the best to the best and hope for the best". But it is something that concerns me as an avid researcher and to say that a limited book automatically equals genetic diversity is an oversimplification and in my eyes, not true.

[Laura Ferguson]

The irony is we went from sort of an effective lifetime cap - stallion more likely to pension once a certain number of foals were hit, to no cap, to a cap, to what is now sort of a cap but not really, assuming you want to pay the game points. I'd almost rather we went back to no cap, or if we're going to be in this quasi-land, have some sort of ultimate cap, whether that's 210 or 240 foals or some other number. Why have a cap at all if you can buy your way out of it? I feel like most of the problems raised in this thread stem from the quasi cap, so you now have all these problems, while having gutted the essential purpose of the cap in the first place.

I'll also note that players have too much $$$, so setting a higher fee doesn't really deter as much as you think, and then you get a bunch of requests from players with nice mares and not nice budgets. If the goal is to limit the # of times a player uses a mare by pricing high, it hurts the poorer players with one or two nice mares more than it deters the rich player who wants to send 10-20 mares.

Honestly, if we were back at no cap, I'd stop doling out slots on Storm and Fearless Spirit every few weeks, because I'd know that players who breed at the end of the year and/or have mares retiring Week 16 would be able to get to them and they wouldn't be booked full. I have to admit I'm biased towards end of the year breeders, because I'm one of them.....

[Jon Xett]

Very valuable opinions everyone. Very much appreciated.
Thank you Danny Derby for creating this poll. I am heartened by the results so far with a clear majority stating that they just move on to another great stallion when the one they were hoping for is booked full.

As Mara stated: "DR has also seen the additions of well-hypoing studs like War Like Me, Parts Unknown, From Now On, Torque, World of Color, etc."
I would add that there are so many other underutilized sires that should be considered for your amazing mares. For the good of the game, spread the love.

I am concerned that most SIM players feel that my handling of Dave Matthews Band's book caused so much heartburn to to point that it has been said, tongue in cheek, that he could break the SIM.

I will say in my defense that I feel in my SIM-heart that what I have done is ultimately good for the game for a wider variety of players. By the numbers, Dave Matthews Band has seen a steady increase in the available number of stallion slots each year with a diverse number of SIM players being able to use him as a stud. Disclaimer: this is just a quick and dirty tally / numbers are approximated by me and may be statistically incorrect.
6 year olds - 91 foals and multi million dollars earners owned by a nice mix of players.
5 year olds - 138 foals, bred by about 44 different players with about 60 bred by me, many of those going to other players.
4 year olds - 124 foals with approximately 43 different owners
3 year olds - 168 foals with approximately 80 different owners
2 year olds - 176 foals with approximately 80 different owners
Yearlings - 198 foals with approximately 80 different owners from open stallion full fee slots, fulfilled requests, unrequested surprise slots and some reduce fee slots.

That is a lot of Dave Matthews Band sired things running amok isn't it? Perhaps it's enough?

Play on, jX

[Danny Derby]

That is a lot of Dave Matthews Band sired things running amok isn't it? Perhaps it's enough?

Play on, jX

If you’re hinting at pensioning him, I say do it. Would be legendary.

[Jon Xett]

Dan,
DMB is not pensioned for year 59 as I will still use Dave Matthews Band.
DMB will not be made available to SIM public for the first 14 weeks of year 59 while I evaluate future SIM plans.
Let the conversations continue.
Enough is enough, jX

[Xander Zone]

Yes but Laura what difference does it make if players want to breed now or week 16 ??? The whole point is you can buy more slots for far cheaper then the profit a sire like storm or fearless will bring you ??
Unless you just don’t want 200 foals a year from your stud it make absolutely no sense to do it the way you are doing it and saying you are favoring the week 16 retired horses !
I think if anything you should favor the now mares as some may be pensioned due to age etc.

[Laura Ferguson]

Yes but Laura what difference does it make if players want to breed now or week 16 ??? The whole point is you can buy more slots for far cheaper then the profit a sire like storm or fearless will bring you ??
Unless you just don’t want 200 foals a year from your stud it make absolutely no sense to do it the way you are doing it and saying you are favoring the week 16 retired horses !
I think if anything you should favor the now mares as some may be pensioned due to age etc.

It goes back to limited slots. If I have 180 slots, and they all get used up between the preseason and Week 12, then there's no slots left for myself or anyone else that breeds their mares Week 16/over the break, or has mares retiring Week 16. The now mares makes no sense - they only get pensioned if you bred them to another stallion, which is your right. They're not going to get pensioned, unbred, at some random point in the season, unless due to random injury, and most high caliber mares are insured against that.

Heck, there was a whole separate thread about how there's a disincentive to breed foals prior to the break, due to risk of injury, but I'm sure not seeing it. By the time I hit Week 16, 140 of the 180 slots have been used, and probably more would have been used if I'd opened up more than 140 by that point, and that's true of a lot of the popular stallions.

I simply don't feel like paying real life $$ to expand slots beyond 180, nor do I feel like I should be forced to take the time and utilize the rates (which are not great) on the exchange to trade in SIM $$$ to get the GPs to buy additional slots. The current "limits" place the burden on the stallion owner to either buy more slots or ration the slots, and there's no great answer. I'm team lift the limits, given how "limits" are currently implemented, but that's unlikely to change. I get that other players feel differently, or they'd pay the bad rate and justify that by saying they'll make it back with the stud fees from those additional slots, but I don't need the $$$. Just my two cents.

[Xander Zone]

Okay so you just admitted you don’t need the sim money but you care about the sim exchange rate ??? And you care about it enough that you would still make a profit off the exchange that is just pure nonsense try again !

[Danny Derby]

I find it interesting that 37/39 of the people responding to this poll aren't inclined to message and ask for a spot.

[Shannon Hunt]

If anyone feels like they have too much money, I am now taking donations and will blow it on things that remove that money from the game, no worries.

I jest (really, nothing snide intended). As to the original question, my reluctance to message stud owners is three-pronged. First, I'm honestly pretty timid. I don't like asking for things. Even after I got to know some people reasonably well in the game, it took several seasons before I felt able to accept gifts of nicer-quality horses, or take them up on stud discounts that were offered, and even then it felt odd and uncomfortable to go "hey, can I send you that lease for the discount?" In cases like Rochelle's For Ev Er promotion, where she actively posted on the forum and encouraged people to redeem offered incentives, and I had a fitting mare, or when someone offered me a mass breeding deal after I hyped their stud a bit, there was still this big deliberation phase for me to not feel like a presumptuous donkey for actually sending them a lease for the incentives. Those interactions went well, but on the rare occasions where I actually have messaged someone I don't often speak to in order to ask about a potential lease, I've been left on read more often than not (and it's not like I've been asking for a free lease to Let It Go, either; typically allowance mares I lost in claims, but liked them while I ran them, see the new yearlings aren't working spectacularly, figure it's not too crazy to offer some cash for a sentimental breeding). I guess I communicate poorly since I've also been messaged and told off for the way I've phrased things on the forum. All this to say that no way will you catch me messaging someone about a closed stallion, or asking about discounts to a high-fee stud. Sounds like a recipe for irritated rejection. And sure, you win some, you lose some, gotta shoot your shot to get ahead even if it doesn't always pan out. However, this is a horse game and I want to play for fun; reinforcing social anxiety isn't fun for me, so I'd prefer to avoid that.

Second, I've got a stubborn pride issue and I'm not going to grovel for a breeding.

Third, most divisions have plenty of good stallions and it's easier to just pick one of the open ones instead of messaging or daily checking for a new opening on a closed stud. If any stud were to be so massively better than the rest that it was actually important to breed to him in order to get ahead, that's a game-breaking route I'd personally avoid and instead spend time diversifying my lines to actually have outcrosses for the inevitable domination of that stud's offspring in later generations. GP stud bailouts make that project a bit moot, but still. Maybe it's less of a stubborn pride issue, and more just a "stubbornly stupid" issue.

[Laura Ferguson]

Okay so you just admitted you don’t need the sim money but you care about the sim exchange rate ??? And you care about it enough that you would still make a profit off the exchange that is just pure nonsense try again !

Not trying again. You can just view me as a stubborn idiot I think if the game allows limits on popular stallions to be lifted if people are willing to pay GPs, which thereby guts the reason for having the limits in the first place, then the game should just simply lift those limits, and not leave it to individual stallion owners to decide whether they want to pay GPs or not.

[Jon Xett]

I find it interesting that 37/39 of the people responding to this poll aren't inclined to message and ask for a spot.

I’m curious as to why you find this interesting. No really, I’m genuinely curious. One of the games core tenants was to make friends. I get that some folks wouldn’t be inclined to reach out to other players for many reasons however, saying hello, being nice, showing empathy, being charitable etc. are why people feel welcome _ and _ these characteristics are what many players value. Competition is key but having fun and making friends is why players stick around.